HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2011-10-11Prepared 10/3/11
* Revised 10/7/11
TOWN .FESTI -'
The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high -quality, reliable
services for the benefit of our citizens, visitors, and employees, while
being good stewards of public resources and natural setting.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated September 27, 2011 and Town Board Study Session
Minutes dated September 27, 2011.
2. Bills.
3. Committee Minutes — None
4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated September 13, 2011
(acknowledgement only).
* PRESENTATION — Canyon Lakes Forest Service District Update. Richard Edwards.
2. ACTION ITEMS.
1. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR CONTRACT.
2. RESOLUTION #12-11 ESTES PARK LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT BUSINESS
AND OPERATING PLAN FOR 2012. Town Administrator Halburnt.
3. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS.
1. CITIZEN SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY. Public Information Officer Rusch.
2. ELKHORN PROJECT INC. RTA APPLICATION UPDATE.
4. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
For a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on
specific legal questions under C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b) and for determining positions relative
to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations,
and/or instructing negotiators under C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(e) related to the Bond Park
Project.
ADJOURN.
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 27, 2011
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in
said Town of Estes Park on the 27th day of September, 2011. Meeting
called to order by Mayor Pinkham.
Present:
Also Present:
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Chuck Levine, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Eric Blackhurst
Mark Elrod
John Ericson
Wendy Koenig
Jerry Miller
Jacquie Halburnt, Town Ad
Lowell Richardson, Depu
Cynthia Deats, Deput To
Absent: Town Attorney
Mayor Pinkham called the mewing to order
recited the Pledge of Allegia
PRESENTATION RECOGNIZING
Mayor Pinkham read olution o
a senior at Estes Hig chool,
America 2011. nner ho ring Ms.
the year at the bann ocation t the inte
PRESE
Stude
to the B
presented a
K'S SfSI
m Sister
'd they
a.
TY MEM
entl
ose will
ction o
or
inistrator
.m. and all esiring to do so,
SE.
Isi Rose. Ms. Rose, who is
ned Miss Colorado High School
isplayed at various times during
ighways 34 and 36.
MONTE VERDE, COSTA RICA.
r , Monte Verde, Costa Rica were introduced
were enjoying their visit to Estes Park, and
INTRODUCTIO FIRE RSHAL TIM SPEARS.
Chief Dorman intro • . ed F' Marshal Tim Spears who was recently hired by the Estes
Valley Fire Protection t. Fire Marshal Spears' duties will include interpreting and
enforcing the Fire Cod- .roperty inspections, and plan reviews. Formerly a resident of
Iowa, Fire Marshal Spears has relocated to Estes Park with his wife and two children.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
Greg Sievers, Town resident, read a statement expressing dissatisfaction with the
current administration and urged the Board to conduct an out-of-state hiring search for
a replacement.
Charley Dickey, Town resident, commended staff for their efforts promoting Elk Fest
which will be held in Bond Park this coming weekend, and the Surprise Sidewalk Sale
scheduled for October 8th and 9th.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
Trustee Blackhurst congratulated the Rooftop Rodeo Committee and the Fairgrounds
staff, noting that their efforts have produced a world class facility which is a testimony to
the depth and breadth of their expertise.
Trustee Elrod noted that the triangle meeting between the Town Board, Larimer County
Commissioners, and Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) has been rescheduled
Board of Trustees — September 27, 2011 — Page 2
for Tuesday, November 15, 2011, and invited public participation. He said the EVPC
continues to work on a problem statement related to accessory dwelling units (ADU).
Trustee Ericson noted that the community survey is complete and had a 54% return
rate. Results will be presented by PIO Rusch at the October 11th Town Board meeting.
The Transportation Visioning Committee (TVC) conducted public sessions last week.
Input received will be incorporated into the final report which will be prepared and
presented to the Board within the next six to eight weeks.
Trustee Koenig said the Rooftop Rodeo has been re -categorized and is now
considered a medium-sized rodeo; said that the Rodeo placed in the top five rodeos in
this category; and thanked the Rooftop Rodeo Committee and the community for their
contributions to the Rodeo.
Trustee Miller said that the turnout for the TVC public sessions exceeded expectations
and that the community's enthusiastic participation was appreciated. He reported that
the public relations value of Local Marketing District D) promotions approaches
$400,000 worth of publicity when compared tot rat hat would be spent on
comparable advertising and news stories featurin
Mayor Pinkham said the Board welcomes co
serve the community but does not welco
staff in public.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
• Electronics will be acce• ed for recycli turday, Ocher 8, 2011, from
9:00 a.m. till 1:00 p.m - Transportati . Hub Park and Ride. The recycling
event is being held in nj c ith the Ro . + Club Shred-a-thon.
• 2012 Budget Study Sessio wi « - held on per 7th, October 14th and
October 21st, • 0 a.m. in oard . The public is invited to
attend and I ho own gov t w• • how the budget is set.
• The Ann riangle etng o e Town Tard, EVPC, and Larimer County
Commissione ._will be Id in thewn Board Room on November 15, 2011, at
2:00
1.
estions on ways to better
ttempts to embarrass
eptember 13, 2011, Town Board Study Session
3, 2011.
2. Bills.
3. Committee M tes:
a. Community Development / Community Services
22, 2011.
Committee, September
4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated August 16, 2011
(acknowledgement only).
5. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated June '7, 2011
(acknowledgement only).
It was moved and seconded (Levine/Blackhurst) the Consent Agenda be approved,
and it passed unanimously.
2. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. RENEWAL APPLICATION FILED BY SAFEWAY STORES 46, INC. dba
SAFEWAY FUEL #920, 621 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE.
Board of Trustees — September 27, 2011 — Page 3
A violation of the State Liquor Code occurred at the Safeway Fueling Station
during a Liquor Enforcement Division compliance check conducted on January 22,
2011. Attorney Steve Lee, Store Manager Jared Andrew, and District Manager
Jay Gomez, all representatives of Safeway, discussed the renewal of the 3.2% off -
premise liquor license, reported that all employees have completed TIPS training,
and answered questions raised by the Board. The Trustees expressed
disappointment that a violation had occurred within months of the license being
issued; requested that Safeway take a look at their procedures for carding
customers; and reminded the managers that the Town depends on the licensee
and their employees to be the first arm of enforcement for the state's liquor laws.
Trustees Koenig and Elrod expressed dissatisfaction with the $200 fine imposed
on Safeway by the Liquor Enforcement Division, saying for a large company like
Safeway, $200 is not much of a penalty nor is it a deterrent.
The licensee assured the Board that Safeway understands the seriousness of the
violation and the responsibility placed upon the licensee and its employees; noted
that carding of customers is strictly enforced; that . way responded promptly in
addressing the violation with TIPS training fog p es; and noted that the
employee who failed the compliance check is er e ployed by Safeway.
Johanna Darden, Town resident, than
about the responsibilities related to t
should result in revocation of the li
It was moved and seconded (Blackh
3.2% off -premise liquor license for
passed. Those voting " or Pro Tem
and Miller. Those votines Elrod
1.
Trustee Black
speaking to the licensee
e, an aid a second violation
to approve t enewal of the
way Fueli Station, and it
vine, Trustees Blackhurst, Ericson,
Koeni
d'"by Planning Commission or
mendedndominium Map, East Riverwalk Center
Unit B, Building 1, Scott Carter/Applicant.
inium Map Units 610 & 612, Park River West
se XXV, Richard Wille/Applicant.
sted that Item 1.A. be removed from the consent agenda.
It was moved an •: conded (Levine/Koenig) to approve consent agenda Item
1.B., Supplemental Condominium Map Units 610 & 612, Park River West
Condominiums, Phase XXV, and it passed unanimously.
Trustee Blackhurst noted that the applicant for item 1.A., Scott Carter, is not the
owner of the East Riverwalk Center Condominiums, Unit B, Building 1, questioning
his ability to apply for an amended condominium map, and asked for information
related to the recommended conditions of approval. Dir. Chilcott said staff is
recommending approval conditional to obtaining the required Attorney Certificate
confirming the necessary approvals are obtained prior to the document being
recorded. She added that staff will obtain the owners' signature on the application.
It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Koenig) to approve consent agenda
item 1.A., Amended Condominium Map, East Riverwalk Center
Condominiums, Unit B, Building 1, and it passed unanimously.
2. REPORT ITEMS:
Board of Trustees - September 27, 2011 - Page 4
A. ORDINANCE #19-11, Amendments to the Estes Valley Development
Code (EVDC) — Amending Sections of the EVDC to address the
Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
Staff is recommending amendments to the Estes Valley Development
Code to comply with provisions of the federal Religious Land Use &
Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) which was passed in 2000. The
amendments will provide clearer development standards consistent with
the purpose and character of zoning districts, and allow schools and
religious assemblies as a use -by -right in the CO and A zoning districts,
and by special review in the R-2 and RM districts. Deputy Town
Administrator Richardson read Ordinance #19-11 into the record. It was
moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Elrod) to approve ordinance #19-11,
and it passed unanimously.
B. ORDINANCE #20-11, Rezoning from CS — Commercial -Outlying to A-
1 — Accommodations, Lot 1, Witt Sub•'., Win, 900 W. Elkhorn Avenue,
Robert Fixter/Applicant.
The rezoning of the property at�0� EI'Trn Avenue is necessary to
accommodate the owner's des .�o c: evert '; existing residence to a
small hotel, which is permi m1n A°zo'mg disc its. The rezoning will
trigger compliance with q. cable development c•'•requirements and
may include sprinkling b e bul • ing. The Est- ey Planning
Commission (EVPC) recomme ded - royal condition _ a Change of
Use Permit to be • btained from ®ivion of Buildi� Safety that may
require addition ork and inc .e, but may not be limited to, EVDC
parking requi a s. Dir. Chilc " said that staff mailed out
neighborhood notific= 'ons .. -ted to th- aA 0ding request and that no
opposit ;[tom o the re 'ning filed. s:Beputy Town Administrator
Ordin ' c = 0- , he record. Mayor Pro Tem
cern a • t rezoni commercial property. Trustee
e prope s an is• ated commercial property and said
qit into clance with the area. It was moved and
o approve Ordinance #20-11, and it
1. BOND PA / Ma REGOR AVENUE CHANGE ORDER.
At the Septe ffi - 3th Town Board meeting, staff was directed to implement
Option #1 to •ceed with repairs to MacGregor Avenue, and to bring the
scope of work and the cost to the Board for final approval. Option #1 involves
the following: removal of sand and pavers; removal of base course; removal of
all unstable subgrade material; replacement of subgrade with 18 inches of
crushed, recycled concrete, and 12 inches of fairgrounds material and
geotextile material; installation of 12 inches of base course material; and the
reinstallation of sand and pavers. RG and Associates has submitted a design
recommendation for the reconstruction of MacGregor Avenue with costs for
design of $13,222, and construction by Cornerstone Construction Concepts
including contingency of $199,834 resulting in a change order totaling
$215,056 to repair the road and complete the project.
