Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PACKET Town Board 2011-05-10
Prepared 5/1/11 " Revised 5/5/11 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, May 10, 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 April 26, 2011 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated April 26, 2011. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development/Community Services Committee, April 28, 2011. 1. Building Safety Fee Schedule. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes dated April 5, 2011 (acknowledgement only). 2. REPORTS. 1. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK UPDATE. Superintendent Baker. 2. REVIEW OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN PARK INN AGREEMENTS. Director Kilsdonk. 3. 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY. Public Information Officer Rusch. * 4. CAPITAL PROJECT UPDATE. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson. 3. LIQUOR ITEMS. 1. NEW APPLICATION FILED BY CAFE DE PHO THAI INC. dba CAFE DE PHO THAI, 225 W. RIVERSIDE DRIVE. Town Clerk Williamson. 4. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ORDINANCE #12-11 WHOLESALE POWER COST ADJUSTMENT. Director Bergsten. 2. ORDINANCE #13-11 AMENDING SECTION 9.08.080 HARASSMENT. Commander Rose. 3. TOWN BOARD MEETING PROCEDURES — REVISE MEETING TIMEFRAME. Town Administrator Halburnt. 4. EXTENSION OF ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY LOAN. EPHA Director Kurelja. 5. CHANGE ORDER TO TRANSPORTATION HUB CONTRACT (MANFORD AVENUE) Deputy Town Administrator Richardson. 6. TREE BOARD APPOINTMENT. Director Zurn. * 7. 2011 TRANSPORTATION SHUTTLE ROUTES. Town Administrator Halburnt. 8. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: 24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. — For discussion of a personnel matter; not involving any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees. 9. 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, April 26, 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 26th day of April, 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 Greg White, Town Attorney Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PROCLAMATION: ARBOR DAY / MAY — MONTH OF THE TREE. Mayor Pinkham. proclaimed May 6th Arbor Day in Estes Park and May as the month of the tree. PUBLIC COMMENT. Charley Dickey/Town citizen stated the business community would like to have a unified voice, unified vision, two-way communication with the Town and other groups; influence public policy, economic support and input, mentoring, networking, new business assistance, group buying, Internet technology assistance, and more events and festivals. He commented the most important issue would be communication and would contact PIO Rusch to discuss further. He thanked staff for meeting to discuss the shuttle schedule. He voiced concern with staff addressing questions posed to the Board because it can come across as Town staff setting policy. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS. Mayor ProTem Levine thanked the citizens for the large number of Pride Award applications received. He stated the results would be announced at the upcoming volunteer luncheon. Trustee Blackhurst stated the Police Department would conduct a drug take back this weekend through a nationwide program. He addressed an editorial in the paper which stated a long waiting list exists for employee housing; the rental rates are below market rate; and rental payments are a credit toward a down payment assistance program. He stated the rental homes are allocated on a first -come basis and the rental fees are not placed in a down payment account. Trustee Elrod reviewed the items discussed at the recent Planning Commission including PUDs, School Enrollment Information, Town -Owned Properties, Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), Accessory Dwelling Units and recommended approval of two amended plats. Trustee Ericson stated the auditors completed their data collection and would complete the audit within the next four to six weeks. SOPA continues to move forward with Board of Trustees — April 26, 2011 — Page 2 improvements to the website, filling committee positions and focusing on their annual fundraising campaign. Trustee Koenig passed along thanks to the community from the Sister Cities for the books donated for the Costa Rican schools. The Rodeo Committee will begin its 85th season with the antique show on Memorial weekend. New events at the fairgrounds would include a cat show in barn W, Westerners return to Estes Park and a concert by Michael Murphy. Trustee Miller stated the LMD has received less requests for the visitor guides year-to- date, however, email requests are at last year's levels. The branding process continues to move forward with a consultant to be chosen soon. Mayor Pinkham announced his appointment on the Embrace Northern Colorado leadership team that would begin a five step process reviewing long range sustainability for Larimer and Weld counties. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Town Administrator Halburnt provided an update on the Governor's economic development initiative. Lew Gaiter, Don Sandavol, Don Toronto and Don Churchwell were appointed as Larimer County representatives to assimilate the survey and public comments received into five goals including: to increase jobs and personal income levels; sustain a globally competitive workforce; to establish and maintain a globally competitive, predictable tax and regulatory climate; build and maintain economic infrastructure; and build and maintain infrastructure that build and sustain the quality of life for those living in the county. The next step would be for Larimer and Weld counties to meet and develop a regional plan based on both sets of goals. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated April 12, 2011. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works, April 14, 2011. 1. 2011 International 7500 4X4 Dump Truck/Snowplow, $185,548 — Budgeted. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated March 15, 2011 (acknowledgement only). 5. Resolution #05-11 — Schedule public hearing date of May 10, 2011 for a New Tavern Liquor License Application filed by Cafe de Pho-Thai Inc. dba Cafe de Pho-Thai, 225 W. Riverside Drive. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Blackhurst) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. REGIONAL TOURISM APPLICATION (ELKHORN PROJECT) ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE. Kimberly Campbell/Elkhorn Project Inc. (EPI) Director stated RTA extended the application deadline to June 30th. A presentation was provided to the Larimer County Commissioners and a letter of support from the county would be forthcoming. She reviewed the preliminary economic impact assessment for the Elkhorn project as prepared by Doug Kennedy Advisors. She stated the Board of Trustees - April 26, 2011 - Page 3 consultant broke the project into two phases, the construction and ongoing operational. It is projected the projects development cost would be $31.5 million. The project would generate 398 construction jobs and $57.3 million in private sector economic activity. The project development would generate approximately $923,000 in sales tax for the town, county and state. The preliminary operating projections estimate 125 onsite jobs and a total of 194 for the project area. $22.2 million would be generated in annual private sector activity and approximately $634,000 in taxes. She stated the numbers are preliminary and some assumptions would need to be reviewed prior to completing a full economic impact analysis, including a review of the seasonality of the community. The group requested a study session or special meeting to continue discussions with the Board regarding the Town's contribution to the project. Trustee comments and questions are summarized: the purposed RTA project should attract new visitors and the preliminary economic impact assessment for the project indicates it would not be the primary destination but rather a secondary destination; questioned where the preliminary projections came from and why the cost, number of jobs and sales tax projections have change significantly from the initial numbers presented to the Board; the Board expressed concern with the preliminary numbers; and the sales tax numbers could change significantly depending on where construction materials are purchased and where the contractors and subcontractors come from. Ms. Campbell stated the numbers presented in the preliminary assessment would be refined as Elkhorn Project Inc. reviews the assumptions used by the consultant. It is projected a final report would be available within the next couple of weeks, with a final report available by the end of May or first meeting in June for the Board's review. The Board discussed the request for a study session meeting and concluded a public meeting would be appropriate with a roundtable format in the Board Room to receive public comment. 3. LIQUOR ITEMS. 1. RENEWAL APPLICATION FILED BY DEER RIDGE, INC. dba OTHERSIDE RESTAURANT, 900 MORAINE AVENUE. Town Clerk Williamson stated the licensee failed a state compliance check in January 2011; therefore, the Board requested the renewal application be reviewed rather than administratively approved. The licensee completed T.I.P.S. training on April 2, 2011. Mr. Webermeier was present and stated this was the first time in 33 years his business has failed a compliance check. He also confirmed that many of his staff are T.I.P.S. trained; however, his seasonal staff would double or triple within the next 6 weeks. He confirmed his commitment to training his seasonal staff and having them understand the reasonable requirements. Mayor ProTem Levine stated the licensee is the first line of defense. Johanna Darden/Town citizen commented that everyone employed at a liquor license establishment should be T.I.P.S. trained. It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Miller) to approve the liquor license renewal for Deer Ridge Inc. dba the Otherside Restaurant, and it passed unanimously. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. Mayor Pinkham opened the Public Hearing for all Consent Agenda Items. Board of Trustees — April 26, 2011 — Page 4 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. Streamside Condominiums on Fall River, Supplemental Condominium Map #1, Lot 1, Streamside Amended Plat of Lot 2, Deer Crest Subdivision, and Tract 59A, Fall River Addition, Van Horn Engineering & Surveying/Applicant. As there were no comments, the Mayor closed the public hearing and it was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) the Consent Agenda be approved with staff conditions of approval, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS. A. VESTING PERIOD AND DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION Development Plan 07-13, Lot 22, South Saint Vrain Addition, Wapiti Crossing, Lexington Lane, LLC/Applicant. Planner Shirk reviewed the request by the applicant to extend the development plan approval and vesting period for two -years through May 2013. A brief history of the property was presented including the original approval of the plan in May 2008 for 42 dwelling units on a 6 acre parcel zoned "RM" Residential Multi -Family and the inclusion of a wildlife plan. No development has begun on the property because of the economic climate and the difficulty in acquiring bank funding for development projects; therefore, the applicant has requested the extension. In July 2010, Ordinance #17-10 was approved causing development plans to expire at the end of the applicable vesting period; however, a one-year extension could be granted by the Community Development Director if no changes have occurred to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) affecting the approval of the plan or conditions of approval. No substantial changes have occurred to the EVDC with exception of a change to the wildlife language removing the DOW review of development plans and the need for a wildlife protection plan for elk habitat. If the extension was denied, the applicant could resubmit the same plan, or a new plan with higher density could be applied for and reviewed by the Planning Commission and a wildlife plan would not be required. Mr. Loftus clarified the intent for requesting a two-year extension would accommodate the development phases required to meet the wildlife plan prepared for the original development approval that limits construction in May and June. Ron Norris/Town citizen read a prepared letter from Fred Mares/Town citizen requested the Board deny the applicant's request to extend the vesting period. Johanna Darden/Town citizen also requested the extension of the vesting period be denied, citing the plan has significant problems. George Hockman/Town citizen stated the applicant has had a reasonable timeframe for which development could have begun and would not support extension of the vesting period. Charley Dickey/Town citizen stated the extension of the plan and vesting should be approved if the same plan could and would be approved by the Planning Commission. Board comments included staff and the Planning Commission should review the enforcement of the wildlife code; the property was on the Board of Trustees — April 26, 2011 — Page 5 market after development plan approval and there was no effort by the community, the Land Trust, or the neighbors to purchase the property and place it in a conservation easement; the current approved plan is more restrictive than the current code requires, therefore, provides more protection; the vesting process should be reviewed; and the applicant has the right to develop the property based on the zoning of the property and has addressed the wildlife concerns of the neighborhood. Trustee Elrod commented the intent of the Board, with the approval of Ordinance #17-10, was to allow the extension of a development plan through issuance of a building permit, extending the development by 18 months, or with the approval of a one-year extension by the Community Development Director if no code changes have occurred since the approval of the plan. He stated he could not support the applicant's request. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Koenig) to approve the extension of the development plan approval and vesting period for Development Plan 07-13 through May 20, 2013 and it passed with Trustee Elrod voting "No". B. ORDINANCE #11-11 - Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, Amend Section 5.2 — Accessory Uses and Accessory Structures and Chapter 13 — Definitions to allow solar energy collectors. Mayor Pinkham opened the public hearing. Planner Shirk reviewed the code change allowing solar panels as an accessory use in all zoning districts. The proposed amendments address the allowed square footage of the units and the definition of a solar collector. Attorney White read the ordinance. As there were no public comment the Mayor closed the hearing, it was moved and seconded (Koenig/Blackhurst) to approve Ordinance #11-11, and it passed unanimously. REPORT ITEMS. A. Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code — Amend sections of the EVDC to allow townhome subdivisions in additional zoning districts and to redefine "townhome." Planner Shirk reviewed the proposed amendments to allow townhome subdivisions in additional zoning districts and redefine townhome in the code. Currently townhome subdivisions are only allowed in "RM" Residential Multi -Family and "A" and "A-1" Accommodation zoning districts and are required to have 3-8 attached units as a condominium ownership form, i.e. general common element owned by all unit owners. The amendments would allow free-standing and two -unit townhome subdivisions, and would allow townhomes in the "R-1" and "R-2" zoning districts. The amendment would clarify ownership, not the form of development; therefore, would not affect allowed density, required landscaping, road or stormwater standards, or wildlife habitat protection standards. Any new townhome development would be required to submit a development plan, comply with minimum lot size, form a homeowners association, comply with lot coverage standards, and individual lots could not exceed 80% coverage with zero lot lines. The proposed amendments were recommended by the Estes Valley Planning Commission on March 15, 2011. A public hearing would be conducted at the May 24, 2011 Town Board meeting. Board of Trustees - April 26, 2011 - Page 6 Trustee Miller suggested staff review the proposed code language to ensure the definition of an outlot is consistent and to remove any duplication within the code. 5. ACTION ITEMS: 1. RESOLUTION #06-11 OPPOSING THE REMOVAL OF ESTES PARK FROM LARIMER COUNTY THROUGH REDISTRICTING. Mayor Pinkham stated there are a couple of redistricting proposals that would remove Estes Park from Larimer County, add it to Boulder County or Grand County. The Larimer County Commissioners have submitted their concerns with the removal of Estes Park. The proposed Resolution would oppose the removal of Estes Park from Larimer County through redistricting. John Nicholas/Town citizen urged the Board to make phone calls to ensure the Town is not removed from Larimer County. It was moved and seconded (Ericson/Blackhurst) to approve Resolution #06-11, and it passed unanimously. 2. FRIENDS OF STANLEY HALL (FOSH) AGREEMENT. Attorney White provided a history of the FOSH agreement, including the Town and FOSH entered into an Agreement dated May 14, 2002, which provided that FOSH transfer to the Town the sum of $475,434.34, funds raised to renovate Stanley Hall as a performing arts theater. The Town agreed to accept those funds from FOSH and maintain those funds in a segregated account. The Town had four years from the date of the Agreement to determine whether or not a performing art theater was feasible with the decision being within the sole discretion of the Town. In 2006, FOSH and the Town amended the Agreement extending the decision dates in the original Agreement for an additional five years. A non-profit corporation, Supporters of Performing Arts, Inc. (SOPA), was formed at that time to specifically raise funds for and operate a performing arts facility at Stanley Park. The Town and SOPA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated January 28, 2008 outlining the responsibilities and understandings between the parties regarding the location, construction, operation of the proposed theater. As part of that MOU, the Town agreed to use the then current balance of the FOSH funds for construction of the theater. The Town cannot negotiate a further amendment to the FOSH Agreement because FOSH has been dissolved; therefore, the Board has the following options: 1) Make a determination that the Stanley Park Performing Arts Facility as designed by SOPA is feasible; and based upon that determination, the Town shall have an additional three years to participate with SOPA in the design and substantial completion of said facility and use the FOSH funds for said facility; 2) Extend the time periods in the Amended FOSH Agreement to allow for additional time in which to make the determination of feasibility and extend all other deadline in the agreement; or 3) Determine the theater is not feasible. At 10:00 p.m. it was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) to extend the meeting to no later than 11:00 p.m., and it passed unanimously. Johanna Darden/Town citizen stated her opposition to the potential relocation of the performing art theater to the Elkhorn Lodge property because of the increased traffic through downtown. Bob Gunn/SOPA President stated the project continues to be feasible, and the more support the Town can provide the easier fundraising would be as SOPA moves forward with raising $7 million by the end of December 2011. He commented extension of the other dates in the agreement would be beneficial. Jim Tawney/Town citizen would support the relocation of the theater to the west end of town in an effort to draw more people through downtown. Board of Trustees — April 26, 2011 — Page 7 It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Levine) to extend the FOSH Agreement to the end of December 2011 and extend additional timeframes by the same number of months to determine the feasibility of a performing art theater. No vote was taken due to the passage of the substitute motion. Trustee Blackhurst stated the Town needs to move forward with upgrades to Town owned facilities and would not support extending the agreement any later than the end of December 2011. A substitute motion was proposed, it was moved and seconded (Miller/Koenig) to extend the FOSH agreement to determine feasibility of the project to May 9, 2012 and extend all other dates in the agreement by an additional year, and it passed with Mayor ProTem Levine and Trustee Blackhurst voting "No". 3. SHUTTLE CONTRACT AND 2011 SCHEDULE. Director Kilsdonk stated in 2009 the Town signed a contract with McDonald Transit Associates, Inc. to provide shuttle service for one year, with the option of renewing for two additional years. The contract remains the same as last year with the exception of adding Title VI Program compliance language as required by law for Federal Transit Administration recipients. Changes to the 2011 contract include an increase of $1.90 to the hourly rate with the new hourly rate at $65.22/hour, for the first 1650 hours and additional hours remaining at $43.33/hour. A fourth shuttle, silver route, would run an express route between the new Fairgrounds Park-n-Ride and the Visitor Center. Additional costs for the shuttle service include lease fees, vehicle pickup and return, additional hours, additional fuel costs, mileage overages, lettering, maps, supplies, and signage for a total expense of $204,772 as budgeted for 2011. Town staff continue to work with several entities (Park R-3 School district, Rotary, EALA, McDonald Transit) to maximize town resources and shuttle effectiveness, including the use of school parking lots for overflow parking during peak volumes, funding for a pilot "History on Call" interpretive program a select shuttle sites downtown; continuation of the "Ride the Bus" campaign; and the commitment of the service provider to provide high quality service by stationing a relief driver/information supervisor at the Visitor Center during the weekends. The 2011 shuttle schedule dates of operation would remain the same as in 2010: June 25 - August 28, and September 3-5 and begin at 10:00 a.m. daily for all routes. In 2010, the Town combined the service of the red and blue shopper shuttle routes starting at 7:00 p.m. into one route which returned to the Visitor Center at 9:00 p.m. Last year the combined evening service totaled 1367 passengers or 4.5% of the 2010 total ridership. The service would continue in 2011. The brown (camper) route would run hourly and finish at 8:00 pm. The silver (Park-n-Ride) route would run every fifteen minutes ending at 9:00 p.m. In addition to the regular service, staff anticipates running the silver express shuttle on during the Catch the Glow parade day. Board comments are summarized: can ridership numbers be compared to traffic counts; would encourage contacting all accommodation owners to publicize the shuttles; questioned why Exhibit B was not clearly outlined in the contract and requested the contract be amended to add the exhibit; and stated concern that EALA's requested changes have not been addressed and questioned what the impact of the requests would be per request. Town Administrator Halburnt stated the ridership numbers have not been compared to traffic counts. From the beginning of the shuttle system the buses Board of Trustees — April 26, 2011 — Page 8 have only run during the weekends in early September and due to low ridership numbers the Town continues to cut back service both days and times. Director Kilsdonk stated EALA's requests for an additional hour in the evening for the shopper shuttle would cost $3,000 and the addition of eleven days of service from August 29 — September 11 would cost $23,500 with blue and red route and $24,000 with the addition of the brown route. All costs are based on the contracted rate as outlined in the proposed contract. Lynette Lott read a prepared letter from the EALA group that outlined the requests for the 2011 season. Elizabeth Fogarty/EALA member commented the guest feedback states they would support a late night shuttle and the current shuttle schedule does not run late enough to stay downtown for dinner. She also stated many mountain communities have late night shuttles to encourage visitors to stay downtown and spend money at local establishments. Those speaking in favor of the shuttle system extended hours included Sandy Osterman/Town citizen and Ambassador, Charley Dickey/Town citizen, Lindsay Lamson/Accommodation owner, Kimberly Campbell/Accommodation owner. Comments include the visitors would like to see the shuttles run earlier and end later; additional communication with business related to the system should be conducted; could be run more efficiently; questioned if the Town is receiving the best rate; evening riders are those that are staying in Estes and spending money in the community; additional ridership would not occur with the current schedule; the Town needs to continue to experiment and tweak the program; and there is an increase in the number of visitors in September. Trustee Miller stated he would support EALA's proposal, stating an additional $27,000 would be a small percentage of the overall budget to make the shuttle system and the transportation hub more effective. Trustee Blackhurst asserted the Town continues to review and modify the shuttle system and has increased the funding from $165,000 to over $204,000 in five years. He recommended the EALA members raise the additional funds for the additional service. Trustee Ericson stated the schedule should be flexible and a budget amendment should be considered during the season if increased ridership demands change to the schedule. It was moved and seconded (Ericson/Blackhurst) to approve the 2011 shuttle contract with McDonald Transit with the inclusion of Exhibit B added to the contract, and it passed with Trustee Miller voting "No". It was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) to approve an additional evening hour to the red/blue route at a cost of $3,000 from fund balance, and reevaluate the extension of the shuttle system through September 11th later in the year, and it passed with Trustee Blackhurst voting "No". 4. ORDINANCE #12-11 WHOLESALE POWER COST ADJUSTMENT. Item deferred to the May 10, 2011 meeting. 5. ORDINANCE #13-11 AMENDING SECTION 9.08.080 HARASSMENT. Item deferred to the May 10, 2011 meeting. 6. ORDINANCE #14-11 AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT FOR THE GRANDSTAND CONCESSIONS. Trustee Koenig recused herself from the discussion because she is member of the Lions Club. Manager Winslow stated the Lions Club has operated the concession stand for over fifty years. In January 2011, Mayor Pinkham received a letter from the Club expressing concern the rental fee was detracting from the Club's ability to assist the local community and the utilities would be Board of Trustees — April 26, 2011 — Page 9 added to the rent for 2011, further decreasing the funds available. Staff met with representatives of the Club to address their concerns and to negotiate the terms of the lease in and effort to ensure the Town recovers costs associated with the concession stand, but not to penalize a local fundraising entity. The concession stand lease agreement would be altered to reflect a reduction from 12% gross to 10% gross sales; removal of the construction of the grandstand project from the lease; addition of Illegal Alien language required for public contracts; and the term modified to April 26, 2011 and ending December 31, 2011 with the option to renew for the 2012 season. The reduction in revenue to the Town would be approximately $2,500. Mike Oline/Lions Club President thanked the Town for the use of the stand and for continuing discussions on the rent and other issues related to the use of the facility. Attorney White read the ordinance. It was moved and seconded (Miller/Elrod) to approve Ordinance #14-11, and it passed with Trustee Koenig abstaining. 7. TOWN BOARD MEETING PROCEDURES — REVISE MEETING TIMEFRAME. Item deferred to the May 10, 2011 meeting. Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting 11:25 p.m. William C. Pinkham, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 26, 2011. Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in Rooms 201/202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 26th day of April, 2011. Board: Attending: Also Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Levine, Trustees Blackhurst, Elrod, Ericson, Koenig, and Miller Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Levine, Trustees Blackhurst, Elrod, Ericson, Koenig, and Miller Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Town Attorney White rid Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent: None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order EVALUATION TRAINING. Tami Tanoue, CIRSA legal counsel, provided training for the Board related to evaluating individuals holding town administra orlc r Manager positions. She said an evaluation provides direction on goals and prioties feed back on what is being done well and where improvement is needed, establishes a asis to measure compensation, and provides an opportunity r two way c r mt i ation between the employee and the evaluator. She said the..governi ig body h t e responsibility of establishing the results the employee is expected to achieve and articulating the boundaries beyond which the employee must not o in achieving these ruts. The boundaries may include ethical, fiscal and prudent limitations aftd o aerating within established policies. Ms. Tanoue suggested having a prod s and sche , regular evaluations, and noted that a form addressing key+ points and t portant issues''should be utilized. She said by focusing on results as key evaluation poi ats, details of personal characteristics such as work habits and personality become, secondary to the achievements and accomplishments realized. She noted that job descriptions are pertinent in task -oriented positions, but in managerial positions most expectations and desired results are unstated in the job description eShe said the 'valuation must not be conducted on individual agendas, but rather on thecollective vision of the Board, and said it is not necessary for all evaluators to reach a consensus on a rating or ranking. She encouraged continued work on the evaluation form beindfrafted by Trustee Blackhurst to develop a consistent model with timeframes and defied numerical evaluation methods which create less subjective results. The Trustees discussed a committee evaluation approach as opposed to an evaluation by the full -board; conducting periodic evaluation training to ensure new Board members receive necessary information; town administrator job description is more useful as hiring tool rather than as evaluation component; one-year vs. three-year contract length; three-year contract works well with the Town's election cycle; consider assigning weights to aspects of evaluation; and collapse goals and objectives into four to six major areas of importance. Trustee Blackhurst and Mayor Pinkham will continue working on an evaluation form, with input from the Trustees, to bring back to the Board in May. The meeting was recessed for dinner at 5:10 p.m. and resumed at 5:32 p.m. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session — April 26, 2011 — Page 2 TOWN ADMINISTRATOR JOB DESCRIPTION. The Trustees reviewed the existing job description for the Town Administrator position. Atty. White said the document contains minimum qualifications based on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, provided to determine whether an individual with a recognized disability could fulfill the job requirements, or with reasonable accommodations, perform the job. In regard to the job description as a tool utilized during the hiring process, the Trustees discussed adding a preference for a master's degree in public administration, and increasing the experience requirement. They discussed the importance of the requirements not being too rigid to keep the pool of candidates larger. They noted that background checks for this position would be conducted as part of the Human Resources department's routine application process. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. Topics for upcoming study sessions were discussed and included: • Economic Development — Mayor Pinkham and Town Administrator Halburnt will communicate with Kathay Rennels to schedule a i for her to meet with the Board. • Town Administrator Contract — First Town Boerd%meeting o May. • Greenplay — The Trustees requested this4be scheduled Soon for discussion about the proforma produced by Greenplayfor the Multi -Purpose Event Center (MPEC). • RTA requests of the Town — The Trustee§ express concern about demands on the Town made in connection with the proposed Elkhorn Development. • Utilities / Streets / General Maintenance Pl s are being developed and will be presented for ranking by the%37ard in June. y • Communication Policy We on, were raised regarding how responses to communications directed to the oarr are handledand whether communication concerns can be addressed in theOt communication policy is needed. Trustees Millerend Koenigfive beworking together on this topic. Trustee Koenig reported,';hat she raving difficulty identifying the issues, and Trustee Elrodragreed to replace her. There being no further bu ai ss, Mayor Prr khem adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 28, 2011 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT / COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 28th day of April, 2011. Committee: Attending: Chair Levine, Trustees Elrod and Miller Chair Levine, Trustees Elrod and Miller Also Attending: Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Directors Kilsdonk and Chilcott, Managers Fortini and Salerno, PIO Rusch, and Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent: Town Administrator Halburnt Chair Levine called the meeting to order at 8:00 PUBLIC COMMENT. None COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPART REPORTS. Reports provided for in # n�Opel purposes arid' made a part of the proceedings. • Visitor Services ,`uarterlyeport Manager Salerno reported an increase in foot traffic at the CVB during the first quarter of 2011 compared to the same time period last year, and saitelephone calls have decreased with more and more people looking=to the interneffo�info�rm nn. She said factors contributing to the increase may indl ie implementation of a new counting method at the CVB, iQ veather, Estes ?irk becoming a destination, and LMD promotions. Useum Quarterly Reps Manager Fortini reviewed attendance numbers and current and upcoming pr®�rams and exhibits. He said the History On Call pre- rrecorded interpretive cell phone tours will be available June 25 through August 28, corresponding WO the free shuttle bus service. The program will be funded in part ky a $350 grant from the Estes Park Rotary Foundation. Manager Fortini said an opening Ceremony for the event garden will be held on June 3rd at 1:00 p.m. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. BUILDING SAFETY FEE SCHEDULES. The building safety fee schedules and related policies were separated from the building code with the recent adoption of the 2009 International Building Codes (IBC) and local amendments. Chief Building Official Birchfield presented the Committee with proposed fee schedules and policies which, if approved, would become effective July 1, 2011, coinciding with the effective date of the building code. Staff is recommending the adoption of the schedules and policies with no changes to the valuation formulas or fee schedules currently in use, and including the schedules in the Policy Manual for the Division of Building Safety. CBO Birchfield said the fee schedule has been in place since 1998, although valuations were adjusted in 2005. The Committee reiterated that the fees are not changing or increasing with the new building code. CBO Birchfield explained that the County's Wildfire Fee Schedule applied only to new construction in areas identified by GIS software to be wildfire hazard areas. The Committee RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development / Community Services — April 28, 2011 — Page 2 recommended approval of the Building Safety Fee Schedules as presented to the Town Board consent agenda. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. • Monthly Building Permit Summary — Director Chilcott reviewed new information summarized in the reports including building inspections, which typically number from 3,000 to 5,000 per year, and said the information will be tracked to show trends from year to year. She added that code compliance is handled by the Building Safety Division and noted that the process can be time consuming. 70 Building Contractor licenses have been issued or are pending to date with most being Class B licenses. Dir. Chilcott said data related to permit numbers will be tracked to provide a comparison of valuation versus number of permits issued. Trustee Elrod had questions about the status of the 20 projects that may have been impacted by the passage of Ordinance #17-10. Dir :;Chilcott said in addition to two developers who recently requested extension's,Of vesting rights and development plans from the Town Board, three 'others have applied for extensions. After discussion, the Committee requested that staff research and provide information to the Committee to clarify and define development plans and vesting rights extensions and related processes. • Financial Report. • Board of Appeals — New members mu °be selected to serve oo the Board of Appeals due to the adoption of the 2009 IBC and local amendments ;;A process similar to the one followed for the selectionmembers to the Creative Sign Design Review Board will be utilized. ta Is recommending Community Development staff be distanced from the process and that once applications are received an interview panel consisting of Town Administration, Human Resources, and two members. of the Community Development/Community Services (CDCS) Committee catty„ out the selection process. • Review Audit by Insurance Services Office The wilding Division participated in dit on April Insurance �fie�%es Office (IaC�} �au215t. The results of the evaluation w�Nbe availabten 60 90:-days and reported to the CDCS Committee. The information will be provided to property insurance underwriters and FEMA by the ISO. MISCELLANE CBO Birch field noted that a fire code was adopted by the Fire District at a public meeting held last night with amendments consistent with those approved by the Town Board, arnd reported that; a public forum to discuss sprinklers, building codes, and contractor, jjcensing was held April 25, 2011. ADMINISTRATION. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. • Public Information Quarterly Report — PIO Rusch reported on projects currently underway including preparation for a public meeting to provide information related to spring run-off forecasts, preparation of the Bugle for distribution in mid - May, and preparation for migrating website information to the new site that will be hosted by Statewide Internet Portal Authority (SIPA). In response to a comment related to training that the Board received prior to the last election, staff will look into scheduling a training session for Trustees Elrod and Koenig with the State Division of Emergency Management. PIO Rusch welcomed Laurie Button as the new Executive Assistant in the administration office. • 2011 Citizen Survey Report — A community survey is scheduled to be administered to 1,200 randomly selected households in June using the National Citizen Survey (NCS) model, with a 40% response expected. The scientific survey results will be available in October and have a 95% confidence level. In RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development / Community Services — April 28, 2011 — Page 3 addition, a non -scientific web survey will be promoted to the general population for voluntary participation in August. Trustee Elrod asked if the survey would be targeted to full-time residents who are registered voters. PIO Rusch said voter registration is not a consideration in the distribution of the survey, however a question related to voter registration is asked in the survey. PIO Rusch said the majority of the survey questions are template questions and cannot be changed without losing the ability to benchmark with other communities. The Committee provided feedback on the survey including changes to wording for question #11 related to animal control, and questions 18a, 18b, and 18c to make them more understandable and pertinent to Estes Park. The Committee suggested including a question related to a community center in the survey. There being no further business, Chair Levine adjourned the meeting at 9:55 a.m. CynthiaDeats,; eputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment April 5, 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: Chair Newsom, Members McCreery, Lynch, Levine, Smith Also Attending: Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: None Chair Newsom 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 Approval of minutes of the March 1, 2011 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Smith/Lynch) to approve the minutes as presented and the motion passed unanimously. 3. LOT 1, SUNDANCE MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION, 1531 Fish Hatchery Road Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant has requested a variance to EVDC Section 4.3, Table 4-5 "Base Density and Dimensional Standards," to allow a front yard setback of 12-feet in lieu of the 15-foot setback required, and to allow a river setback of 30-feet in lieu of the 50-foot setback required. The purpose of the variance request is to allow an addition to an existing structure. The property is zoned A-1—Accommodations. The applicant owns the undeveloped lot to the east. This lot, also part of the Sundance Mountain Subdivision, is subject to a conservation easement held by the Estes Valley Land Trust. This conservation easement prohibits construction of any buildings; this means that only one dwelling (the existing one) will be built on these two lots. The applicant submitted a copy of the recorded easement to Planning Division staff, which was forwarded to the Estes Valley Land Trust for opportunity to comment. This request was submitted to reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Upper Thompson Sanitation District submitted a memo outlining four comments. Prime among these was "the existing deck and hot tub are encroaching in the District's sewer line easement and will need to be relocated out of the easement." Staff recommends a condition of approval be removal of these encroachments prior to final inspection. The building permit plans should address this. Planner Shirk stated in March of 2010, the Town Board adopted the new wildlife habitat protection standards, which determine when a wildlife assessment plan is necessary. Because this property is located on a river corridor, and the property owner desires to reduce the river setback, the applicant retained the services of a wildlife biologist to conduct a wildlife impact assessment. This assessment was done by Chris Roe with Roe Ecological Services; Mr. Roe has experience with wildlife assessments in the Estes Park area. Mr. Roe's assessment found that he believes the proposal will not have"... any significant long-term wildlife impact... (page 2 of the report)." RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment April 5, 2011 Planner Shirk stated two adjacent property owners contact the Community Development department with questions about the variance request. Their questions were answered to their satisfaction, and any concerns were eliminated. Planner Shirk stated there was a non -conforming accessory structure encroaching into the setback near Fish Hatchery Road. Planning Division Staff recommends a condition of approval be the correction of this code violation prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed addition. Also, Staff recommends a condition of approval be that all exterior lighting, including existing, be code compliant with the new addition. This would require replacement of existing exterior lights. This would help offset the additional impact of the new addition being located closer to the river, and property across the river, than would typically be allowed. Lighting can also be directly related to wildlife standards. The property owner desires to amend the building envelope for the existing dwelling, but needed to apply for and receive the requested variance prior to that next step. The Town Board of Trustees would be the decision -making body on the amended building envelope. Staff recommended approval of the variance, with five (5) conditions of approval, listed below. Staff and Board Discussion There was discussion concerning the adjacent conservation easement and the proposed building envelope. Planner Shirk explained the EVDC required either a building envelope or a limits of disturbance area when the plat was approved. In this case, a building envelope was created. He stated the size of the dwelling complies with the EVDC for floor area ratio in the A-1 zone district. The new addition will be farther away from the river than the existing structure. Member Lynch was concerned about the dwelling being in the flood plain. Planner Shirk stated the building permit review process would address any flood plain issues. Public Comment Mike Todd/Cornerstone Engineering stated the flood plain was verified by his company. It was determined that the proposed addition is adequately outside of the flood plain. Jeff Moreau/Applicant stated the property owner wants to make better use of the property. With the variance approval, approximately 1000 square feet would be added to the existing dwelling, and would include a garage. To stay as far away from the river as possible, he proposed encroaching more into the setback that was closer to the road. Mr. Moreau stated the property owner had reviewed and agreed to the conditions of approval. Conditions 1. Compliance with the site plan and building design, as approved by the Board of Adjustment; 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the platted building envelope shall be amended by the Town Board and the plat shall be submitted for recording; 3. Prior to final inspection; a. The accessory structure near Fish Hatchery Road shall be relocated to comply with setback requirements; b. The existing deck and hot tub that encroach in the Upper Thompson Sanitation district's sewer line easement shall be relocated out of the easement; c. The building permit application shall include details outlining how this will be accomplished. 