Trustee Koenig stated it is unacceptable to include profit in costs to repair a job
that may not have met original design specs.
Trustee Miller said he is not comfortable approving a change order to the
existing contract as a means for providing payment for correcting the work. He
said he does not want to move forward without Attorney White present to
answer legal questions; is unhappy with the offered settlement and profit being
Board of Trustees — September 27, 2011 — Page 5
charged; and questioned the timing of the project noting that downtown
businesses would experience less disruption if the repairs are done after the
first of the year.
Trustee Ericson said this is not a repair but rather a correction of inadequate
work that was performed, and is subject to a agreeing to the responsibilities of
the parties involved. He said he cannot support using Community
Reinvestment Fund monies to pay for the work when there are other ways this
money could better benefit the community.
Trustee Elrod questioned having the same parties involved in correcting a
problem that they may have been involved in creating, and said approval
should not move forward until additional legal information can be obtained from
Attorney White.
Trustee Blackhurst concurred that additional counsel from Attorney White is
necessary before moving forward. He said regor Avenue needs to be
fixed, and questioned increases to the cost . re®e irs.
Ron Norris, Town resident, said if tax
MacGregor Avenue then residents
done to prevent the problems fro
financial responsibility as well.
Johanna Darden, Town resident,
MacGregor and said tronger, new
opposition to the uti of Open Sp
Park.
ies will be used to repair
exp aeration as to what will be
and - explanation related to
photos of c ed pavers on
ay be req -d. She voiced
Funds for improvements to Bond
Jim Tawney, n resident, laid it be m .T public who is paying for the
road repair a contracr� e i c and that the Town should not
be payi . r any rep ors to Ma
Chd the Board for tabling the topic at this
ore research being done, and said the
as that would be accepting blame in some
Mayo 'inkham s ted there were no agreements made in executive
session n d Septe .er 13, 2011.
It was move ff econded (Blackhurst/Miller) to table the discussion of
the Bond Par acGregor Avenue Change Order until Attorney White is
available, preferably the first board meeting in October which is
scheduled for October 11, 2011, and it passed unanimously.
2. RESOLUTION #11-11 SURPRISE SIDEWALK SALE OCTOBER 8" AND
9TH
The approval of Resolution #11-11 would grant a variance allowing downtown
merchants to sell merchandise on the sidewalks in front their storefronts during
the Surprise Sidewalk Sale which is scheduled for October 8 — October 9,
2011. Merchants not located on Elkhorn Avenue may reserve space in Bond
Park for the sale by contacting Special Event staff. In addition, staff will advise
all participants of the sale regulations and police department staff will provide
enforcement during the sale. Trustee Blackhurst requested that the item be
brought forward in August to provide merchants more time to plan for this
event. It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Ericson) to approve
Resolution #11-11, and it passed unanimously.
3. LOW-INCOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (LEAP) METERED FUEL
VENDOR AGREEMENT.
Board of Trustees — September 27, 2011 — Page 6
The Light & Power Department provides financial assistance to low income
customers for winter heating bills through the Colorado Low -Income Energy
Assistance Program (LEAP). In order to continue to do so, the Town must
execute a new agreement with the Colorado Department of Human Services,
which supervises the LEAP program. Dir. Bergsten noted that applications for
the program are made available at the finance information window in Town
Hall, at Salud and Crossroads Ministry, and said that Larimer County is
responsible for verifying that applicants qualify for the program. It was moved
and seconded (Ericson/Blackhurst) to approve the LEAP vendor
agreement, and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 8:47 p.m.
William C.
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk
The Trustees ranked 15 items ail
requirements, needs expressed b
government, significant one-time invest ent wi
and project year. The following are therojeO o e , percentage: Stallll
85%, Bond Park Phase If 811a, Morain enue Streetscape — 80%, Remodel Barn
W - 71%, Multipurpose Event Center — 6 ✓ Performing Art Center site preparation —
64%, Public Restroom Transportation Hu 59%, Museum Storage Facility — 50%,
Elkhorn Project Inc infrastructure 50%, Fis Hatchery property affordable housing —
49%, ParkingStructure 49 0,
� f �iodoor���e�a �7%, Police department lobby remodel —
40%, El {h o Project Inc'lo n — 34%, and CVB 2"d floor finish — 8%.
Stall Barns
Discussion was heard or
the projectxcould be ph
future addii s; Trustee
stall and wo recomr
Master Plan shows fo
information to the bard
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 27,
2011
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town
of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in
Rooms 202 & 203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 27th day of
September, 2011.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Levine, Trustees
Blackhurst, Elrod, Ericson, Koenig and Miller
Attending: All
Also Attending:
Town Administrator Halburnt, Derj " Town Administrator
Richardson, Directors Ber 'tn Chilcott, Kilsdonk,
McFarland and Zurn, Man ae rltnslow and Town Clerk
Williamson
Absent: None
Mayor Pro Tem Levine called the meeting to Or
CAPITAL ASSET PRIORITIZATIO u j OTHER BUDGET ITEMS
o the 2011uiding principles, budget/legal
ens, maintain/improve access to Town
enefit toaccrue over many years,
at could be done before the season started; whether or not
d and if using metal buildings would allow for flexibility in
er stated a stall building could be built for $6,000 - $8,000 a
d portable stalls; questioned what the original Fairgrounds
I barns and requested staff review and provided additional
making some improvements would make a good impression
on the users of the'p r`operty and demonstrate positive progress in improving the stall
situation; location of the new stalls are also subject to the location of the performing arts
theater; and discussion was heard on the issue of bonding for improvements at the
fairgrounds. The consensus of the Board was to have staff review the Master Plan and
investigate further the options and cost for replacing 100 stalls in 2012.
Bond Park Phase 1I
Trustee Elrod questioned if Phase II was the phase outlined in the Bond Park Master
Plan or just the next phase of the project. Staff would be holding meetings with a
stakeholder group to begin discussion of Phase II outlined in the Master Plan and what
it would contain, i.e. the water feature. The recommendation of the stakeholder group
would be brought forward for the Board to review.
Moraine Avenue Streetscape
The $50,000 in proposed funding would be for landscaping across from the Moraine
restrooms. Board consensus was to investigate the potential of using large flower pots
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Town Board Study Session — September 27, 2011 — Page 2
in the area rather than spending funds to improve private property. Discussion also
followed on the need to include funding for the pedestrian light at Wiest. Trustee
Blackhurst commented the Town should not install a pedestrian light because a
permanent easement through the Park Theater Mall property is not in place to complete
the riverwalk.
Remodel Barn "W"
The Board questioned if the repairs to the barn where a safety issue. Staff stated the
building has significant issues related to Teaks that have caused insurance claims. The
estimated cost to reroof the structure is approximately $50,000 - $70,000. The more
significant issue is whether or not the building is in the right location per the Fairgrounds
Master Plan. The Board discussed whether or not the barn should be replaced and
potentially added to a bond issue for the fairground improvements.
Multi Purpose Event Center
Additional discussion was heard on the feasibility of bonding for the improvements on
the fairground property. Trustee Blackhurst stated the publlc/has continued to ask for
an indoor facility since the 1970s.
Performing Arts Center Site Preparation
The Board consensus was to continue setting money aside for "tie potential site
improvements.
Public Restroom at Transportation Hub
Staff suggested signage be placed to direct user of te'hub to the restrooms at the
grandstand and confirmed the restrooms would , available during ticketed events.
The Multi Purpose Event Center, if built in the �6pr' posed location, could provide
restrooms in the future.
Museum Storage Facilit
The current facility Too e l n Elm Road at the old Li ht and Power shop contains
venting for methane s due O`the landfii7 below and has no environmental controls.
Trustee Elrod stated the Town ilt a fiduciary responsibility to protect Town assets such
as the museum's ction Director Kilsdonk commented the Friends of the Museum
have begun a campaign �or�for=� is capital project and staff would like to work
on funding,the project throrugh private a + rant funding. The Board agreed to earmark
$250 000 a year from the Community Reinvestment Fund through 2017 with the new
facility built for the Towns centennial in 2017.
Elkhorn Project Infrastructure
The Memorandum of Understanding between the Town and Elkhorn Project Inc. stated
a $1 million aggregate cap on infrastructure improvements would be considered if the
RTA application is approved. The infrastructure improvements would be completed in
2012.
Fish Hatchery Housing Project
Trustee Blackhurst stated the Housing Authority would likely complete a needs
assessment in the spring of 2012; however, he does not see a demand for low income
housing at this time. He commented the community has begun to lose citizens due to
decreased funding for Section 8 vouchers which has lead to an increase in rents.
Trustee Elrod questioned if there might not be other economic development
opportunities for the property because low income housing does not appear to be the
highest or best use for the property.
Parking Structure
The proposed funding would be the 20% matching funds if the Town were to receive a
grant for a parking structure. Director Zurn stated the grant has not been awarded;
however, the Town's project remains number two in the state. Town Administrator
Halburnt stated the project is opportunity -based and would not be considered without
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Town Board Study Session — September 27, 2011 — Page 3
the grant funding. Staff suggested the item be broken out from the Capital Asset
Management Plan and moved to a grant -based line item.
Fairgrounds Indoor Arena
The Board requested the item remain on the list and be consider during a complete
evaluation of the Fairground's Master Plan.
PD remodel
Trustee Blackhurst stated an item such as staff safety should be completed. The Board
consensus was to add the item to the 2012 budget.
Elkhorn Project Loan
The Board requested the item be removed from the list.
CVB Remodel 2nd Floor
The Board consensus was to remove the item from 2012 and consider the item in the
future to address visitor issues such as expanding the restroom"facilities and increasing
the lobby area.
VISION/MISSION/GOALS
The Board discussed potential changes to the Vision, Mission and Goals for 2012.
Trustee Elrod suggested changing resort cp munity to mountain community, and
questioned what Estes Park really wants ,top . Discussion followed and the Board
reached consensus that Estes Park wants to R trive t r a resort community, and
therefore, the Vision, Mission and Guiding Pnncipies sh¢ul remain unchanged in 2012.
Vision - The Town of Estes Park witl;enhance our position as a premier mountain resort
community.
Mission - The Mission of
services for the benefit
stewards of public re
Guiding Principle
while we:
A. Maintain and stren
B. Provide services wt
eserve our unique c ��
austain a family -friendly
Consider the impgOt of our 'actions on the environment
Town of Estes P
itizens, visitor.
ur natdral
and emp
etting.
vide high -quality, reliable
ees, while being good
F. Support diverse, affordable housing
G. Enhance recreationaland cultural opportunities
AcPH. Employ`"nd maintain a professional, innovative, and productive team
i.Jhe To
strives to maintain a balanced approach
n our econb "Vitality
are responsive, sensitive, and reliable
acter and history
munity for our citizens and visitors
2012 GOALS
Develop Economic Strategy
- Engage the community in an economic development visioning process
- Evaluate economic development and grant opportunities
- Participate in county, regional and state economic planning
Improve Transportation
- Enhance Visitor Experience
o Evaluate/Improve Public Transportation Services
o Encourage use of the transportation hub and measure effectiveness
- Reduce Congestion
o Continue to partner with CDOT and RMNP to seek solutions
Sustain Infrastructure
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Town Board Study Session — September 27, 2011 — Page 4
Implement Comprehensive Street Maintenance / Replacement Program
o Explore internal and external funding options
o Recommend street maintenance /replacement plans for 2013 budget
- Recommend Utility maintenance / replacement plan for 2013.
Stanley Park Redevelopment
Develop long-term alternatives for financing the completion of the Stanley Park
Master Plan
Begin construct of replacement horse stalls
Resolve SOPA feasibility at Fairgrounds and FOSH funding by May 2012
Bond Park Redevelopment
- Complete the first stage of development
- Develop scope and implement the second stage of development
The Board noted the goals were not in order of priority, Other goal items were
discussed such as public safety and employee retention. Town Administrator Halburnt
suggested retaining employees should be reviewed ir1 general and include salaries,
benefits, etc. Trustee Koenig stated support for a pay increase•in2012 for employees.
SHUTTLE SERVICE
Director Kilsdonk stated there has been significant feedback from <ritoppizations and
individuals on the shuttle schedule and routes Staff has reviewed ` he input and
provided analyses of 2012 requests from EALA/LfVtp; Transportation' Visioning
Committee and a Tess detailed analysis of requests made by the Estes Park Business
Association. The requests reviewed anged from an increase in the number of service
hours from 2992 to 4628 by start( theshuttles one hour earlier and extending them
one hour later at night, an extension of services days, updating the shuttle maps to not
only color code but include dash or d tt,ed lin s, additional shuttle routes including the
use of a tram/trolley downtown additional sge v: Icle wraps, audio information,
benches, restroom at the transportation h cycle rags for shuttles, ads on shuttles
and an early morning„start atAhe YMCA The costs for increased shuttle operations
and/or additional vehicles range from $43,296 - $53,201. With an increase in service
hours comes a direct affect on other expenses such as an increase to the public
restroom cleaning contract of approximate74400.
Trusteeate d other entities such as EALA requesting the extension of
servshould help fund the increased cost of service. The schedules should be set by
transportation professionals and nott individuals or other entities. Trustee Koenig stated
EALA has funded the service throuugh promoting and advertising the shuttle service and
has increaseithe ridership s promised in 2011.
Trustee Miller would support starting the shuttles an hour earlier to allow individuals
working downtown o'ride the shuttle to work thereby freeing up parking downtown. He
requested staff review the ideas presented to determine which items should be
implemented to realize an efficient and effective shuttle system.
Trustee Koenig stated support for increasing the service hours and would support
$50,000 for the extended operations of the shuttle system in 2012. The Board
consensus was to transfer $750,000 to Community Reinvestment Fund and $50,000 to
the Transportation budget in 2012.
MEDIUM SIZE RODEO
The Rooftop Rodeo has been classified as a small rodeo in the past; however, in 2011
the purse size was increased for team roping, a two member team, to provide $3,000
per contestant. This one item moved the rodeo into the medium-sized category for
which there are 131 PRCA rodeos with a purse size ranging from $3,001 - $9,999 per
event. PRCA has recommended and may become a rule of PRCA to pay the individual
contestants the same purse in the future. The ramifications of a medium rodeo
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Town Board Study Session — September 27, 2011 — Page 5
classification include the following: a purse equal to or greater than 17% of sales (2011
sales $135,000 with a purse of $23,600 meeting the requirement); increase financial
commitment by the Town for an increased purse and stock fees; and a mid -sized
category would offer additional revenue potential from ticket sales and additional
sponsorships. The rodeo committee has proposed an increase in purse size to $32,000
($4,000 per contestant). The Town's current stock contract includes an annual
increase; however, staff is recommending an $8,000 increase to cover the cost of
additional stock for the anticipated increase in cowboy participation in the rodeo. The
mid -size classification should bring higher quality and better -know contestants,
increased attendance, increased visibility and more sponsorship funding.
Board discussion followed: questioned if the Town needs to do more because the rodeo
has already made it within the top five of the medium category; discussed the need to
stay within the category; questioned if the rodeo committee plans to do anything to
offset the increased purse required to maintain the medium -size category; asked what
the long term implications would be to remaining a medium category, i.e. increased
costs year -over -year; and the Board requested the item be discussed further during the
budget process.
SCHOOL BOARD UPDATE ON BALLOT ISSUE
Linda Chapman/Superintendent and school staff reviewed the School District's
November ballot Issue 3B that would raise $750;000/year and would sunset in three
years. The Park R-3 school district has received decreasing state funding over the past
several years and as of 2.009 funding was809 less Lien the national average per
student. Without the funding from 3B the distract would need to begin cutting programs.
The District maintains a strong school system helps to attract individuals to the
community, and is essential for `sustainability. The annual increase would be
approximately $44/annually for a home valued at $335,
There being no further
ayor Ptnkham adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
September 13, 2011, 9:00 a.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Board: Chair Wayne Newsom, Members Bob McCreery, John Lynch, Chuck
Levine, and Pete Smith; Alternate Member Jeff Moreau
Attending: Vice -Chair McCreery, Members Lynch, Smith, Alternate Moreau
Also Attending: Director Chilcott, Recording Secretary Thompson, Town Attorney Greg
White
Absent: Chair Newsom, Member Levine
Vice -Chair McCreery called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT
A. Approval of minutes of the June 7, 2011 meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Smith/Moreau) to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented and the motion passed 4-0 with one absent.
3. METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL, 1051 SUTTON LANE
Director Chilcott reviewed the staff report. The applicant requests 12-foot encroachment
into the 25-foot side setback to construct a proposed attached garage. The property is
zoned E-1 Estate, which requires 25-foot setbacks. The lot is long and narrow, and is
undersized for the zoning district. With 25-foot setbacks on either side, building space is
limited. The application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property owners
and staff received no opposition to the request. One adjacent property owner called in
support of the variance. Staff found that the variance request complied with the review
criteria in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Staff found that special
circumstances exist and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with the
code. Staff recommended approval of the variance request, with two conditions, listed
below.
Staff Discussion
None.
Public Comment
Sara Klieber/Owner stated her desire for an attached garage.
Conditions
1. Compliance with the site plan and building design, as approved by the Board of
Adjustment.
2. Setback Certificate. Prior to final inspection, a registered land surveyor shall provide to
the Community Development Department a signed and stamped certificate that
specifically verifies that the structure complies with the approved variance, and shall
include a specific reference to the distance to property lines. Staff recommends a
surveyor set survey stakes for foundation forms to ensure compliance with the
approved variance.
It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Moreau) to approve the variance request with
the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed 4-0 with
one absent.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2
September 13, 2011
4. METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL, 1810 WINDHAM LANE, APPEAL OF STAFF
DECISION
Director Chilcott reviewed the staff report. The applicant submitted an application for
zoning approval for an accessory structure, and on August 17, 2011, staff determined the
proposed structure was a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU). According to staff
interpretation, the structure was not clearly incidental and customarily found in connection
with the principal use. Staff reviewed the overall design of the structure and determined a
household could live independently in the building. Per the EVDC, the size of the lot (3.1
acres) was not sufficient for an ADU in the RE -Rural Estate zone district (3.33 acres
required). Director Chilcott stated attached ADUs are allowed in the Estes Valley on Tots
that are 1.33 times the minimum lot size for the zone district, while detached ADUs are
not allowed.
Director Chilcott reviewed the plans for the proposed structure, stating it had all the
components of an ADU. There was an existing dwelling unit on the property, and staff
determined this proposed structure was not a usual and customary use, as described in
the EVDC. She explained the property owner does have other options, such as an
additional attached living area with an accessory kitchen, provided it was deed restricted.
She stated staff's decision was reviewed by Town Attorney White.
Public Comment
Betty Nickel/Applicant stated the structure was designed as detached because the
existing dwelling already lies within the setback and a detached unit was the best design
for the narrow, difficult lot. The property owners wanted to keep the rock outcroppings and
stay out of the view corridor of the neighbors. Mrs. Nickel stated ADUs have been an
issue for several years. The code was amended to allow accessory kitchens, of which the
definition stated must have a cooktop and an oven with either a 220V electric line or gas
line. She stated the functions in this building are incidental to a single-family dwelling, and
do not contain cooking facilities. It was her opinion that they met all the requirements of
the code.
Steve Nickel/Applicant disagreed with staff's referral to a 2006 decision to support their
interpretation of the code. He did not agree with staff's determination that the proposed
accessory structure was an accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Nickel mentioned the on -going
and unresolved hearings by the Estes Valley Planning Commission concerning ADUs,
and referred to amendments made to the EVDC concerning accessory kitchens.
Discussion occurred among staff and the Board as to whether or not the incidental uses in
the structure were typical, and about the process staff used to make the determination of
the accessory dwelling unit. Director Chilcott stated the structure was looked at as a
whole, and that the proposed structure was not typically found on a lot in the Estes Valley.