4. 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. 5. All exterior lighting, including existing, shall comply with Section 7.9 of the Estes Valley Development Code. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment April 5, 2011 3 It was moved and seconded (Levine/McCreery) to approve the variance request for Lot 1, Sundance Mountain Subdivision, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously. 4. REPORTS Planner Shirk reported the Creative Sign Design Review Board met for the first time on March 1, and approved a height variance for the Rocky Mountain Park Inn. This newly established Sign Board will be the decision -making body for sign variances, and will also hear applications for the Creative Sign Program. An application will be heard in May for "Claire's" restaurant. Planner Shirk reported that on April 12, 2011, the Town Board would consider a moratorium on directly illuminated signs larger than ten square feet in size. This would give staff time to reevaluate the time period that variable message signs would be allowed to change, and to reevaluate the maximum size allowed. The proposed moratorium would extend through the 2011 summer season. Planner Shirk stated there would be two items on the agenda for the May meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. Planner Shirk reported the staff report has been somewhat reduced by listing the standards of review as a separate document that will become a permanent document in the Member's notebooks. In an effort to reduce the use of paper, Member McCreery requested smaller copies of plats, elevation plans, etc. that are typically provided in the Board packets on large format paper. It was decided by staff and Board members for staff to determine which size would best serve their needs, with an effort to keep paper use down as much as possible. Member Levine reported that former Board member Cliff Dill was having serious health issues and was in the hospital in Loveland. There being no further business, Chair Newsom adjourned the meeting at 9:42 a.m. Wayne Newsom, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary Rocky Mountain National Park Spring 2011 Briefing East Side May Visitation In 2010, Rocky Mountain National Park reached the 3 million mark for the first time since 2007 with 3,128,445 million visitors. The Top 10 Days in 2010 were: 1. Sep. 25 31,031 *fee free day* 2. Sep. 5 25,461 3. Aug. 14 24,109 *fee free day* 4. Sep.26 23,913 5. Aug. 15 23,746 *fee free day* 6. July 18 22,988 7. July 25 22,731 8. Sep. 6 22,639 9. Oct. 2 22,547 10. July 17 22,472 Five days out of the top ten days occurred during and after Labor Day weekend. 2011 Fee Free Dates: • This year's Fee Free Days are: (January 15-17), National Park Week (April 16-24), the first day of summer (June 21), National Public Lands Day (September 24), and the weekend of Veterans Day (November 11-13). Mountain Pine Beetle Mitigation: • Focus is on mitigating hazard trees and hazard fuels in visitor use areas (roadways, trailheads, campsites, buildings, etc.). From 2010 through this spring in 2011 we have cut approximately 85,000 hazard trees in front country areas of the park. Hazard tree removal projects in 2010 required temporary site closures or traffic delays to ensure visitor safety and efficient project completion. Hazard tree removal operations will continue along road corridors on the west side of the park through most of May. For more information on project dates, possible temporary and short term travel closures for public safety, and locations of hazard tree work, please refer to the Rocky Mountain National Park website and follow the links to the forest health page (www.nps.gov/romo). • Glacier Basin Campground: For the 2011 season, the campground will have roughly half of the campsites available through the National Reservation System with the rest available through a first -come, first -serve system. The first -come, first -serve sites are the sites with 2 remaining stands of trees. By not currently taking reservations on these sites, park staff can manage and have the flexibility to address hazardous trees in the remaining stands as needed in order to preserve some of the remaining stands. Park staff will continue to monitor and treat the area for beetle infestations. For the 2012 season, the campground will be completely closed due to its proximity to the construction along the lower Bear Lake Road (Bear Lake Road Phase II). Aspenglen and Moraine Park Campgrounds are also on the reservation system. • Other Beetle Mitigation Work: Work continues beyond the trailheads to mitigate hazard trees at designated campsites for backcountry/wilderness users. The park will continue to carefully and selectively use an insecticide, Carbaryl, to protect high value trees on both the east and west sides of the park. When sprayed on the trunk of a pine tree, Carbaryl acts as a repellant to keep the bark beetles from attacking the tree. High value trees are in front country locations such as campgrounds, historic landscapes, picnic areas, and visitor centers. They are important for shade, visual screening, cultural significance, and outstanding visual quality. To date, we have observed nearly 100 percent success from spraying. These site specific treatments will continue until the bark beetle outbreak has subsided. • Research: A USGS scientist will study the effects of mountain pine beetle induced tree mortality on water quality. The objectives will be to 1) quantify impacts by analyzing nitrogen, carbon, and phosphorus in streams and lakes relative to the timing and intensity of beetle induced tree mortality, 2) evaluate effects of management actions, including tree removal and insecticide spraying, and 3) use a hydrobiogeochemical model to simulate nitrogen, carbon, and phosphorus dynamics, predict future trends of their concentrations in surface water, and evaluate the relative importance of atmospheric nitrogen versus beetle induced nitrogen on surface water chemistry. • Pile burning: This winter, fire staff have burned approximately 300 slash piles along road corridors and other areas on the west side of the park (Columbine Boundary, Betty Dick, Timber Creek amphitheater, sections of CR 491, sections of CR 49 and sections of Trail ridge road in the Kawuneeche Visitor Center (KVC) area) and in select areas on the east side of the park near Lily Lake, Wild Basin, and Leifer Cabin. The material that was burned came from beetle killed trees and hazard fuel reduction projects. In early spring, additional piles will likely be burned in the following areas: Moraine Park Administration Site and Old Fall River Road. • Prescribed Burning: The primary goal of planned prescribed burns is to reduce the threat of wildland fire to adjacent communities and park infrastructure. Using management -ignited fires can reduce or eliminate hazard fuels that can contribute to wildfires. This spring and summer we intend to conduct broadcast burns in the following locations: South Lateral Moraine, North Lateral Moraine, and northeast of Deer Ridge Junction. The primary purpose of planned, prescribed burns is to reduce the threat that wildland fires pose to life and property by reducing the available fuel load. Burning is dependent on favorable fuel moisture, smoke dispersion, and weather so the frequency, timing, and volume of burning can range from 12 days of ignitions spread out over the course of 4 weeks, to as little as two days of ignition over the course of one week. 5/5/2011 3 • Recreation Fee Funds Authorized: From October 2008 through September 2013, approximately $4.8 million has been made available from the park's Recreation Fee accounts to mitigate hazard trees in the park. Through mitigation, visitor access will be maintained, visitor and employee safety enhanced, and park capital assets protected. Road Construction: • Trail Ridge Road 2010 Resurfacing: During the summer of 2010, a major resurfacing project was completed from the Colorado River Trailhead to Rainbow Curve (the switchbacks and the alpine section). The project involved the resurfacing of all major overlook parking areas, pull offs and the parking lot at Alpine Visitor Center • Bear Lake Road Reconstruction Phase II: Road construction on the remaining 5.1 miles of Bear Lake Road could start as early as November 2011, but not later than April 2012. Two years will be allowed for the completion of the work. Visitors can expect 20 minute delays at any one location with a total of 40 minute delays through the whole project. Night closures will be allowed for construction of retaining walls 10PM - 6AM (8PM - 6AM in winter). Weekend work will be allowed except on holiday weekends. Due to the night closures, the Glacier Basin Campground will be closed for the summer of 2012. The length of the initial project is 2.6 miles and the work will take place from the Park and Ride to the Big Thompson River bridge. An additional 2.5 miles from the bridge to the intersection with Trail Ridge Road may also be accomplished if funding is available. Other Projects: • Picnic Table Replacement: Sustainable concrete picnic tables will be installed at Aspenglen Campground, D loop in Glacier Basin Campground, at picnic sites in the Wild Basin corridor, and in Moraine Park/Cub Lake corridor. • Utility Line Replacement: 50+ year old sewer lines will be replaced in the headquarters area and in the Glacier Basin Campground. Water distribution lines will be replaced in the Aspenglen Campground. • Beaver Meadows Visitors Center Rehab: Also known as park HQ, located on Highway 36 near Estes Park, will have the public areas closed starting after Columbus Day in October 2011, to install an ADA accessible elevator (lift) between floors, remodel bathrooms, and make other improvements to the 44 year old building. The building is a National Historic Landmark and will continue to house park offices during the rehabilitation. A temporary building will be placed in the parking lot to serve as a reception area, information station for visitors, and offer educational materials for sale. Work should be completed and the lobby reopen to the public by May 1, 2012. 5/5/2011 4 Elk & Vegetation Management Plan: • Over the course of the next few years expect to see additional fencing constructed and limited culling for population control. The following activities have taken place or are planned on the east side of the park: o Elk exclosures constructed to restore aspen and willow communities: • 2008 approximately 70 acres of willow protected, 2009 —44 acres of aspen protected, 2010 —75 acres of aspen and willow protected. • In 2011 plans call for protecting —16 acres of willow in the Kawuneeche Valley on the west side and a couple of small (less than 3 acres) aspen stands on the east side. ■ The fences are temporary and will come down when restoration goals are met; each site will be evaluated every 5 years. o Culling for CWD and fertility control research — year 3 (effectiveness results to be shared later in 2011; female elk culled undergo a full necropsy): • 20 female elk were culled for research (of 33 total) during the winter of 08/09. • 25 female elk (of 48 total) were culled winter of 09/10. • 34 female elk (of 50 total) were culled winter of 10/11. o Limited culling of female elk for population control: • 13 female elk were culled (of 33 total) during the winter of 08/09. • 23 female elk were culled winter of 09/10 (of 48 total). ■ 16 elk culled winter 10/11 (of 50 total). ■ Meat was tested for CWD. • In 10/11, 14 carcasses were donated to the public by CDOW through a lottery system. • One tested CWD-detected and was used to support the CDOW mountain lion research project. Permits and Fees: • Entrance Fees: No Changes in 2011. • Annual Pass: The RMNP annual pass remains $40 for 2011. • Daily/7-day Pass: Remains $20 in 2011. • Joint Pass with Arapahoe National Recreation Area: Remains at $50 in 2011. • Overnight Backcountry Use Permits: Remains at $20. 5/5/2011 5 • Commuter Permit: In order to improve the administration of a long-standing policy allowing local area residents to pass through the park for commuting purposes at no charge, the park is planning to modernize and streamline the practice that will continue to facilitate non - recreational travel through the park (Trail Ridge Road) for local area residents. Referred to previously as the "Tri-County Waiver," now referred to as the "Commuter Permit," this privilege is currently applicable to residents (or property owners) within Larimer, Boulder and Grand counties who reside within 50 miles of a park entrance. Federal regulations do not allow fee waivers for commuting purposes. In order to accommodate local residents who use Trail Ridge Road for non -recreational purposes the park is implementing the Commuter Permit. This new process will also help minimize misuse. There will be an administrative fee for the permit of $20 and the permits will be valid for three years. Eligible residents will be able to apply for these permits on-line. This new process should enable permit holders to pass more quickly through the entrance stations. 