Vice -Chair McCreery stated he could see both sides of the issue, and suggested tabling
the item until the Planning Commission could establish guidelines for detached ADUs.
Harold Haunschild/Property owner stated the topography of the lot made it impractical to
add on to the existing dwelling. If they could, they would add all the proposed rooms to
the existing dwelling. If the rules changed, he would probably not change the design of
the proposed structure. He believed the application complied with the current code
because there was not a kitchen included.
Attorney White stated that staff reviews the overall design, and he agreed with staff that it
was a dwelling unit. ADUs are not allowed in the Estes Valley. This was a policy decision
approved by Town Board and the County Commissioners. He did not see a code
amendment addressing detached ADUs in the near future, due to the controversial and
complicated nature of the issue.
Attorney White explained the Board of Adjustment did not have the ability to grant a use
variance. The Board could find that the proposed design is a structure and not an
accessory dwelling unit, which would be a finding against the staff decision. As a
structure, the Board would have to find that it is a clearly customary and incidental use.
That finding could be based on the absence of a full kitchen. Comments were made that
the building has numerous uses, and the overall impact seems to be more than incidental.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment
September 13, 2011
More discussion occurred among staff, the Board, and the applicants as to what
constituted an accessory dwelling unit, the labeling on the plans, the consequences that
could occur if the property is sold, and enforcement of the use once the structure is built.
Mr. Haunschild stated his willingness to remove the kitchenette, while maintaining his
belief that the structure complied with the current code.
Attorney White stated a 2-2 vote would uphold the staff decision. The applicants could
resubmit a new plan to staff at any time, based upon the decision of the Board. Any
decision would be based on the submitted application. Attorney White stated the applicant
also has further rights of appeal, with district court being the next step.
Mrs. Nickel expressed her opinion that the property owner's right would be compromised
if they were not allowed to build the structure.
Director Chilcott offered the option of continuing the application to allow the applicant to
resubmit a new design without the kitchenette, if the applicant chooses to do so. If the
cooking facilities were removed, staff would most likely determine the structure did not
contain all the components necessary for an accessory dwelling unit.
Member Lynch asked Mrs. Nickel to read the last two paragraphs of her letter to staff
dated September 2, 2011 (included with staff report). The applicants believe staff is
struggling with a code issue they should not have to interpret, and would like the
governing bodies to make clear decisions concerning accessory structures and accessory
dwelling units. Member Lynch agreed with her comments.
Attorney White stated a motion to continue would allow the applicant time to remove the
kitchenette from the project, and adjust other designs. They could also choose to leave
the design as is and continue with the appeal and variance request as originally
submitted. He reminded the Board that they need to look at how the current land use
code applies to the application, and base their decision on the facts at hand. He agreed
that this part of the code is very difficult for staff and applicants alike.
Vice -Chair McCreery and Member Lynch were supportive of the applicant. Vice -Chair
McCreery stated his desire to speak to the Planning Commission about this "one size fits
all" issue.
It was moved and seconded (Lynch/Moreau) to continue the appeal decision and the
variance request until the next regularly scheduled meeting and the motion passed
4-0 with one absent.
There being no further business, Vice -Chair McCreery adjourned the meeting at 10:24
a.m.
Bob McCreery, Vice -Chair
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
a
0(1)
"z; 14-1
va
a)�E
a) A-.
w as
as
(/) L
cpI—
=
IL. L
�Q
a) ol
co ,a
> E.
cn a
a) co
(1) cl.
w
i
Original Message
From: Town of Estes Park,Colorado [mailto:info@estesnet.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 3:03 PM
To: info@estesnet.com
Subject: Town Web's Feedback Form
*******************************************************************************
Name: james W. Tawney
PhysicalAddress: 1820 Fall River Road
MailingAddress: 1820 Fall River Road
City: Estes Park
State: CO
Zip: 80517
Phone: 970 214 6811
Email: jtawney513@aol.com
Remote Name: 74.211.57.58
Date: Sunday, October 02, 2011
Time: 03:03:17 PM
Comment:
Topics: The July 12th meeting, The Town Administrator Contract, The upcoming
budget process:
Note: this contains no information about the performance of the current
administrator;
my personal view of town salaries is: this is a small town, I think any town
employee paid over $75,000 per year is grossly overpaid.
The July 12 meeting: watched from home; like others it appeared that a movement
to rush through the administrator's contract was intended -and not everyone on the
board agreed.Though this is old news now, it left a definite impression on those
who pay attention to such things.
The town administrator's contract. The terms of the contract should be made
public: that is, the salary, the percs, etc. Also, in general terms, the method
of evaluation should also be made public. For much of the time I've lived here,
the TA has been fairly invisible. If a search for a new administrator is the
outcome of the current process, two factors should be considered: in this current
recession like economy, there is a large pool of downsized executives for whom a
modest salary is preferable to no salary at all; again, as a long time resident,
I have faulted previous boards whose rationale for the TA salary has been: we
must pay so much to attract candidates as we compete with other cities. Times
have changed and Estes Park is not an equivalent position to the urban
municipalities.
The upcoming budget process: As we confront perhaps 8 years of a recession like
economy, looking at the budget crises in surrounding communities, it is time to
begin to downsize the town budget. Looking at position creep over the last 10
years, factoring in positions that have been moved to other entities (fire
department, LMD) it appears that there has been substantial "position creep".
(Those on the board at the time experienced my outraged comments about the
addition of a public relations position during this down economy). It is time for
the town board to take a proactive stance with regard to the budget: That is,
begin with a policy that the budget be reduced by 5-10 per cent. In this economy,
..everybody pays", lodge owners reduce rates to accommodate the families suffering
from the economy. We are in a time when you do more for less. So, with regard to
staff salaries, what choices might you consider: reduced positions, salary
freezes* rolling unpaid days off, as in Denver. The same analysis should be
conducted on all budget categories, and all departments, including the police
department.
I hope that the board takes these recommendations seriously. At the beginning of
Mayor Pinkham's tenure, he encouraged community wide dialogue on the "what to do
when times get tough" scenario. We've experienced these since 2008 and economists
have suggested we have another 4-5 years ahead of us.
/�.
October 11, 2011
To: The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees
From: The Estes Park Local Marketing District
Regarding: Budget Request Consideration
The Estes Park Local Marketing District hereby requests an investment by the
Town of Estes Park for direct marketing, advertising and promotion of the Estes
Park Area in the amount of $175,000. We also request that consideration be
given to establishing a non -binding commitment of 2.5% of Sales Tax Revenues
in future year to allow the Local Marketing District the ability to better project
income sources in future budgets.
Budget Request Rational
1. Tourism is the industry of Estes Park.
2. Maintenance and growth of the Sales Tax base generated by Tourism
requires marketing and promotion of the area.
3. The Local Marketing District's Destination Marketing Team and key
strategic partners have demonstrated the skills and understanding of
appropriate tools and techniques to maximize the utilization of available
funds to promote the area and attract tourism.
4. Destination Marketing Studies indicate that at a minimum the Investment
of $1.00 in Direct Marketing returns $20.00 in Sales Tax Dollars. We do
not have the tools to project the ROI in Estes Park at this time but feel
confident that this is a minimum return in our regard.
5. The State of Colorado Tourism Budget has recently again been cut.
6. The Local Marketing District relies on one Sales Tax base that being a 2%
Accommodations Tax within the district.
7. The town of Estes Park currently benefits from a 4% Sales Tax on
Accommodations within the Town as well as the same tax on retail,
restaurant and grocery within the Town.
8. The Local Marketing District is currently making significant investments in
developing the "intellectual capital" necessary for us to be the premier
Destination Marketing Organization that Estes Park Deserves. These
areas include research, the development of a new website and the
destination branding program.
9. If pressed to cut marketing spending the LMD would likely need to
address those areas that do not directly effect accommodations spending
in order to best maintain our income source.
IEstes Park Local Marketing District
0
2
J
Budget
2012
Town
Invest
$0-
1, 291,131
210,000
175,000
0
0
ri
m
l0
1�
l0
rj
iA
b
m
r�
N
Ln
In.
$527,437 I
$1,470,058 1
Ln
0)
v
0)
0)
ri
i/}
Ln
0)
•tt
b
0)
0)
c-i
i?
C
co
m
r•i
N
m.
i/}
v
0
i/}
0
i/i
t
L0
m
e-1
N
m
id}
v
s
lLIDO
m
e-1
N
oo
i?
o
o
o
0
in
i/}
u',
N
rn
ai
Ln
in.
_..
LMD
Budget
2012
00
C
CC
Q.
0
f6
d
in
M
."1
0)
N
ri
210,000
???
O
O
LIET'tos'T$ J
m
V
N
VT
r $527,437
8S0`S6Z'I$
$1,822,495
$1,822,495
-.M
NN
VI-cn
so
so
m
�.
m
N
O
O
O
N
l0
Ln
i/}
LMD
Projected
o
N
0
i/}
1,272,050
252,000
128,985
0
0
Ln
m
o
'.-{
ri
in
ri
N
m
O
i/}
.-1
N
CO
O
i/}
$1,521,792
M
ri
.-1
0
N
i/}
ETT'tZ0'Z$
00
N.
0
m
O
i/}
O
i/}.
00
0
m
N
O
r-1
i/}.
ct
l0
m
N
co
O
i/}
m
N
ce
/}
C
J
1 Budget
ai
0
N
0
0
O
N
Q)
e-1
0
Ln
O
N
N
ri
250,000
128,985
O
0
In
m
O
00
CO
ri
i/}
.-i
N
M
N
O
Ln
if}
r1
N
M
N
O
II
in
C
ci
ct
01
e-1
N
.-I
in
to
M
n
.-I
N
N
N
I.O.
$2,221,735
O
0
m
M
O
in
O
i/}
O
0
N
m
1,
m
N
V'
Ct
N'
0)
.-I
r-1
i/}
$818,742 1
N
Ln
Lc)
'.0
LO
i/}
co
J
Actual
2010
$196,985
1,235,000
O
O
O
O
$1,431,985
0
O
co"
0
0
co"
1 $1,432,577
N
Ii)
V
,is
in-
N
Ir 1
'-
ri
in-
N
col
Ln
co,
N
Ln
N
O
M�
N
ri
i/}
$1,146,844
$43,817
LMD
Actual
2009
N
ct
00
Cr)LO
N
•--i
N
I
0
N
r-1
e-I
r-I
e--I
M
L Total Revenues JI 984,269 T $1,258,477
n
N
r-1
i/}
N
N
ri
i/}
Operations & Maintenance $0 $79,913
O
0
00
in
O
0
00
i/}
I $1,175,437 -I
so 1
O
L}
I $1,175,437 I
O
i/}
n
M
•ct
n
r-I
in
ti
Ol
Tr-
VI.ill-r
Z
O
H
cn
0
CV
Revenues
Intergovernmental (Visitor Guide)
Stakeholder Services 1
[Town of Estes Park Marketing Investment � $984,269
L Investment I1
(Expenses
Personnel Services -Town $149,105
Personnel Services- LMD IL
Total Personnel Expenses $149,105-
Total Current Expenses [ $o]
Total Expenses II $149,1051
Excess (deficiency) of revenues over II $835,1641
expenditures
Other financing sources (transfers in) II $0
Other financing uses (transfers out) $0
Increase (decrease) in fund balance II $835,164 I
Beginning Fund balance IIN/A
Ending Fund balance N/A iI
RESTRICTIONS r
TABOR Reserve: 3% of expenditures 11
2009 THRU 2012 L
x
F•-
ea
°N
d
5
RESOLUTION # 12-11
WHEREAS, the Estes Park Local Marketing District has filed with the Town Clerk
the Estes Park Local Marketing Business and Operating Plan for 2012 along with its
proposed budget for the 2012 calendar year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 29-25-110 C.R.S. and the applicable provision
of the Intergovernmental Agreement dated August 26, 2008, between the Town of
Estes Park and the Board of County Commissioners, Larimer County, the Town
Board shall approve or disapprove the Operating Plan within thirty (30) days after
receipt of said Plan, the proposed budget and all additional documentation
requested by the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed the Operating Plan and proposed
budget and has determined that the Operating Plan will provide efficient and cost
effective marketing and promotion services for the Estes Park Local Marketing
District Service Area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE RECITALS SET FORTH ABOVE
WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS
FOLLOWS:
1. The Estes Park Local Marketing District Business and Operating Plan for 2012
as filed with the Town Clerk is hereby approved.
Dated this , 2011.
ATTEST:
Mayor
Town Clerk
STINATIC)N
AI l< .�Y1INC
ANIZAHON
LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT
September 30, 2011
Mayor Pinkham and Estes Park Board of Trustees
PO box 1200
Estes Park, Co 80517
Dear Mayor Pinkham and Estes Park Board of Trustees:
The Estes Park Local Marketing District Board is pleased to submit our 2012 Operating Plan for
The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees review and approval. A duplicate copy has also been
submitted to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners.
Peggy Campbell (Executive Director), Scott Webermeier and I will plan on making ourselves
available should there be any questions regarding the Operating Plan and Budget. We have
submitted a print copy of the plan and also emailed our Operating Plan to Town Administrator,
Jacquie Halburnt.
We look forward to receiving your support! A solid partnership with the Town of Estes Park and
Larimer County is paramount to our ongoing success.
Please feel free to contact me directly or any of our Board members should you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Cory Blackman — Estes Park LMD Chairperson
Estes Park Local Marketing District Board of Directors:
Bill Almond - Vice Chairperson
Scott Webermeier —Secretary/Treasurer
Lindsay Lamson
Chris Wood
Kathy Palmeri
Lee Lasson
ESTES
PARK
ESTINATION • -
I KEYING
LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT
Estes Park Local Marketing District
2012 Operating Plan
September 2011
The Local Marketing District (LMD) Model
According to Colorado State Statute, the Local Marketing District may provide any of the
following services within the district:
Organization, promotion, marketing, and management of public events;
Activities in support of business recruitment, management, and development;
Coordinating tourism promotion activities.
(II) No revenue collected from the marketing and promotion tax levied under section 29-25-112
may be used for any capital expenditures, with the exception of tourist information centers.
(f) To have the management, control, and supervision of all the business and affairs of the
district and of the operation of district services therein;
(g) To appoint an advisory board of owners of property within the boundaries of the district and
provide for the duties and functions thereof;
(h) To hire employees or retain agents, engineers, consultants, attorneys, and accountants;
(i) To adopt and amend bylaws not in conflict with the constitution and laws of the state or with
the ordinances of the local government affected for carrying on the business, objectives, and
affairs of the board and of the district; and
(j) To exercise all rights and powers necessary or incidental to or implied from the specific
powers granted in this article. Such specific powers shall not be considered as a limitation upon
any power necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes and intent of this article.
Estes Park LMD Overview
The Estes Park Local Marketing District is organized by Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA's)
between the LMD and the Town of Estes Park and the LMD and Larimer County. The purpose
is to proactively market the Estes Park area, resulting in the positive economic impact of visitor
dollars. The formation of the Local Marketing District and the 2% lodging tax were approved by
District voters in November 2008 and lodging tax collections went into effect on January 1,
2009.
Funding for the district continues to be provided via the 2% lodging tax which is collected by
lodging properties from their guests for stays of less than 30 days. This tax is collected by
lodging establishments and remitted to the Colorado Department of Revenue on a quarterly
basis and then distributed to the Estes Park LMD. LMD 2% lodging tax collections were
$1,250,623 in 2010. Estimates for 2011 are too early to accurately forecast as only the 1st and
2nd Quarter's distributions have been received. The first two quarters of 2011 saw a 1.5%
increase over the same period in 2010. Third quarter lodging tax, which represents our high
Estes Park Local Marketing District - 2012 Operating Plan
Page 2
summer season, will be received by the State on or around November 15, 2011, at which time
2012 revenue forecasts will be more reliable.
A seven (7) Member Board is appointed with five (5) members appointed by the Town of Estes
Park Board of Trustees and two (2) by Larimer County Board of County Commissioners.
The LMD will continue to use existing CVB Operational Policies. Changes required to the
policies will be brought to the LMD Board for review and/or possible action.
The Destination Marketing Organization (DMO), the functional name of the LMD, continues to
work closely with Visitor Services and Events, both of which are funded and managed by the
Town of Estes Park. The three areas continue to operate under the umbrella of the Estes Park
Convention & Visitors Bureau.
Estes Park Local Marketing District - 2012 Operating Plan
Page 3
Estes Park LMD Organizational Structure
Key Players
• Local Marketing District Board of Directors (7 Members)
• DMO Staff
• Town of Estes Park government officials
• Town of Estes Park staff, particularly Visitor Services and Events
• Rocky Mountain National Park Liaison
Organization
The LMD Board focuses direction directly to the Executive Director of the LMD Staff. All LMD
Board direction will be focused through the Executive Director, other than ordinary involvement
in committees, in order to keep reporting direct and focused without confusion. We believe this
is very important to keep individual agendas from getting involved in the direct line of reporting
and direction that could cause confusion. Any necessary communication and direction to be
given to the Executive Director during periods between Board meetings will be handled by the
LMD Chairman with a follow-up summary to the entire Board. In the absence or incapacitation
of the Chairman, this responsibility will be handled by the Vice Chairman.
LMD Board of Directors
Cory Blackman, Chairman — Best Western Bill Almond, Vice -Chair - YMCA
Plus Silver Saddle
Scott Webermeier, Secretary/Treasurer — Kathy Palmeri — YOGI Bear Campground
National Park Village
Lindsay Lamson — Rocky Mountain Resorts Lee Lasson — Front Desk Consulting
Chris Wood- McGregor Mountain Lodge
DMO Staff
Peggy Campbell, Executive Director
Suzy Blackhurst, Communications & Public Relations
Peter Marsh, Advertising
Kirby Nelson, Stakeholder Sales & Services
Mike Oline, Administrative Assistant
TBD, Group Sales & Services
Estes Park Local Marketing District - 2012 Operating Plan
Page 4
Estes Park LMD Mission, Vision, Core Values
Mission: Attract visitors to the District through effective and efficient marketing in order to drive
year-round economic growth.
Vision: To be a year-round tourism and group destination that supports our healthy mountain
community with a balance of financial success, memorable experiences for visitors and quality
of life for our residents and employees.
Core Values:
• Accountable
• Ethical
• Proactive
• Respectful
• Responsive
• Transparent
2011 Operating Plan Highlights
In our second year of full operation, the Estes Park Destination Marketing Organization (DMO),
the functional name of the LMD, continues to track well to our 2011 Operating Plan.
Beginning January 1, 2011, to improve transparency, the LMD and the Town of Estes Park
implemented significant financial changes in 2011. Unlike 2010, when the Town of Estes Park
funded salaries and benefits for the four employees transferred from Town of Estes Park staff to
LMD staff (about $364,475), the LMD fully funded all employees in 2011. In addition, the LMD
paid the Town of Estes Park for rent in the Visitor Center, payroll processing,'/2 FTE for Visitor
Services staff support, IT support, and other misc. expenses such as property / liability
insurance coverage, printer costs, etc. In 2011, the LMD will have paid the Town approximately
$62,239 in rent, payroll processing, Visitor Services staff support, and IT support.
Since the LMD is responsible for generating and supporting stakeholder sales and services, the
LMD began to receive the revenue associated with those services effective January 1, 2011.
Marketing and advertising services available to district businesses include website listings,
Visitor Center brochure rack display, group services, and leads, among others. This represents
approximately $250,000 in revenue. However, DMO stakeholder participation fees for out of
Town but within District lodging properties will be reduced in 2012, and as a result, revenue will
decline by about $30,000.
In 2011, the Town of Estes Park, recognizing the importance of tourism to the local economy
and Town sales tax revenue, committed to a marketing investment of $128,985 to support LMD
efforts. This investment enhanced the DMO's ability to provide exceptional destination
marketing services, which in turn directly affects the Town's sales tax collections. Town of Estes
Estes Park Local Marketing District - 2012 Operating Plan
Page 5
Park 2012 marketing investment in support of DMO efforts has not been determined as of this
writing, but is expected in early October.
LMD emergency reserve funds remained at $500,000 as planned. The LMD Board continues to
believe that it is important to set aside this amount not only in case of emergency, but also if
needed to cover first and second quarter expenses which are inherently high versus our income
stream during the same time which is inherently low. Due to the seasonal nature of tourism in
Estes Park, our income stream peaks in November when we receive the third quarter lodging
tax collections.
We continued to staff the DMO with six employees and as the 2011 Operating Plan indicated,
we did convert a part time seasonal position to a full time employee position. The Executive
Director continues to report directly to the Estes Park LMD Board and directs the DMO Staff.