2010 Visitor Shuttle Operations: • Visitor Transportation System: The shuttle system continued to see increased ridership in 2010. The hiker shuttle, which originates at the Estes Park Visitors Center, was up by 14% last year, while the Bear Lake route showed an increase of 17% over 2009. In response to heavy weekend visitation occurring during the fall season, shuttle bus services again were extended into fall 2010 on an as -needed and weather -permitting basis. In 2011 the park intends to participate in a pilot Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) project with the Town of Estes Park. The project will encourage visitors to both the park and town to utilize the town's new satellite park facility along HWY 36 and use the shuttle systems that serve the town and the park as an alternative transportation means. Trails: • Continental Divide Trail: In the fall of 2010 a new one mile segment of trail was completed within the park to connect the Bowen -Baker area to the Onahu Trail. This included the construction of a 31 foot multi -use trail bridge. The new Continental Divide Trail route will be available for public use within the National Forest and the National Park this summer. • Alpine Ridge Trail at Alpine Visitor Center: The installation of rock/log checks and improved and stable tread material was completed in the summer of 2010. A sustainable step system will be installed during the 2011 work seasons. The trail will reopen in 2012. • Lake Haiyaha: The rehab of the Lake Haiyaha loop trail continued in 2010 with an anticipated completion date of fall 2011. This project is being funded by the Rocky Mountain Nature Association. • Longs Peak Trail: The rehab of the upper section of the Longs Peak trail continued in 2010. This work has been ongoing since 2008 with the anticipated completion in the fall of 2011. This project is funded by recreation fees. 5/5/2011 6 Grand Ditch: • Restoration Activities: The park is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement to guide the restoration of the 2003 breach of the Grand Ditch. Parsons was awarded the contract to assist with writing the EIS and public scoping meetings have occurred in June and October of 2010. Restoration will focus on restoring healthy trajectories for both hydrological function (e.g. surface and groundwater dynamics) and ecological community evolution (e.g. riparian, wetland, and upland habitat). Five alternatives are currently being considered that include combinations of the following along a gradient from no action to intense manipulation: Allowing natural (passive) restoration to occur where appropriate; stabilizing steep, unstable slopes with an engineered solution; removing deposited sediment and redistributing it through the impacted area or elsewhere; removing dead timber from the impacted area and/or using it in the restoration process; regarding and recontouring areas to restore appropriate morphology and function; native plant restoration with appropriate, locally gathered plant materials; may require the use of motorized equipment such as chainsaws, heavy lift helicopters, and earthmoving equipment; may require temporary fencing to protect native plant restoration areas. A draft of the EIS will be completed during the winter of 2011/2012. Highway 7 Recreation Improvements Plan: • The plan is a partnership between Rocky Mountain National Park and the Boulder Ranger District of the U.S. Forest Service. Based on input received from the public and our inability to control parking along the county road leading to the Longs Peak Trailhead, the redesign of the Longs Peak Trailhead is on hold until new alternatives for managing visitor use can be developed and public scoping has been conducted. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is being prepared for the proposed improvements at Lily Lake. Aircraft Arrival and Departure Procedures for Denver Area Airports: • The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential impacts of new air traffic procedures for three metro Denver airports, including Denver International Airport (DIA). A major air traffic route crosses over the park and accommodates over 80 aircraft per day on approach to Denver from the west and northwest. Current air traffic procedures create noise impacts as pilots deploy speed brakes mounted on the wings and adjust throttle settings to match required altitude and airspeed on the approach over the park. The new procedures would use satellite -based navigation and a Flight Management System (FMS) onboard all modern aircraft to fly a narrow designated route and to descend on an optimal vertical path to the runway. This Optimized Profile Descent (OPD), managed by the onboard FMS, would eliminate the use of speed brakes, which will reduce noise and conserve fuel. Park staff and the NPS Natural Sounds Program staff have been participating in public scoping for the EA. As a result, the study area for the EA has been expanded to include the entire park, the park has an 5/5/2011 7 opportunity to define the appropriate location for the Denver approach flight path over the park, and baseline noise data will be collected and noise modeling will be performed for the preferred flight path. Web Cams: • We have a webcam pointed at Longs Peak from headquarters, another at the Continental Divide from Glacier Basin Campground and one on the west side looking up the Kawuneeche (Colorado River) Valley. Go to nps.gov/romo and open Photos and Multimedia tab and then Webcams. New Technology: • The park continues to explore ways to utilize new technology to improve opportunities to stay connected with the park. Our website (nps.gov/romo) has nearly 2400 pages and is the most popular way for our visitors to gather park information. You may follow us on Twitter at RMNPOfficial or on Facebook at Rocky Mountain National Park. Visitor Surveys: • Last summer, in cooperation with the University of Idaho, a survey of park visitors was conducted the week of July 18. Almost 1100 surveys were handed out randomly to visitors at three entrance stations. This is the first major visitor survey in the park since 1995 and will hopefully show current use, trends, concerns, and demographics. Economic impact information will be collected as well. Preliminary results of the survey have been presented to the park for review and final results should be available by early summer. In addition, during the week of February 19, a survey of winter visitors was conducted when over 800 surveys were handed out at three entrance stations over nine days, including Presidents Day. Results are expected in late summer. 5/5/2011 8 Community Fire Assistance (to assist in preparing Community Wildfire Protection Plans and conduct educational activities) FY03 - Estes Park: $25,000 FY04 - Estes Park: $15,000 FY05 - Allenspark: $4,000 Estes Park: $12,000 FY06 - Allenspark: $8,000 Estes Park: $15,000 FY07 - Allenspark: $2,000* Estes Park: $2,000 FY08 - Allenspark: $10,000 Estes Park: $10,000 FY09 - no funds awarded FY10 - Allenspark: $10,000 Estes Park: $5,000 *Allenspark was awarded $2,000 in FY07, but did not obligate funds Rural Fire Assistance (training and equipment) FY01 - Allenspark: $6,250 FY02 - FY03 - Allenspark: $4,000 FY04 - Allenspark: $3,500 FY05 - Allenspark: $5,000 FY06 - FY07 - no funds awarded FY08 - Allenspark: $9,700 FY09 - FY10 - Allenspark: $9,000 Estes Park: $10,000 Estes Park: $9,000 Estes Park: $14,000 Estes Park: $7,000 Estes Park: $8,000 Estes Park: $7,500 Estes Park: $9,028 Estes Park: $10,900 Estes Park: $7,000 Glen Haven: $6,250 Glen Haven: $9,000 Glen Haven: $9,000 Glen Haven: $11,000 Glen Haven: $5,000 Glen Haven: $10,400 Glen Haven: $5,000 Glen Haven: $6,000 Glen Haven: $3,800 Grand Lake: $16,000 Grand Lake: $15,000 Glen Haven: $10,000 Grand Lake: $4,000 Grand Lake: $6,250 Grand Lake: $12,000 Grand Lake: $4,400 Grand Lake: $12,000 Grand Lake: $11,700 Grand Lake: $3,816 Grand Lake: $8,400 Grand Lake: $7,200 A total of $163,000 in Community Assistance funds has been awarded FY03-FY10. A total of $251,094 in Rural Fire Assistance funds has been awarded FY01- FY10. A grand total of $414,094 has been awarded through both programs FY01-FY010. 5/5/2011 Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt TOWN or F,STES AIll From: Betty Kilsdonk, Community Services Director Date: May 10, 2011 RE: Review of Rocky Mountain Park Inn Agreements Background: This is a transitional year for the Forever Resorts' Rocky Mountain Park Inn. On December 8, 2010, the Town Board approved Forever Resorts' request to drop the Holiday Inn franchise agreement and to rebrand as Rocky Mountain Park Inn. At the April 12, 2011 Town Board meeting, the Board approved a new 2011 Service Agreement and a new 2011 Food and Beverage Concession Agreement between the Town and Rocky Mountain Park Inn, LLC ("Rocky") for a five-year term expiring in 2016. Under the terms of the two agreements the Rocky General Manager meets with Town staff by the end of January each year to review conference center operations. This review includes various documents referenced in the agreements. The 2011 documents are on file in the Town Clerk's office. At the April 12, 2011 Town Board meeting, staff was directed to elaborate on the documents. Numbers in parentheses indicate where the documents are referenced within the two agreements. 2011 Service Agreement -Related Documents 1. Operational Guidelines (4). Upon leaving the Holiday Inn franchise, Rocky developed its own set of operational guidelines for the conference center. The new Rocky guidelines contain the service philosophy, meeting personnel and equipment requirements, food service staffing requirements, etc. Included in the Operational Guidelines is the Schedule of Routine Preventative Repair and Maintenance (2b) including mechanical system maintenance contracted with a private vendor. 2. Periodic Review of Operations (5). See also Food & Beverage Concession Agreement (3). Services provided pursuant to this agreement are reviewed through guest -comment cards, reports, and in meetings. In 2010 Rocky began transitioning between the Holiday Inn guest comment system and the new Forever Resorts survey monkey system. As a result, limited guest - comment information is available for 2010. However, seven review cards were received and have been provided to the Town. The average customer service approval rating of the cards is 87.63%. Sample customer comments included: "Great [commitment to the environment}! I noticed the recycle bin in our room ... loved the amenities ... pool, hot tub, fitness room ... love your soap, shampoo, conditioner ... clean, kid -friendly, lovely accommodations ... [staff name] was incredible! Cooked our microwaveable food after 12:00 ... would come back again just because of her hospitality ... staff were friendly and great ...Survey Question: Would you recommend Rocky Mountain Park Inn? Answer: Yes — feels like home. 3. 2011 Conference Room Rates (6). Rocky determines a room rental price for use of the Conference Center each year. If Rocky determines it is necessary to increase or decrease the room rental cost, they provide the Town with the proposed changes, including the documentation on which the changes are based. The 2011 conference room rates were provided to the Town. They are identical to rates for 2009 and 2010. 4. Annual Review of Resort's Performance (8). As part of its annual performance review, Rocky provides a Statement of Income on the conference center for the prior twelve months. 5. Current Certificate of Insurance (19). Rocky agrees to obtain general liability insurance and to furnish the certificate of insurance to the Town in the type and amounts set forth in the agreement. A Certificate of Insurance has been provided to the Town. 2011 Food and Beverage Concession Agreement -Related Document 1. Food and Beverage Operations (Food & Beverage Concession Agreement (4). Rocky will annually present the Town a proposed price for all food and beverage services. The Town is to give written approval to the proposed food and beverage cost on or before March 1. If Rocky wishes to change the service during the year, they are to provide the Town with the proposed changes. A list of conference food and beverage services has been provided to the Town for 2011. Almost all of the food and beverage costs are the same as in 2009 and 2010; a few items have been decreased or increased in price. Budget: N/A Staff Recommendation: N/A Sample Motion: N/A Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt TOWN OF ESTES PARK From: Kate Rusch, Public Information Officer Date: May 10, 2011 RE: 2011 Citizen Survey Background: The Town Board approved funding for a 2011 survey of Estes Park citizens using the National Citizen Survey (NCS) model. The NCS was developed to provide a statistically valid survey of resident opinions about community and services provided by local government. Survey results are useful to the Town Board, staff and other stakeholders for community planning and resource allocation, program improvement, policy -making and tracking changes in residents' opinions about government performance. The benefit of the NCS is the balance of customization with a uniform survey tool used by more than 500 local jurisdictions across the U.S. This allows internal benchmarking with future survey results as well as benchmarking with other communities to assess local satisfaction with government services. Survey Methods • The Estes Park Citizen Survey will be administered by mail to a random sample of 1,200 households within Town limits beginning approximately late June of 2011. • These households will be contacted with a pre -survey postcard and two mailings of the survey instrument with cover letters signed by Mayor Pinkham and Town Administrator Halburnt (attached). • Following this scientific sampling period, in August, the survey will be posted to the Town's website and promoted to the general population for voluntary participation. Results will be reported separately from the scientific sample results. • Both sets of results will be available by October of 2011. The scientific sample results will include an executive summary, statistical results and benchmark comparisons with other jurisdictions using the NRC. Page 1 Survey Instrument After drafting a survey instrument customized for Estes Park, staff requested feedback from the Community Development and Community Services (CDCS) Committee on the three customizable policy questions included in the draft Citizen Survey — questions 18a, 18b and 18c. In order to maximize benchmarking with other jurisdictions, the remaining questions cannot be changed. It is important to note that the survey instrument may not exceed five pages. Therefore, in most cases, adding additional options or descriptive phrases will require removal of other options. The CDCS Committee's feedback on questions 18a and 18b is noted on page four of draft one (attached). Draft two (attached) is revised to reflect the changes requested by the CDCS Committee. In addition: • The CDCS Committee suggested, for question 11, "animal control" be rephrased "domestic animal control." This change was requested by staff but survey staff advised against the change as it will nullify benchmarking capabilities. Changing the phrase would require addition of a custom question at an additional fee. • After the CDCS Committee meeting, Trustee Miller suggested removing the option "Future phases of Bond Park redevelopment" from questions 18a and 18b since he felt the Town Board has already committed to proceeding with future Bond Park phases. He further suggested the possibility of asking about specific Bond Park design elements, or a specific time frame for completion of the project. Staff now seeks the Town Board's feedback on questions 18a, 18b and 18c in order to finalize the survey instrument in preparation for data collection. Budget: N/A Staff Recommendation: N/A Sample Motion: N/A Page 2 The Town of Estes Park 2011 Citizen Survey Draft one as presented to CDCS Committee: see page 4 for recommended changes. please complete this questionnaire if you are the adult (age 18 or older) in'the household'who most recently had; a birthday. The adult's year of birth does not matter. Please' select the'response(by circling. the number or checking the box) that most closely represents your opinion for' each; question. Your responses are anonymous and will be reported in=group form only. 1. Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Estes Park: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Estes Park as a place to live 1 2 3 4 5 Your neighborhood as a place to live... . .. ,.., .............................. 1`, 2 3 4 5 Estes Park as a place to raise children 1 2 3 Estes Park as a place to work ....... . 1' 2 3 Estes Park as a place to retire 1 2 3 The overall quality of life in, Estes Park ,..................... 1 2 3 2. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Estes Park as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 Sense of community 1 2 Openness and acceptance of the community towardpeople of diverse backgrounds ....,.. ......, ., .... Overall appearance of Estes Park 1 2 Cleanliness of Estes Park.....::! ....., .: ......:. 1 2 Overall quality of new development in Estes Park 1 2 Variety of housing options .............. ...,, ... .. 1 2 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Estes Park 1 2 Shopping opportunities-- .... ........ ......... „ , ..... 1; 2 3 Opportunities to attend cultural activities 1 2 3 Recreational opportunities .., ....... ...... ........ .......::. ......1. 2 3 Employment opportunities 1 2 Educational opportunities ` .,,1 2 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 1 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities . , .. ..... ........ ...... : Opportunities to volunteer Opportunities to participate in community matters.... Ease of car travel in Estes Park 1 Ease of bus travel in Estes Park ........: ....... i ....,....,...., ., ...... ,....,, Ease of bicycle travel in Estes Park 1 Ease of walking in Estes Park: 1! Availability of paths and walking trails 1 Traffic flow on major streets .::.................. ........:......... ..........,,.,,1' Amount of public parking 1 Availability of affordable quality housing ..... 1r 2 Air quality 1 Quality of overall natural environment in Estes Park .......:1' Overall image or reputation of Estes Park 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3. Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in Estes Park over the past 2 years: Much Somewhat Right too slow too slow 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 Somewhat Much Don't amount too fast too fast know Population growth 1 Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc.) 1 Jobs growth 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 Page 1 of 5 The National Citizen SurveyTM' 4. To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed Tots or junk vehicles a problem in Estes Park? O Not a problem 0 Minor problem 0 Moderate problem 0 Major problem 0 Don't know 5. Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel from the following in Estes Park: Very Somewhat safe safe Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 1 roperty crime Environmental hazards, including toxic waste 1 6. Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: 2 Neither safe Somewhat Very unsafe nor unsafe unsafe Don't know Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don't safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know In your neighborhood during the day 1 in your neil In Estes Park's downtown area during the day 7. During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? O No 4 Go to Question 9 0 Yes 4 Go to Question 8 0 Don't know 4 Go to Question 9 8. If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? O No 0 Yes 0 Don't know 9. In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in Estes Park? Never Once or 3 to 12 13 to 26 More than times 26 times twice times Participated in a recreation program or activity Visiteda neighborhot d,parkor Townspark., Ridden a local bus within Estes Park Reoti o EsteszPark New?slettei "d ie Bugle"` Visited the Town of Estes Park Web site (at www.estes.org) 1 Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other Town -sponsored public meeting on cable television, the Internet or other media 1 Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Estes Park 1 'ar)rty {dated rr club or, ci i grou{1,in E esYP rk.'. .l, ... ;k ,a Provided help to a friend or neighbor 1 2 3 4 5 10. About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors (people who live in the 10 or 20 households that are closest to you)? 0 Just about every day O Several times a week O Several times a month O Less than several times a month • m 2001-2010 National Research Center, 'j Citizen Sury L F Page 2 of 5 The Town of Estes Park 2011 Citizen Survey 11. Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Estes Park: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Police services 1 preventar Municipal courts 1 T - fF m r. ...:.:...:. Street repair 1 eAtIffig Street lighting 1 Snot' removai Sidewalk maintenance 1 Bus: or transit:se vice Storm drainage 1 D nJZ ng wiitei Power (electric and/or gas) utility 1 Recreation programs or classes 1 inning Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) Economic development 1 57YPi►,_ r. tntorimition:s`= Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 1 Building permits 1 Estes Park Senior Center 1 Fairgrounds and special events 1 12. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair The Town of Estes Park 1 2 The State Government 1 tunrycoyRrrmi Poor Don't know 13. Have you had any in -person, phone or email contact with an employee of the Town of Estes Park within the last 12 months (including police, receptionists, planners or any others)? 0 No Go to Question 15 0 Yes 4 Go to Question 14 14. What was your impression of the employee(s) of the Town of Estes Park in your most recent contact? (Rate each characteristic below.) Poor Don't know Excellent Good Fair Knowledge 1 Rezpensiveness-:::. Courtesy 1 era impregsion, 15. Please rate the following categories of Estes Park government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know The value of services for the taxes paid to Estes Park 1 Tice overall`dr,reetion .that Estes, Park is akin' -,x The job Estes Park government does at welcoming citizen involvement1 Page 3 of 5 The National Citizen SurveyTM' 16. Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don't likely likely unlikely unlikely know Recommend living in Estes Park to someone who asks 1 Remain in Estes Park for the next five years .. .........: 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 17. What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: 0 Very positive 0 Somewhat positive 0 Neutral 0 Somewhat negative 0 Very negative 18. Please check the response that comes closest to your opinion for each of the following questions: a. Please indicate how important, if at all, each of the following projects and issues is for the Town of Estes Park to address: b. Parking structures/garages An indoor arena at the Fairgrounds Drainage improvements collections stor Expansion of the Senior Center. 171 Future phases of :Bond Park redevelopment A performing arts theater Economic: development initiatives Open space preservation Availability of affordable housing,.. Very Somewhat Not at all Essential important important important 1 2 3 4 Don't know 5 CDCS: Remove "horse stalls" and create new option "Horse stalls at the Fairgrounds" 1 G J Y J 2 3. �CDCS Rephrase "Alternative modes of transportation" 4 CDCS: Remove if space is needed 1 2 3 4 5 5 CDCS: Rephrase "New Police Department building" .1- 2= 3 4 1 2 3 .. ........ ......... 1 2 3'. CDCS: Add new option "Community Center" J. 2 3 4 4 5 If the Town were to address the following, which would you be willing to fund with additional sales taxes or fees? Choose all that you would be willing to fund with additional taxes or fees. O Parking structures/garages 0 A multipurpose event center for horse stalls and indoor events at the Fairgrounds O An indoor arena at the Fairgrounds O Road improvements O Drainage improvements O Multimodal transportation solutions 0 A museum collections storage building 18a options will match 18b options O Expansion of the Senior Center O Building a new Police Department O Future phases of Bond Park redevelopment 0 A performing arts theater O Economic development initiatives O Open space preservation 0 Availability of affordable housing O None c. If budget shortfalls make it necessary to reduce Town services, to what extent do you support or oppose a reduction in the following Town services? Strongly Somewhat Somewhat support support oppose Code enforcement 1 2 3 Parks maintenance 1 2 3 Police services 1 2 3 Museum services 1 2 3 Senior Center services ...; ........: '1 . 2 3 General government services 1 2 Community development (planning/building)1 2 Fairgrounds 1 2 Conference Center ......... ......... ........:........ ......., 1 2 Visitor Center 1 2 3 3 Strongly Don't oppose know 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 -__4_ 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 z Page 4 of 5 The Town of Estes Park 2011 Citizen Survey D1. Are you currently employed for pay? O No 4 Go to Question D3 0 Yes, full time 4 Go to Question D2 0 Yes, part time 4 Go to Question D2 D2. During a typical week, how many days do you commute to work (for the longest distance of your commute) in each of the ways listed below? (Enter the total number of days, using whole numbers.) Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc.) by myself days Bus, rail, subway or other public transportation days tihr3.n'Ft",� Waif ari r ,'v`�prtiJ" Bicycle days Wo a hp pp s Other days D3. How many years have you lived in Estes Park? O Less than 2 years 0 11-20 years 0 More than 20 years O 2-5 years O 6-10 years D4. Which best describes the building you live in? 0 One family house detached from any other houses O House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a duplex or townhome) O Building with two or more apartments or condominiums O Mobile home O Other D5. Is this house, apartment or mobile home... O Rented for cash or occupied without cash payment? O Owned by you or someone in this house with a mortgage or free and clear? D6. About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners' association (HOA) fees)? O Less than $300 per month O $300 to $599 per month O $600 to $999 per month O $1,000 to $1,499 per month O $1,500 to $2,499 per month O $2,500 or more per month D7. Do any children 17 or under live in your household? O No O Yes D8. Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? O No 0 Yes D9. How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) O Less than $24,999 O $25,000 to $49,999 O $50,000 to $99,999 O $100,000 to $149,999 O $150,000 or more respo D10. Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? O No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 0 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino D11. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race you consider yourself to be.) 0 American Indian or Alaskan Native O Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander O Black or African American O White O Other D12. In which category is your age? O 55-64 years O 65-74 years O 75 years or older O 18-24 years O 25-34 years O 35-44 years 0 45-54 years D13. What is your sex? O Female 0 Male D14. Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction? O No 0 Ineligible to vote 0 Yes 0 Don't know D15. Many people don't have time to vote in elections. Did you vote in the last general election? O No 0 Ineligible to vote 0 Yes 0 Don't know D16. D17. D18. Do you have a cell phone? O No 0 Yes Do you have a land line at home? O No O Yes If you have both a cell phone and a land line, which do you consider your primary telephone number? 0 Cell 0 Land line 0 Both Page 5 of 5 The Town of Estes Park 2011 Citizen Survey Draft two -- reflects CDCS revisions. 'lease complete this questionnaire if you are the adult (age 18 or older) in,the household who most recently had a birthday. The adult's year of birth does not matter.:Please select the response (by circling the number or, checking the box) that most closely represents. your opinion for each question. Your responses are anonymous and will be reported in group form only. 1. Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Estes Park: Excellent Good Estes Park as a place to live 1 2 Your neighborhood as a place to live........ . ................................::1 2 Estes Park as a place to raise children 1 2 Estes Park as a place to work 1 2 Estes Park as a place to retire 1 2 The overall quality of life in Estes Park 1 2 2. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Estes Park as a whole: Fair 3 3 3 Poor Don't know 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Sense of community 1 Openness and acceptance of the community; toward people of diverse backgrounds ........... 1 Overall appearance of Estes Park 1 Cleanliness of Estes Park .......................... 1 ........ .... ...... Overall quality of new development in Estes Park 1 Variety of housing options ...::. ..............: 1 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Estes Park 1 Shopping opportunities.......r ...... .......... ........:. .....,> . ......:1: Opportunities to attend cultural activities 1 Recreational opportunities . 1 Employment opportunities 1 Educational opportunities 1 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 1 Opportunities to participate in religiousor spiritual events Opportunities to volunteer 1 Opportunities to participate in community matters..::... 