2011 Marketing Plan YTD Highlights
Under the leadership of Executive Director, Peggy Campbell, the DMO is tracking well to our
2011 Operating Plan and 2011 Marketing Plan. As indicated in the 2011 Operating Plan and
Marketing Plan, we continue to partner closely with industry experts. Key strategic partners
include Hill Aevium, Advertising Agency; Pace Communications, 2012 Official Visitor Guide
Publisher; Guest Research, Visitor Study; Turner PR, Public Relations; and BrandStrategy,
Destination Branding. Key accomplishments to date include:
• Developed an integrated Estes Park Marketing Plan. Extended goals and objectives into
strategies and tactics for each DMO department.
• Established and tracking of key Estes Park tourism indicators to monitor trends and shift
direction when appropriate.
• Significantly expanded creative assets portfolio including two new high definition
television commercials and extensive portfolio of new photography.
• Completed year-round Visitor Survey research project yielding 7,622 completed surveys.
Expanded survey through February 2011 to ensure even deeper off-season data.
• Initiated all new interim advertising creative, creating a bridge between the existing
creative and the new branding effort in 2012. New creative reflects the key positioning
points acquired in the 2010-2011 visitor survey research study. Elevated the design
standards to reach the target markets more effectively. Effort includes print ads, event
posters, intemet banner ads, social media, email marketing, and group sales proposal
templates.
• Expanded the social media presence with branded Facebook, You Tube Channel, and
Flickr. New Facebook promotion (Rooftop Rodeo) was implemented to strategically grow
the fan base and create additional visitor loyalty.
• Developed and executed an RFP for a destination branding company. The branding
company has been selected and the research phase of the project is in process.
Branding will continue through 2012.
Estes Park Local Marketing District - 2012 Operating Plan
Page 6
• Redirected the 2011 media mix due to the findings of the Guest Research Visitor study.
Increased the ratio of digital to print/broadcast mix by 10% over 2010 (35% digital in
2011). Expect to increase digital ratio again in 2012.
• Developed and executed an RFP for a new Visitor Guide publisher. New publisher was
selected and major redesign of the 2012 Official Estes Park Visitor Guide is in the
process of being finalized. This is the first change in the annual publication in six years.
The new look and feel reflects current trends in destination visitor guides and better
represents the Estes Park experience.
• Developed and executed an RFP for Visitor Guide fulfillment services and a vendor has
been selected. This will result in a significant improvement to the entire process
including Visitor Guide delivery and more streamlined operations (on-line). This will be
the first change to our fulfillment house in sixteen years.
• Created a more targeted group sales effort focusing on the `low hanging fruit' of
weddings and reunions while expanding awareness and reach to the SMERF (Social,
Military, Educational, Religious, Fraternal), corporate and association markets.
2012 LMD Operational Plan
The DMO staff is in need of additional office space. The LMD Board felt that keeping the
marketing arm of the CVB in the Visitor Center was important and requested Town Board
consider renovating the second floor of the Visitor Center to accommodate LMD staff. The Town
Board of Trustees, considered this request, along with Town' staff presentation regarding the
town -owned Visitor Center facility, and learned that Visitor Services and public space also have
space challenges due to the increase in visitor traffic to the building. This, among other reasons
such as the significant costs associated with the renovation, caused the Town Board to deny the
LMD's request to renovate the second floor of the Visitor Center. The DMO staff, which had
already been researching office space options outside of the Visitor Center, are preparing for
the relocation.
In 2011, funding for payroll and benefits for all DMO Staff Members transferred from the Town
of Estes Park to the LMD. This will continue, and in addition, as envisioned by the Town of
Estes Park and the LMD, LMD staff will fully transition from Town of Estes Park to becoming
employees of the LMD. LMD managed HR services for LMD staff, including a new employee
handbook, will be in effect January 1, 2012. Through an expected revised 2012 Town of Estes
Park/LMD IGA, LMD employees will continue uninterrupted participation in, and be eligible for,
all Town of Estes Park benefits.
Currently, the LMD Board intends to operate the plan with the 6 employees plus the hiring of
extemal firms as necessary to enhance certain areas. Group Sales and Services recently
became an open position and is being managed by a temporary staff person until such time as
the position is reevaluated and posted. Major changes to the Group Sales effort are not
expected.
Estes Park Local Marketing District - 2012 Operating Plan
Page 7
2012 LMD Marketing Plan
The marketing plans developed in our first two years of operation proved to have laid a solid
and successful foundation for current and future destination marketing efforts. The 2010
Marketing Plan developed by Hannah Marketing and the 2011-2012 Marketing Plan developed
by the DMO team will continue to serve us well as our road to destination marketing excellence.
Marketing Strategies
We will focus our 2012 Marketing strategy on the original path outlined by the CVB Assessment
and the 2011 Marketing Plan. The changes for 2012 are in two key areas - branding and
interactive. The destination branding effort which began in 2011 will be completed and all
advertising materials will be modified to complement the new brand. The website, now seven
years old, will be scrapped and a new website will be developed which will embrace the new
branding along with the latest in technology and mobile readiness. The 2012 media allocation
will capitalize on 2011 successes and continue the shift towards electronic media from
traditional media with a primary focus on the ovemight visitor. Goals and objectives from the
2011 plan will also be updated. Tracking and reporting will continue for each marketing initiative
using research, goal setting and conversion analytics. Group sales and services efforts will
continue to focus on the meetings, weddings and reunion market with research being
commissioned to determine the viability of the corporate market. Public Relations will focus on
identifying the unique story ideas to support the effort of attracting more overnight visitors.
Research in 2012 will include a comprehensive conversion study.
2012 Media Plan Synopsis
Hill Aevium was retained to complete the research and development of the 2012 media plan for
the Local Marketing District. Following is a brief overview of the strategies and tactics
associated with the plan and some additional thoughts relating to promotional and branding
efforts that will deployed to enhance the plan during the 2012 year.
Integrated Marketing Effort
The advertising plan developed for the Estes Park DMO is not meant to be a static or singular
document. It was developed as part of a larger integrated effort being implemented by the
Estes Park DMO that includes:
• Public Relations
• Promotions
• Email marketing
• Social Networking and Blogging
• Search Engine Optimization
Estes Park Local Marketing District - 2012 Operating Plan
Page 8
• Stakeholder communication
• , Direct Sales
• Research
• Tracking and reporting
Adjustments will be made during the year as market demands or conditions change. Tracking
and reporting will utilize Google Analytics as well as 800 number calls, visitor inquiries, click
through rates, impressions and a series of vanity URL's. Landing pages will be created where
appropriate to further assist with tracking.
The Guest Research, Inc. Visitor Study has again been used as the basis for the media
decisions. The Visitor Study now includes 13 months, providing even more information on
shoulder and winter seasonal attributes.
Using Research to Drive Media Selection
Who Is Coming to Estes Park and Why?
The most recent data from Guest Research, Inc. indicates that 63% of visitors to Estes Park are
staying overnight. Day visitors make up only 37%. On average overnight visitors spend $500-
$860 per day depending on the season, vs. the day visitor's daily spend of $83-$102. 43% of all
visitors are from Colorado.
Rocky Mountain National Park and a relaxing mountain getaway trade one and two positions as
the reason most visitors come to Estes Park. This is followed by wildlife viewing, outdoor
recreation and low cost/good value.
Primary Target Demographics
The largest visitor age group ranges between 45 and 54 years of age. Average household
income is $110,000-$149,000 and the majority of people in this group are married and have
children. Per the most recent Guest Research, Inc. results, 26% of people in this group did not
have children, 39% had children at home, and 35% have children that no longer live at home.
Travel Party indicated 43% were couples and 54% were families. This changes dramatically by
season
These people are highly educated with 84% having a college degree or post -graduate degrees.
They are coming to Estes Park from CO, TX, NE, KS, MI, IL, IA and CA
A large percentage of these people are staying overnight in Estes Park.
Seasonally
We now have the data to look at the makeup of the visitor by season in Estes Park. Note that
due to multiple answers to the same question, e.g., who were you traveling with?, certain
questions may not result in 100% total.
Estes Park Local Marketing District - 2012 Operating Plan
Page 9
The Summer day and overnight visitors are age 45-54 with a tie for second at 38-44 and 55-63.
60% are Families (3-10) and 59% are Individuals/couples (1-2).
The Fall day visitor is 45-54, with overnight visitor in the 55-63 age group. 59% are Couples (1-
2) and 46% are Families (3-10).
• The Winter day and ovemight visitors are age 45-54 with a close second place of 55-63.
The travel party status shifts even more to the Individual/couples with 64% and Families
at 43%.
Group Target Demographics
The Group audience for Estes Park comes primarily from the Front Range and drives to Estes
Park.
Media Objectives for 2012
• Increase overnight stays while maintaining traffic from day visitors
• Increase overnight stays from within Colorado
• Increase conversion of Visitor Guide inquiries
• Increase website visitation
• Increase group business from Front Range drive market
• Increase percentage of "new" visitation
• Expand email database
Media Strategy
• Eliminate publications that did not perform in 2011 while re -investing in publications that
focus more directly on the 2012 target audience.
• Target Families in the Spring and Summer / April - July
• Target Empty Nesters in the Fall and Winter / August — March
• Increase media spend in Colorado to target overnight visitors
• Maintain online investment that will drive decision makers to the Estes Park website as
well as increase the email database.
• Allocate budget for Group business focusing on government and association
meetings/retreats, corporate meetings market, SMERF primarily social, e.g., weddings
and reunions.