1i matters.. Ease of car travel in Estes Park 1 Ease of bus travel in Estes Park ............................... r .......a 1 Ease of bicycle travel in Estes Park 1 2 Ease of walking in Estes Park.... . ...............::. ..... .......:1 2 Availability of paths and walking trails 1 2 Traffic flow on major streets.♦: ....... ...... ....... Amount of public parking 1 2 Availability of affordable quality housing ..a :: .................. ..... 1' 2 Air quality 1 2 Quality of overall natural environment in Estes Park 1 2 Overall image or reputation of Estes Park 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3! 3 3 3 4 4 '4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3. Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in Estes Park over the past 2 years: Much Somewhat Right Somewhat Much Don't too slow too slow amount too fast too fast know Population growth 1 2 3 4 5 6 Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc.) .....:::: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Jobs growth 1 2 3 4 5 6 Page 1 of 5 The National Citizen SurveyTM' 4. To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles a problem in Estes Park? O Not a problem 0 Minor problem 0 Moderate problem 0 Major problem 0 Don't know Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel from the following in Estes Park: Very Somewhat safe safe Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 1 'Pro cf mes a Environmental hazards, including toxic waste 1 6. Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Don't know Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don't safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know In your neighborhood during the day Its yar,,'r,higlorhopd.after In Estes Park's downtown area during the day 7. During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? O No 4 Go to Question 9 0 Yes 4 Go to Question 8 0 Don't know 4 Go to Question 9 8. If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? O No 0 Yes 0 Don't know 9. In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in Estes Park? Once or 3 to 12 13 to 26 More than Never twice Participated in a recreation program or activity 1 2 3 4 Ridden a local bus within Estes Park 1 Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other Town -sponsored public meeting on cable television, the Internet or other media 1 Beard the E s Park N uvsletter Visited the Town of Estes Park Web site (at www.estes.org) 1 Recy ra d.;K t h ca ns or o files from your inea Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Estes Park 1 Participatedarl aclub r ivicxgroup in r Ye arle , Provided help to a friend or neighbor 1 2 3 4 5 10. About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors (people who live in the 10 or 20 times times 26 times households that are closest to you)? 0 Just about every day 0 Several times a week O Several times a month O Less than several times a month The National Citizen Survey' • ©2001-2010 National Research Center, Page 2 of 5 The Town of Estes Park 2011 Citizen Survey 11. Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Estes Park: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Police services 1 'Crier ;e; prev flt.'ion? Municipal courts 1 Traffic enf..orcement , .,,.` Street repair 1 S,treetTelean,in Street lighting 1 Sidewalk maintenance 1 B;us rr`retransitr-sgmt'ces Storm drainage 1 Power (electric and/or gas) utility 1 vn7pa Recreation programs or classes 1 Code enforcement (weeds Economic development 1 :.bl_e_rforationtser-_....._......__.........�.._...__....__.__.._.____._�..._.....�.._._._._._.._.,__..M---_._._...-.. P; r Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 1 Building permits 1 TE5ti Estes Park Senior Center _for<3 Fairgrounds and special events 1 2 3 P r ner'ence:. 12. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know The Town of Estes Park 1 Th`e gral;Governnie The State Government 1 l'r l m er `Co u n ty'yGove rl l'm e l 5 13. Have you had any in -person, phone or email contact with an employee of the Town of Estes Park within the last 12 months (including police, receptionists, planners or any others)? 0 No -) Go to Question 15 0 Yes 4 Go to Question 14 14. What was your impression of the employee(s) of the Town of Estes Park in your most recent contact? (Rate each characteristic below.) Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Knowledge :Responsiveness 1 Courtesy 1 vera l,lrnpress on...,. 2 15. Please rate the following categories of Estes Park government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know The value of services for the taxes paid to Estes Park 1 ':::__..... .. ..:. ..:.: .�._.,.v. The overall direction;that Estes Park, rs taking; The job Estes Park government does at welcoming citizen involvement1 Page 3 of 5 The National Citizen Survey' 16. Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very Somewhat likely likely Recommend living in Estes Park to someone who asks 1 erna�n: gin. Estes Perk far the next fiu Somewhat unlikely Very Don't unlikely know 4 5 17. What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: 0 Very positive 0 Somewhat positive 0 Neutral 0 Somewhat negative 0 Very negative 18. Please check the response that comes closest to your opinion for each of the following questions: a. Please indicate how important, if at all, each of the following projects and issues is for the Town of Estes Park to address: Parking structures/garages Horse stalls at the Fairgrounds 1 Road improvements 1 .altta Alternative modes of transportation 1 Expansion of the Senior Center 1 New P li e.Dep rtment,buildi fig., Future phases of Bond Park redevelopment 1 A:lei rforr ng Economic development initiatives 1 Availability of affordable housing 1 b. If the Town were to address the following, which would you Choose all that you would be willing to fund with additional O Parking structures/garages O Multipurpose indoor event center at the Fairgrounds O Horse stalls at the Fairgrounds 0 An indoor arena at the Fairgrounds O Road improvements O Drainage improvements 0 Alternative modes of transportation O Expansion of the Senior Center c. Very Somewhat Not at all Don't important important important know 2 3 4 5 be willing to fund with additional sales taxes or fees? taxes or fees. O New Police Department Building O Future phases of Bond Park redevelopment 0 A performing arts theater O Economic development initiatives O Open space preservation 0 Availability of affordable housing O Community Center O None If budget shortfalls make it necessary to reduce Town services, to what extent do you support or oppose a reduction in the following Town services? Strongly support Code enforcement 1 Parks maintenance 1 eve Museum services SeniorCer ter service; 3� , General government services Co nmunity dove opment<(plannini Fairgrounds 1 1 1 Visitor Center 1 Somewhat support Somewhat Strongly Don't oppose oppose know 2 3 4 5 0 z L Page 4 of 5 The Town of Estes Park 2011 Citizen Survey D1. Are you currently employed for pay? O No -3 Go to Question D3 0 Yes, full time -3 Go to Question D2 0 Yes, part time 4 Go to Question D2 D2. During a typical week, how many days do you commute to work (for the longest distance of your commute) in each of the ways listed below? (Enter the total number of days, using whole numbers.) Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc.) by myself Bus, rail, subway or other public transportation days days days Bicycle days Woo athonie,,.. z da s Other days D3. How many years have you lived in Estes Park? O Less than 2 years 0 11-20 years 0 More than 20 years O 2-5 years O 6-10 years D4. Which best describes the building you live in? O One family house detached from any other houses O House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a duplex or townhome) O Building with two or more apartments or condominiums O Mobile home O Other D5. Is this house, apartment or mobile home... O Rented for cash or occupied without cash payment? O Owned by you or someone in this house with a mortgage or free and clear? D6. About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners' association (HOA) fees)? O Less than $300 per month O $300 to $599 per month O $600 to $999 per month O $1,000 to $1,499 per month O $1,500 to $2,499 per month O $2,500 or more per month D7. Do any children 17 or under live in your household? O No 0 Yes D8. Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? O No O Yes D9. How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) O Less than $24,999 O $25,000 to $49,999 O $50,000 to $99,999 O $100,000 to $149,999 O $150,000 or more D10. Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? O No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 0 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino D11. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race you consider yourself to be.) 0 American Indian or Alaskan Native 0 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander O Black or African American O White O Other D12. In which category is your age? O 55-64 years O 65-74 years O 75 years or older O 18-24 years O 25-34 years O 35-44 years 0 45-54 years D13. What is your sex? O Female 0 Male D14. Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction? O No 0 Ineligible to vote 0 Yes 0 Don't know D15. Many people don't have time to vote in elections. Did you vote in the last general election? O No 0 Ineligible to vote 0 Yes 0 Don't know D16. Do you have a cell phone? O No O Yes D17. Do you have a land line at home? O No 0 Yes D18. If you have both a cell phone and a land line, which do you consider your primary telephone number? O Cell 0 Land line 0 Both Page 5 of 5 Purl Code Planntn '';ties Sales irketing Fairgrounds & Events Museum Senior Center Visitor Services Finance P.O. Box 1747 Human Resources P.C. Box 1287 Public works Fleet Parks Streets Utilities IT Light and Power Wa.t e r 4 E TOWN OF ESTES PARK July 2011 Dear Town of Estes Park Resident: The Town of Estes Park wants to know what you think about our community and municipal government. You have been randomly selected to participate in Estes Park's 2011 Citizen Survey. Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed Citizen Survey. Your feedback will help the Town set benchmarks for tracking the quality of services provided to residents. Your answers will help the Town Board make decisions that affect our community. You should find the questions interesting and we will definitely find your answers useful. Please participate! To get a representative sample of Estes Park residents, the adult (anyone 18 years or older) in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. Year of birth of the adult does not matter. Please have the appropriate member of the household spend a few minutes to answer all the questions and return the survey in the enclosed postage -paid envelope. Your responses will remain completely anonymous. Your participation in this survey is very important — especially since your household is one of only a small number of households being surveyed. If you have any questions about the Citizen Survey please call 970-577-3700. Please help us shape the future of Estes Park. Thank you for your time and participation. Sincerely, chrt.,.(6.4,;WaLkt,rAk, William C. Pinkham Jacqueline Halburnt Mayor Town Administrator 170 \iACGR) (;OR AV'i . ! P.O. BOX 1200 i.S`rl.S PARK. CO 80517 PH. 970 586.5331 I aww.c,ics.org Dear Estes Park Resident, Dear Estes Park Resident, Q) N Q) - CO 4V, -CC Q. N a.-� CC j . W c _C F- N U 'C O as O 3 c Q 0a,C4o O .,poas.v, cC .0 to -C CZ Q) C 0 > 0 a C A C '' cn cn Q 0 C N UO L C Q) N _Q:. - Q) C N U) V .> L -C v.)V O 0 ".O O U +- C CU O C = L' cc3c O tto �0 } 3 c 0�L"Fri D >— .0 d E a) vl Q) - SY t C W c -C V V '- ' H Q) O C a= .O ocl- C 3 bbO Q. E a) L o U C }' cp d -� >, Q) C E 5 >-•- +. O ua cC `n cCS � dp �_ -0C Q) >. ++-' c > O 0 N = > C N N 0 0 U tag N N U L C Q) N RS Q V U.> ct � NU 0 0 -0 0 2 = O C = L ac3c� o °c 0 ce -c �} c >- .0 .QL C >. T EL), U c V) .�c 0 (J coE 0 Dear Estes Park Resident, Dear Estes Park Resident, Q) th (1) C1) ..0 C W C 'C V Uw• Q) O • Q) ;- .O C Q) c Q 3 .�, O o X i c,C.-O O _c A Q C Q) -O C c O=�cN c •- c >> +-+ } a >0o. cc.n N Q 0 GO CU CCO L O C Q) N CO �Q -Q �- v' Q) cn U.> c- a) O 'O p L) U 0 L Q) C = CU c 3 c ci O CO cri 3 c L C .0 o_ C A >- ..Co_ William C. Pinkham 0 tC Q) J Q) �L*i. S2 C Q_ N a C , . W c - U U O ' ~ Q) c L CU } O -_i i 0 as c_3Q)CC� �_iL O H X L co Ti ca •C C o a)C +�+ Q) /C c a) - 5 L C ,,o=as•,' c�Up Ti -C • cil C aOa3 cn 0. 0 O U aQ Q) N U L C Q) N CO �O Q .> C t U t N Er)O L O L 'U O = a c3cra o > C . •— a) as 4c_ • o c Your household o y Cb as U 0 = >, . - m r 4 EP Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees TOWN OF ESTES PARS ADMINISTRATION Cc: Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator From: Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Date: April 26, 2011 RE: Capital Project Updates Background: Bond Park Project Town's Project Manager: Kevin Ash Contractor: Comerstone Construction Estes Park Design Firm: RG Consulting Engineering, Inc. Denver Architect Design: Winston and Associates Wheatridge Schedule — According to our contractor the project is back on schedule for meeting or exceeding the substantial completion date of May 26th. You may have noticed the contractor did not work over the last weekend because of the weather and are now on schedule. Storm Drainage — The storm drainage pipe is across Elkhom Avenue. The remaining component of the storm drainage work involves starting from the river working back through the Schwery easement. Repairs to Elkhom Ave will start next week. Sidewalks — 85% of the sidewalk (concrete work) is completed. The sidewalk paver work is Tess than 35% complete. The contractor expects significant progress by this Friday. Park Lane — The drain pan is complete and all pavers should be in by May 6th. Once the paver work is completed on Park Lane grading and prep work begins for laying asphalt next week. Transportation HUB Parking Lot Project Town's Project Manager: Murray McBride Contractor: Coulson Excavating Loveland Design Firm: David Evans and Associates Denver Architect: T.W. Beck Estes Park Schedule — The project is still on schedule. Grading — The base course grade is complete for the two largest Tots west of the fairgrounds current parking lot. Storm Drainage — It is backfilled and finishing touches are being applied to the detention pond which will take care of the drainage portion of this project. This work requires ongoing discussions with CDOT since the storm drainage discharge encroaches into their right-of-way. Curbing — Is 90% complete. Bus Shelter — The Bus Shelter is 85% complete. We may see asphalt trucks starting next week (weather dependant) for the parking lot. *Larimer County had asked if we could spare some of our fill dirt for Hermit Park since we seem to have an abundant amount. They will be removing about 150 Tons of dirt. Prospect Avenue Repairs LaFarge started work on Prospect Ave last week and replaced the first section of the approximate 1,100 square feet of rejected work. The first section removed was a panel section located at Birch Ave and Prospect Ave. The next section is the entrance where the MRI semi - truck parks each Friday at the hospital. It should be noted prior to starting work LaFarge brought in their expert who assessed the road and identified additional faulty work adding approximately another 100 square feet to the repairs. LaFrage plans to have the work complete by May 27tn Budget: N/A Staff Recommendation: N/A Sample Motion: N/A CURRENT MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS L) F— Q 0 0 COMMENTS +/- COMPLETE 0 W_ 0 c4 0 project begins early May t/} O al O 1•-• O OLn 1� 0 LL PROSPECT AVE BOND PARK 0 O N 00 O 1� CRF to OSF O 0 al en N 0 0 —1 00 m c-1 CO 0 M Q1 d d lD 1� u M 00 O N M 0 N tf1 N N in W • 1 Ol O I. 1.0 al LD 0 N M 0 N Lti al N r-1 r-1 m h co o0 LD 0 1� 00 N al lD Lll c-1 M 00 0 N 00 E CO CO M a) = a, •o > u, o C L 0) o_ X 0_ 0) t0 c 1aj O in as ui 00 0 0 O 1� ▪ N 0 O N 0 O N 000 0 m o c-1 M d• M .