Estes Park Local Marketing District - 2012 Operating Plan
Page 10
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
55%
0%
$180,180
Media Breakdown by Year
2010
2011
2012
Magazine
Newspaper
-Radio/TV
OnlinefPPC/SEO
2012 Media Spend By Medium
$72 289 $25,000
$33,340 $75,811
$335,713
Magazine 41 %
wa Newspaper 9%
Radio 4%
TV 11 %
m Online 22%
PPC 10%
SEO 3%
Estes Park Local Marketing District - 2012 Operating Plan Page 11
Traditional Media by Day Visitor
vs.Overniht Visitor
Day Visitor 2011 2012
Newspaper 16% 9%
Radio 6% 7%
Broadcast 13% 9%
Total 0/0 of Budget 3 5 Wo 2 5 Wo
Overnight Visitor 2011 2012
Magazine 65% 60%
Newspaper 7
Broadcast
Total % of Budget 65% 75%
Estes Park Local Marketing District - 2012 Operating Plan Page 12
2012 Budget
Since its inception, the LMD Board has endeavored to continue to support and grow all of the
marketing activities previously funded by the Town of Estes Park with the desire to be
supportive of all of our stakeholders. In addition, the Board has recognized the need to build the
"intellectual capital" necessary for us to be the premier Destination Marketing Organization that
Estes Park deserves. Investments in these areas include research, the development of a new
website, the hiring of a new creative advertising agency, the hiring of a Public Relations firm and
the destination branding program. The financial benefit of these investments will not always be
immediately apparent. Conceptually we have paid for these investments out of the original fund
balance that we received at our inception. In addition to these investments we have moved to
be a more transparent and self sufficient organization by assuming all of our payroll and now
moving to office facilities outside of the Visitor Center, both of these areas have been supported
by the Town of Estes Park. We have also continued to set aside $500,000 as a fixed
Emergency Reserve which if not used will again roll into the ending fund balance.
In evaluating our efforts it has become increasingly apparent that in order for us to continue the
work at hand we must grow our revenue source, that being accommodations tax income. This
priority may ultimately be at odds with our original proposition of carrying forward many of the
programs that do not directly enhance accommodations revenue.
In 2011 the Town of Estes Park invested in the marketing of Estes Park through efforts of the
marketing district and we are currently discussing a similar investment in 2012 hence the
income item noted as Town of Estes Park Investment has been left "to be determined". Without
a clear indication of this investment from the town we felt it wise not to commit to specific details
in this budget presentation as were provided in previous operating plans.
Tabor Reserve is noted as a restriction on our spending capacity.
Estes Park Local Marketing District - 2012 Operating Plan
Page 13
2012 Budget - Annual Operating► Plan (September 30, 2011)
Budget Projected Budget
2011 2011 2012
Revenues
Intergovernmental (Visitor Guide) $197,000 $0 $0
2% Tax 1,272,050 1,272,050 1,291,131
Stakeholder Services 250,000 252,000 210,000
Town of Estes Park Marketing Investment 128,985 128,985 ??
Other 0 0 0
Investment 0 0 0
Total Revenues
Expenses
Personnel Services
Operations & Maintenance
Total Current Expenses
Total Expenses
Excess (deficiency) of revenues over
expenditures
Other financing sources (transfers in)
Other financing uses (transfers out)
Increase (decrease) in fund balance
Beginning Fund balance
Ending Fund balance
$1,848,035 $1,653,035 $1,501,131
$502,321 $502,321 $527,437
502,321 502,321 527,437
1,719,414 1,521, 792 1,295,058
2,221,735 2,024,113 1,822,495
$2,221,735 $2,024,113 $1,822,495
($373,700) ($371,078) ($321,364)
0
0 0
(373,700) (371,078) (321,364)
1,192,442 1,192,442 821,364
$818,742 $821,364 $500,000
RESTRICTIONS
TABOR Reserve: 3% of expenditures $66,652 $60,723 $54,675
Future - To be
determined
Memo
To:
Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Halburnt
TOWN or ESTES PARIc
Administration
From: Kate Rusch, Public Information Officer
Date: October 11, 2011
RE: Citizen Survey Results Summary
Background:
This summer, the Town of Estes Park conducted a citizen survey using the National
Citizen Survey (NCS) model. The NCS provides a statistically valid survey of resident
opinions about the community and the services provided by local government. Use of
the NCS provides the Town with a customized, yet uniform, survey tool used by more
than 500 local jurisdictions across the country. This allows benchmarking with future
Town survey results, as well as benchmarking with other communities to assess local
satisfaction with the community and with government services. Specific uses of the
results include monitoring trends in resident opinions, measuring government
performance, and informing decisions on budget, land use and strategic planning.
Survey results are posted on the News Desk at www.estes.orq.
Methods and Response:
The Estes Park Citizen Survey was administered by mail to a random sample of 1,200
households within Town limits beginning in late June of 2011. Of 1,067 valid addresses,
576 households responded with completed surveys, a response rate of 54%. Response
rates in other communities typically range from 25% to 40%. Responses were weighted to
reflect the demographic composition of the community.
In August, the survey was posted to the Town's website and promoted to the general
population for voluntary participation. The online survey was completed by 110 people.
These non -scientific results were provided separately from the scientific results.
Scientific Highlights:
• 91 % said Estes Park is a good or excellent place to live.
Page 1
• The majority rate Town employees as good or excellent in knowledge (89%),
responsiveness (81 %), courtesy (91 %) and overall impression (83%).
• 60% said that the town government does a good or excellent job at welcoming
citizen involvement.
• 48% said the overall direction that Estes Park is taking is good or excellent.
• 76% said the overall quality of Town services was good or excellent.
• Benchmark comparisons were available for most Town services ratings; of the 21
services for which comparisons were available, 14 were above the benchmark
comparison, five were similar to the benchmark comparison and two were below.
• Among the very highest individually rated services were:
o Drinking water (much above national benchmark)
o Town parks (much above national benchmark)
o Estes Park Visitor Center (national benchmark not available)
o Estes Park Senior Center (national benchmark not available)
o Power (electric and/or gas) utility (much above national benchmark)
o Estes Park Museum (national benchmark not available)
o Snow removal (much above national benchmark)
o Police services and crime prevention (much above national benchmark)
o Fairgrounds/Special Events (national benchmark not available)
• Services ranked lower include:
o Economic development (much below national benchmark)
o Land use, planning and zoning (below national benchmark)
o Building permits (national benchmark not available)
o Code enforcement (similar to national benchmark)
o Street repair (similar to national benchmark)
o Bus or transit services (similar to national benchmark)
• Other services fall somewhere in between.
Page 2
• Services most likely to influence overall ratings on the quality of Town services were
identified in a "Key Driver Analysis." By targeting improvements in key services, the
Town of Estes Park can focus on the services that have the greatest likelihood of
influencing residents' opinions about overall service quality.
o Police services (much above national benchmark)
o Power utility (much above national benchmark)
o Public information (similar to national benchmark)
o Economic development (much below national benchmark)
• Custom question results are reported on pages 56 and 57 of the scientific report.
They address:
o Importance of projects and issues faced by the Town, as well as
willingness to pay additional taxes and/or fees to address the projects and
issues.
• The projects/issues ranking highest as essential or very important
included maintaining/improving streets, preservation of open space,
new affordable housing options and initiatives for economic
development.
o Support or opposition for reduction in specific services should the Town
experience a budget shortfall.
■ Although there was not strong support for reduction in any specific
services, the top two services were the Conference Center and
Municipal/development code enforcement.
Budget:
N/A
Staff Recommendation:
N/A
Sample Motion:
N/A
Page 3
501 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, Colorado. 8�-05-17-7 = 77:-=--_—
October 7, 2010
Honorable Mayor William Pinkham
and the Estes Park Board of Trustees
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Dear Mayor Pinkham and Estes Park Trustees,
The "Professional Background" information for Curt Gleaves in the Estes Park's Elkhorn
Regional Tourism Project (Tab 12B, Page 2) states, "He was a Partner and Chief
Financial Officer, Foster Pepper LLP, a law firm in Portland, Oregon where his practice
for 27 years concentrated on corporate finance transactions. His clients included the
Portland Trail Blazers in connection with their construction of the Rose Garden Arena as
part of a public -private partnership with the City of Portland and the Metropolitan
Exposition and. Recreation Commission."
Because the Rose Garden Arena construction was part of a public -private partnership and
the Town of Estes Park has submitted the Elkhorn Regional Tourism Project application
to the State, I looked on the web for details of the Rose Garden project. I was surprised
to see that the Rose Garden Arena project went bankrupt. It was taken over and run by
the creditors for two years, and then purchased again by Paul Allen, owner of the
Trailblazers. "The bankruptcy fling was widely criticized in the local media and.
elsewhere." "Helen Jung, a reporter for The Oregonian described the affair as a game of
"chicken" and as "bankruptcy as a business strategy, and noted Allen may have worsened
his position by taking the arena into bankruptcy rather than offering a higher settlement."
Other comments were unkind. You can check this information out
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose Garden arena bankruptcy). My computer has taken
out the underscore bars where spaces are shown in this website, so you may need to
Google the Rose Garden Arena bankruptcy to find this information. Since Curt Gleaves
was a Partner and Chief Financial Officer of Foster Pepper LLP during this time, I have
serious concerns about his being the Secretary, Treasurer and. Director of the Elkhorn
Project, Inc. Foster Pepper PLLP and Foster Pepper LLP terminated their affiliation. It
is my understanding that Curt Gleaves is a consultant now for Roberts Kaplan, formerly
Foster Pepper LLP, which is located in Portland, Oregon.
Curt Gleaves is currently President and owner of Chapin Financial Management, LLC; a
financial consulting firm in Estes Park. His business website gives 453 E. Wonderview
Avenue, PMB 352, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 as his address. This street address is that
of the United Postal Service in upper Stanley Village. It is my understanding that Mr.
Gleaves works out of his home. Certified mail cannot be delivered to a postal mail box.
His website gives an overview of his business, but other information categories have been
Letter to Mayor Pinkham and E.P. Board of Trustees — October 7, 2011 P. 2 of 2
under construction for a very long time (i.e., Our Clients, Services, The Team, and
Home).
I do not know if there is cause for concern. After reading Estes Park's Elkhorn Regional
Tourism Project application for RTA State of Colorado Funding; the Attachment to the
Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation, Elkhorn Project, Inc., A Colorado Non -
Profit Corporation dated February 15, 2011; and the Memorandum of Understanding
between the Town of Estes Park and Elkhorn Project, Inc.; I am more than just
uncomfortable about the situation. I do not know whose responsibility it was to check
out the details regarding the Elkhorn Project, but 1 hope you are already aware of my
findings and can address my concerns. I believe it is essential for citizens to trust their
elected officials to do what is ethical and right for their community.
Respectfully yours,
Johanna Darden
Full -Time Resident of Estes Park
October 7, 2011
To: Estes Park Board of Trustee Members:
Eric Blackhurst, Mark Elrod, John Ericson, and Jerry Miller
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
From: Johanna Darden
501 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
In Re: Lease of Water Rights to the Elkhorn Project, Inc.
Mayor William Pinkham's letter dated June 28, 2011 to the Office of Economic
Development and International Trade in regard to Estes Park's Elkhorn Regional
Tourism. Project states on page two, "The Town of Estes Park has agreed to supply water
to the Elkhorn Project for snow -making at market price, ..." Was the authority to make
this agreement approved by the Board after open discussion with the public at a regular
meeting of the Estes Park Board of Trustees? On page 2 of the Memorandum. of
Understanding, Number 5, it indicates, "EPI agrees to enter into a water rights lease with
the Town on the terms set forth in Exhibit B of this MOU. ..." My understanding of
this item is that if the Estes Park Board of Trustees approves this lease of Town water
rights, the Board of EPI agrees as stated in the MOU to enter into the water rights lease.
Does Mayor Pinkham's letter allow the lease of our water rights to EPI?
Please enter this into the public record.
Xc: Gregory White, Attorney for the Town of Estes Park
1-1
501 MacGregor Ave.
Estes Park, CO
October 7, 2011
Honorable Mayor William Pinkham
The Estes Park Board of Trustees
Estes Park, CO
Dear Mayor and Trustees:
I can well understand your tabling the matter of the repair of the MacGregor Avenue
pavement, but I fail to understand why you think it is adequate to have the town staff
report on the responsibility for the fiasco. If there is any validity to the statements in the
memo of September 13, 2011 from Cornerstone Construction (addressed to you), then
you are asking the town staff to investigate themselves. You cannot expect an unbiased,
honest report.
There should be a hearing with an independent investigator. If the hearing is not to be
public, then there should be a public report containing at the very least answers to the
following questions.
Was the town staff the construction manager for the project, as Cornerstone claims?
If so, who were the town staff members responsible for that management?
What directions were given to the construction crews regarding deviations from the
recommendations from Terracon for subgrade construction?
Who gave those directions?
Who managed the testing of compaction and concrete?
If there were departures from contract provisions, who made the decisions to depart from
the contracts?
Respectfully,
Bill J. Darden
Please note that 11 corrected this letter date from October 7, 2010 to October 7, 2011
501 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
October 7, 2011 ;-;
Honorable Mayor William Pinkham
and the Estes Park Board of Trustees
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Dear Mayor Pinkham and Estes Park Trustees,
The "Professional Background" information for Curt Gleaves in the Estes Park's Elkhorn
Regional Tourism Project (Tab 12B, Page 2) states, "He was a Partner and Chief
Financial Officer, Foster Pepper LLP, a law firm in Portland, Oregon where his practice
for 27 years concentrated on corporate finance transactions. His clients included the
Portland Trail Blazers in connection with their construction of the Rose Garden Arena as
part of a public -private partnership with the City of Portland and the Metropolitan
Exposition and Recreation Commission."
Because the Rose Garden Arena construction was part of a public -private partnership and
the Town of Estes Park has submitted the Elkhorn Regional Tourism Project application
to the State, I looked on the web for details of the Rose Garden project. I was surprised
to see that the Rose Garden Arena project went bankrupt. It was taken over and run by
the creditors for two years, and then purchased again by Paul Allen, owner of the
Trailblazers. "The bankruptcy filing was widely criticized in the local media and
elsewhere." "Helen Jung, a reporter for The Oregonian described the affair as a game of
"chicken" and as "bankruptcy as a business strategy, and noted Allen may have worsened
his position by taking the arena into bankruptcy rather than offering a higher settlement."
Other comments were unkind. You can check this information out
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose Garden arena bankruptcy). My computer has taken
out the underscore bars where spaces are shown in this website, so you may need to
Google the Rose Garden Arena bankruptcy to find this information. Since Curt Gleaves
was a Partner and Chief Financial Officer of Foster Pepper LLP during this time, I have
serious concerns about his being the Secretary, Treasurer and Director of the Elkhorn
Project, Inc. Foster Pepper PLLP and Foster Pepper LLP terminated their affiliation. It
is my understanding that Curt Gleaves is a consultant now for Roberts Kaplan, formerly
Foster Pepper LLP, which is located in Portland, Oregon.
Curt Gleaves is currently President and owner of Chapin Financial Management, LLC; a
financial consulting firm in Estes Park. His business website gives 453 E. Wonderview
Avenue, PMB 352, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 as his address. This street address is that
of the United Postal Service in upper Stanley Village. It is my understanding that Mr.
u
Letter to Mayor Pinkham and E.P. Board of Trustees — October 7, 2011 P. 2 of 2
Gleaves works out of his home. Certified mail cannot be delivered to a postal mail box.
His website gives an overview of his business, but other information categories have been
under construction for a very long time (i.e., Our Clients, Services, The Team, and
Home).
I do not know if there is cause for concern. After reading Estes Park's Elkhorn Regional
Tourism Project application for RTA State of Colorado Funding; the Attachment to the
Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation, Elkhorn Project, Inc., A Colorado Non -
Profit Corporation dated February 15, 2011; and the Memorandum of Understanding
between the Town of -Estes Park and Elkhorn Project, Inc.; I am more than just
uncomfortable about the situation. I do not know whose responsibility it was to check
out the details regarding the Elkhorn Project, but I hope you are already aware of my
findings and can address my concerns. I believe it is essential for citizens to trust their
elected officials to do what is ethical and right for their community.
Respectfully yours,
f
L ei,}1_,Tx....e.,,__.,
ohanna Darden
Full -Time Resident of Estes Park
Please note that 1 corrected this letter date from October 7, 2010 to October 7, 2011
501 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
October 7, 2011
Honorable Mayor William Pinkham
and the Estes Park Board ofTrustees
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Dear Mayor Pinlcham and Estes Park Trustees,
The "Professional Background" information for Curt Gleaves in the Estes Park's Elkhorn
Regional Tourism Project (Tab 12B, Page 2) states, "He was a Partner and Chief
Financial Officer, Foster Pepper LLP, a law fiuin in Portland, Oregon where his practice
for 27 years concentrated on corporate finance transactions. His clients included the
Portland Trail Blazers in connection with their construction of the Rose Garden Arena as
part of a public -private partnership with the City of Portland and the Metropolitan
Exposition and Recreation Commission."
Because the Rose Garden Arena construction was part of a public -private partnership and.
the Town of Estes Park has submitted the Elkhorn Regional Tourism Project application
to the State, 1 looked on the web for details of the Rose Garden project. I was surprised
to see that the Rose Garden Arena project went bankrupt. It was taken over and run by
the creditors for two years, and then purchased again by Paul Allen, owner of the
Trailblazers. "The bankruptcy filing was widely criticized in the local media and
elsewhere." "Helen Jung, a reporter for The Oregonian described the affair as a game of
"chicken" and as "bankruptcy as a business strategy, and noted Allen may have worsened
his position by taking the arena into bankruptcy rather than offering a higher settlement."
Other comments were unkind. You can check this information out
(http://en.wikipedi.a.org/wiki/Rose Garden arena bankruptcy). My computer has taken
out the underscore bars where spaces are shown in this website, so you may need to
Google the Rose Garden Arena bankruptcy to find this information. Since Curt Gleaves
was a Partner and Chief Financial Officer of Foster Pepper LLP during this time, I have
serious concerns about his being the Secretary, Treasurer and Director of the Elkhorn
Project, Inc. Foster Pepper PLLP and Foster Pepper LLP terminated their affiliation. It
is my understanding that Curt Gleaves is a consultant now for Roberts Kaplan, formerly
Foster Pepper LLP, which is located in Portland, Oregon.
Curt Gleaves is currently President and owner of Chapin Financial. Management, LLC; a
financial consulting firm in Estes Park. His business website gives 453 E. Wonderview
Avenue, PMB 352, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 as his address. This street address is that
of the United Postal Service in upper Stanley Village. It is my understanding that Mr.
Letter to Mayor Pinkham and E.P. Board of Trustees — October 7, 2011 P. 2 of 2
Gleaves works out of his home. Certified mail cannot be delivered to a postal mail box.
His website gives an overview of his business, but other information categories have been
under construction for a very long time (i.e., Our Clients, Services, The Team, and
Home).
I do not know if there is cause for concern. After reading Estes Park's Elkhorn Regional
Tourism Project application for RTA State of Colorado Funding; the Attachment to the
Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation, Elkhorn Project, Inc., A Colorado Non -
Profit Corporation dated February 15, 2011; and the Memorandum of Understanding
between the Town of Estes Park and Elkhorn Project, Inc.; I am more than just
uncomfortable about the situation. I do not know whose responsibility it was to check
out the details regarding the Elkhorn Project, but I hope you are already aware of my
findings and can address my concerns. I believe it is essential for citizens to trust their
elected officials to do what is ethical and right for their community.
Respectfully yours,
ohanna Darden
Full -Time Resident of Estes Park
Public Comments:
Charley Dickey
265 Steamer Court
Estes Park, CO 80517
Representing Estes Park Business Association
Mayor, Trustees and Staff,
Thank you for hosting the Economic Initiative meeting last Thursday. It was a privilege to be invited to
represent Estes Park Business Association. Our hope is that much more private businesses see the value
in your efforts to drive economic development for our valley. It appeared to me that the
representation at this initial meeting was primarily from districts that reap the rewards of a thriving
economy. Although those in attendance are typically the shakers and doers, we must embrace the ones
that risk everything to maintain and grow businesses in this "sleepy little town" of Estes Park. The
private business community must be part of this effort to enhance our community economic
development.
The comment was made at the Mayors Chat last week that questioned free speech during Board
meetings. My comment does not have to do with the specific event but more importantly it has to do
with future content of statements made by citizens as it relates to Trustee, Mayor and staff criticism.
Where is the line between actual criticizm and unacceptable statements of humiliation? Would my
criticism of your handling of the event last Board meeting be an attempt to humiliate the Board??
Thank You
Action Items:
Town Administrators Contract
Charley Dickey
265 Steamer Court
Estes Park, CO 80517
Mayor and Trustees,
We appreciate the due diligence you have all performed in this most important decision before
you. As our elected officials, we rely on your judgment to make good policy decisions and
assure the direction given by the Board is adhere to. The one thing that we don't want you all to
do is make those decisions in a vacuum. Public input will always need to be another source of
information and an expression of the community wishes, those should be heard. Ultimately, the
decisions are the Boards and we respect that fact.
Thank You