--1 0 O 00 Ln m 00 0 m 0 0 0 I CO N N N $1,171,872 approved in 3/8 TB mtg 0 N N O al d• 00 OM Lrir- Ln 00 in - CO 0000 M O to N 00 1� O Lf! Lfl ' 4 M N M 0 co VD coNr Ln d• rn d• CO Co. ai h.:. d' N Lo 0 0 N 00 (� N N x -1 r-1 IA- 4—, 4., C a) O 00 U • — o l6 COD W O • Q L.. OC 0 TRANSPORTATION HUB CMAQ Grant FASTER Grant LL cC 0 LL LL GF - General OSF - Open Space 0) 0▪ ) E w a▪ ) C a >- u- N L O 0 E E 0 U w LL Q ✓ � Cornerstone Const Concepts BOND PARK CRF COMPLETED w N O DESCRIPTION Ln o 0 0 0 Ln Ln CD 0 L n d• o o Ln o 0 0 CD o'D 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 n N M O N O o) N N (DO O d O O O O O m r-i N-: O O O O (ri r-1 (ri oo .-i NN 4 ai M Ni N� O <-i O N: v) vi M m O 00 N ri VD r-4 CO <-1 M 0 a) Ln N ri Cr) CO 00 N <-i N CO 0 <1 N u) N CD O d- on N m N ul N 0 N O u) m 00 m ul <-1 a) r-i <-i Ln go:' 00 01 ri C) 0 00 m u) 00 d' m 00 CD a) O Ln' a) r-1 0 N N "-I <-4 <-1d' N <-1 <-1N Ln a-< in- a--1 Ln O O O O O Ln N 0 Lf) 0 0 0 Lf) 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 O 0 CD O O N O O N u) N r` d' O co N o o O u) 0 0 0 0 0 n a) Lfl O O M m O m d" M M 00 O a) o) O O a) [t O O L l O O M N O N O) n d' 0 Cr) 0 CD N M LID N M ri N m N u) al 01 M N l0 00 N CD l0 CD l0 CO 00 lfl Ln M M N dl d' d' M 00 CY al Ln O lD a) 00 ) a-1 a-1 N r4 <-1 N N <-1 O O O O O O m a) Ln 0) N Ni 00 to m Ni- u) cr N <--1 ri ocoo N O O O O 00 OOOO N m Lf) d' L1� N ri CO CO 456,278.27 O O v) O N N O d: O N m O N CO N N ONN 00 ul O 0 d M N m N 4' M N N, M O O O O O Ln O co o O d" O O O O CD 0 L0 0 0 0 0 01 a) O O O N 0 N 0 o0 N O d• Cr) 0 0 0 on 0 0 o 0 o O m M M O O m (ri m Ln N 1n r-i vi d of Ni NZLri O N Om Nim <-i r-i 00 cf o N d' l0 ,-i Ln N a) m a) 0) <-1 0) CD 00 N- CO CO 00 Cr O) Cr) 0 I -I N 01 M CD N <-1 N� d' o) N r1 0 N CO 1n m LC) 1n N d' N Ns v) <-i v) N a) r) m v) 00 rO M O n) Ln a0 4'M 00 m O ter' 00 O O Ni <-1 a-1 O N ri M M N <--i N (NI M �-1 a-i N 00 N N n in- <-1 u) Ln 0 0 0 0 0 u) O 00 O O d O O O co O CO O CO 0 0 0 0 0 al O O u) 0 d' O O O N O N O CON O Cr al O O O O O O O O O O O O O M N O d• 0 u) M O o M M M u) N-: <-4 Lf) u) d' o) M Ni N a) Ln O N O Lf) M Ni M 00 m 0 N. CO U) 00 d' 0 N d• CO <-1 Ln N Cr) M 0) 0) 0) a-1 a) N CO CO NN M N CO 00 d' M N- 0 N N CO Ln 0 0 cr CO O e-1 N Cr) M CO N <-1 N d' a) N r-1 00 O N CO CO Lf) m CO m Lf) N, Cr; CO Lf) ri u) N a) u)' co' m M 0O M O M Ni-Lf) CO'Lf) 4'M 00 m a) O Gt 00 00 N M N d' O Ninr I a-1 r-N r-i O N r<-1M M N ri N N N a-1 M r-( r-1 N 00 N LID M N M iN 00 O 0) 0 ro NJ 0 a-( 2 Erosion Control 3 Traffic Control 8 Concrete River Bldr 0_ a) m v U > C (p C O a 0 bD L 00 OD Q CL Q CL v w • m w a) 0 .-1 ri ri 13 Misc Concrete 18 River Boulders 21 Seatwell Planters CO a0 c 00 O (p .Q c 0 O U ro Q- -0 ▪ U 00 ▪ CO• Oa) 'L Ln J w L N M d' Lf) N N N N CHANGE ORDERS (1) a) C 73 = (0 L 0) 00 U_ '> = L V) a) • (0 N 0 CU c E • a) L 0▪ 0 0_ 0 C a a) rsaj ro ▪ 3 0 O a-1 N m d' TRANSPORTATION HUB DATA ACTUAL EXPENDITURES O O UD CO 00 V? Architect fees Thomas Beck DETAILED BUDGET ITEMS Transit hub tests Consulting/design Balance to Finish 000 7 CO Coulson Excavating Op 0 0 l0 0 0 0 N N O 00 0 0° O t0 00 N ^ 0 0 0 O 0 ) twD ^� O O tD O rrn 0 w O NO Ol O O O U O O tOD 00 ON N N tD lOo VT VT N VT .-I .--I M V? N Ol N �y V VT N N M CO N tD V1 to N if} (^ CO tD l/f VT VT VI- VT Vl i^ VI. VT ✓�' V} VT U! ut U! VI. VD (/} 1//} VI- VI V} 00 to W W O N O 0 CD0 0 00 0 d' mot' o O ul 0 O O Dl o o 0 N 0 0 r` m O O O O O O O O O O O O N O 0 0 , VF l0 V} N' rl VT - iy m Vl M tn. N V} VT Vl V? V} V} VF V} in V? V) VT V} 114 Vl V} VT } VI V} V} VD- S/} {v} V} V} O 0 CD t l ul to 0 • 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 `" i 0 0 0 • CI O O 0 N O o 0 .4- O .-I O0 CD 00 0 O CDV t0 00 0 0 0 0 tD 0 M 0 0 0 N O 0 N 0 0 00 N 00 .-1 N or cod` N oi N tD tD ▪ V} V1. V N VI} V - V? VN? VV? V} ~ t/} VT V? VT V). VT VT VT CO CV lD -V1. .til �-( N VT N N V^? Vl V1 Vl V- VT V? Vl V! Oa 0 7 N L -0 7• 7 7 • O O m 00 CO CO C > > 0 0 m E E oi U cc 0) Removal of concrete Pavement Concrete Washout Structure Storm Drain Inlet Protection a) 0 00 u 0) C C C 0 •U co U LL ▪ 0 V c LL C Y Y j.. w iTiY co C C t0 v0i m o C C C 0 f0 L m w ▪ - ° o$ N — U 00 C — ,C a) C "> (• Lj U re a) :Et, C v�i .� o o_ y v m 3 v 0 N tD tD N L 7 m N y` 7 N N N N U U Q. a) C 3 N • a X ° X u c a c -° v v L • c v m - m o. Y m -p c c= in °— 7 C C C C t0 v> Z u to <0 N C tV C tl c l9 m w v �>. T> LO C F- t X o. v X v c: ° > >> Y IS' V- C U U G Q CJ a) cc VI a^ E E E • =0 -o ' c o w cc 3) 16 O` a) a) a) a) a) 'D ° ° N 7 7 OD O O o a) t^ 0_ N inw�ceccrcctQ22Qtn22Q=xvo2Fc,00_ TRANSPORTATION HUB DATA O O LL cc U 00 VI - CC I- w Z V)Q LL o d I- O Z a a o 2 cc O U (9 C1 ti ACTUAL EXPENDITURES Architect fees Thomas Beck DETAILED BUDGET ITEMS 0 0 O O 00 t0 VT Balance to Finish N 0D v 000 Coulson Excavating 0 0 0 o a o o voi o 0 0 o o p op rn o v^ o 0) m Co o 0 m m N O l0 00 t0 O 1n N O O O V V1 t0 m O O1 V� n 0 00 'ID CO tn. V} Vm) m V}in. , V} V) M Ol t)'7 H M N VI. V Vl lf7 cri Ln Ol Ol 0 N N 0 n V V) N V) V} to VT ih VT V} V} V} V} VT VT VT V} VT V} VT V} VT V} VT V} ,, V} VT VT VT V} u) ti ° O O O O p N o 000,14IO'nO V O O O 00 O N O O O O O O O O O O k O O O O O O 0n V} V} V} c-i (rj VT .-1 N 06 V} VT ft'7 VT VT VT N VT V} V} VT V} VT V} VT VT V} O O V} V} V} V} VT in d' in in lN/} V} VT V in V V} V} O O O n N O- 0 0 o 0 0c0 NO o o .�-I 0 o�-4 00) En o o VN' n a 003 rn m W O 00 N m (0 m 0 O CO t0 O 00 N n o O V to t0 m 0 V n 0 00 n VT VT VT M `� c^ CV 01 CT t4 W.~ UT }4 tVD} "i tn. in. VN} UT 1NA ice/} Vim} Vim} O hi VT UT O 06. tm'1 UT , UT VT Lc)VT UT vT u} vT vT VT vT vT 24 Inch Steel End Section N 0 0) O -o V) 2 v Z ^ ^ ^ 3 N O O Y X N 0 0 O O C 0 VI to . v) 0 0 _ Fv £ E£ ^ a) a �° LL U U f0 U U m YO 0 0 ^ O O O CO C. V1 C C U C Q v N V7 O OO LLO t0E :L.'v N N .0 lD M n (0 of N 0) < Iv U Y Y E 01 0) 0) O LL O tO v. C O_ O. O. v OJ O CO CO Y Y 3 3 a w a w V) II-_,) o 0 3 0 m m c c N 3 3 0- 0_ 0_ 0_ m J J J 0 YJ LLO N f0 C C 0J -0: 3 ti 7 lf) V) V) 'E, '� IN 00 O > 2 2 1 fl. O. p_ p_ QI 0) 0) 0) L L (9 0). 0) 0) 0_ t L L T T T T 0- 0 0 0 U U H N N. v L V V V 1- I- 1- I- L v L L L 0) 0) U 0 0 0 N Ws 0 V N N 0) 0) ro • fo f0 fo 0 0 0 O 0 O 00 r-I c-1 N C C O rL II LL Q U U U Truncated Domes Sidewalk Chase Roll over curb co D 2 z f. a ACTUAL EXPENDITURES 0 O 000 m ur Architect fees Thomas Beck DETAILED BUDGET ITEMS Balance to Finish Coulson Excavating ati 0 O fV ID 0 0 0 0 O CO p 0 in 0 u1 N N in O O O O O O O O O O O o °° O p Vm m V} CO Up Vto N VV vN VT } iJI, Ln in- plOOON ' to O O 00 d' m^ O L0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t!1 0 0 N 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 m d- m n 00 Vl 0 03 0 m 0 03 01 to 0 0 0 m 0 0 0� 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 00 i/} V} V} V t0 • N vl co d' N V' ,Il h- ,ti O' V} v} to N V} an. V} an V} in ,y U} v, tom/} iv} V} V} ,/, V} V, V} V} V} V} 1 ,-, r, O o m o o o 0 O O O O N tD O O O O O O O p 0 0 Vl O O tD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O m O p N 0 0 p 0 0 0 N 0 to LflCO m ▪ m m 1� 1n m 00 N N CO 00 l� pN W ,N-, O O in ul Ql O ul O V) lfl VT O 0. i/T V} Ln d. LID m e-1 m i/} V} Vf VT V} V} V} V} V} m ,I cI m m ci N, V} V} VT V} V} V} U? VT V} in iR V} V} V} V} 0_ N W O C7 - o m z 2 to N 03 0 O um ccU O 0 w J 9 • Z Z Z Y Y Y J O a a m —z0 22F- z iD J 03 eGc7 z z z 0 2 2 W Q W w z . w w-_, V) 0 N a 0 0 0 0 m> w w tV-i >> -U ZZ ww ww 2WN>>>Q 0_ O. QN Z F-. 0 W W CO CO 0 m m O_' N N i 0_ O_ Q. CC F- I-- _l F- (~/, R W Q W W w W W Y C7 Q W Z U U CC Z 00 >> U 0 O W J>> w w w m CC cc w W F- VI d Z CI- O D Q ▪ CC Lu C7 f- Z 171 E Q a �g 0 a a 0 til Ti, ~ O zzLL ut ,_0, F 1=~~00 i00��o - Qoo�a0 O O Z F- C7 !- O Q Q n. a a o ,n .-, o o a a Y c a a O. O U U Q W W o l7 C7 p p p m v ,-1 o o p a Ti o w a 0 0 0 cc U u U -� z U U U m O V O_ 0_ 0_ O_ 0_ - 0_ U 2 0. O K K K cn Z Z(9 p ZO Z_ _Z Z X 0 0 0 0 0 X 0 Z_ v 0 2 2= Z 03 V 0 U V1 U 00 00 lD 00 00 c} 00 00 00 t0 Cl- t0 00 t0 LL N N U F- F- F- 0 U MINOR CONTRACT REVISIONS FUEL COST ADJUSTMENTS cc '- w (7 N • CC O- D_ 0 Z_ Q Z N a U O < 0 = U 0_ i— v) O ON THE JOB TRAINEE Erosion Control Supervisor TRANSPORTATION HUB DATA U CC wz W Z a LL Q Z 2 cc ACTUAL EXPENDITURES 0 00 03 V0 Architect fees Thomas Beck DETAILED BUDGET ITEMS Balance to Finish m 3 Coulson Excavating ADD ALETRNATE A: l0 O O1 0O O co a ol O w m M• d' CAI- .M-I t/? VT VT Vf u VT JR UD W O 00 LID 00 001 LO C CO N N m w to to ill - • CC G Q Q N T 0 0 oNn00 ro om.00 Lo .-I .-I m v CO V? H • V} V} V} tn.c-1 • M a 3 H BUS SHELTER ADD ALTERNATE B: PARKING LOT LIGHTING TOWN OF ESTES PART Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: May 10, 2011 RE: New Tavern Liquor License Application Cafe de Pho Thai Inc. dba Cafe de Pho Thai, 225 W. Riverside Avenue. Background: An application for a new Tavern Liquor license was filed with the Town Clerk's office on March 31, 2011 by Cafe de Pho Thai Inc. This application was sent to the Liquor Division for a concurrent review in order to have the license approved by the state at the same time as the Town. This will enable the new restaurant to begin the sale alcohol as soon as possible. All necessary paperwork and fees were submitted. Please see the attached hearing procedure for more information. The Police report contains a personal family dispute that is unrelated to the new liquor license establishment. Budget: None. Staff Recommendation: None. Sample Motion: Finding. The Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood are/are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood and that the desires of the adult inhabitants are/are not for the granting of this liquor license. Motion. Based upon the above findings, I move that this license be granted/denied. Page 1 Preliminary COPY — 5/2/11 July 2002 PROCEDURE FOR HEARING ON APPLICATION NEW LIQUOR LICENSE 1. MAYOR. The next order of business will be the public hearing on the application of CAFE DE PHO THAI INC. dba Cafe de Pho Thai, for a New Tavern Liquor License located at 225 W. Riverside Drive. At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the facts and evidence determined as a result of its investigation, as well as any other facts, the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood for the type of license for which application has been made, the desires of the adult inhabitants, the number, type and availability of liquor outlets located in or near the neighborhood under consideration, and any other pertinent matters affecting the qualifications of the applicant for the conduct of the type of business proposed. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING 2. TOWN CLERK. Will present the application and confirm the following: ❑ The application was filed March 31, 2011. ❑ At a meeting of the Board of Trustees on April 26, 2011, the public hearing was set for 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 10, 2011. ❑ The neighborhood boundaries for the purpose of this application and hearing were established to be 3.01 miles. ❑ The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs. ❑ The applicant is filing as a Corporation ❑ The property is zoned CD which allows this type of business as a permitted use. 0 The notice of hearing was published on April 29, 2011 ❑ The premises was posted on April 29, 2011 t ❑ There is no police report with regard to the investigation of the applicant. ❑ Status of T.I.P.S. Training: Unscheduled Scheduled X Completed (Date: April 30, 2011 ) ❑ There is a map indicating all liquor outlets presently in the Town of Estes Park available upon request. 3. APPLICANT. ❑ The applicants will be allowed to state their case and present any evidence they wish to support the application. 4. OPPONENTS. ❑ The opponents will be given an opportunity to state their case and present any evidence in opposition to the application. ❑ The applicant will be allowed a rebuttal limited to the evidence presented by the opponents. No new evidence may be submitted. 5. MAYOR. ❑ Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard to the application, and if so, to read all communication. ❑ Indicate that all evidence presented will be accepted as part of the record. ❑ Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any questions of any person speaking at any time during the course of this hearing. ❑ Declare the public hearing closed. 6. SUGGESTED MOTION: Finding. The Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood are/are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood and that the desires of the adult inhabitants are/are not for the granting of this liquor license. Motion. Based upon the above findings, I move that this license be granted/denied. 2 TOWN OF ESTES PARJ Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Reuben Bergsten, Interim Utilities Director Date: April 26, 2011 RE: Ordinance #12-11 Wholesale Power Cost Adjustment Background: In 1991, a Purchase Power Rider was introduced to pass through changes in wholesale power costs. As a result, the Light and Power Department has always passed on the Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) wholesale increases to the customer independent of established rates. Greg White has recommended this practice be formally established with an ordinance. Wholesale electric power costs from PRPA can change during a period when Estes Park electric rates have already been established. These wholesale power costs account for approximately 50% of Estes Park Light and Power's expenses. An increase in this expense would be too large to be absorbed. The Purchase Power Rider ordinance stabilizes the Light and Power Budget and reduces costs associated with rate hearings. Staff is recommending changing the term Purchase Power Rider to Power Cost Adjustment (PCA). PCA is an increase or decrease in electric rates, based on wholesale electric costs from PRPA. The PCA is listed on our customer's electric bill as a separate line item. This line item is not shown when the PCA is zero. In 2009, staff identified the need to include wholesale renewable energy surcharges in the PCA ordinance. In addition to adding a PCA for renewable energy, this ordinance will change the name from the obscure term Purchase Power Rider to the industry accepted name of Wholesale Power Cost Adjustment. Budget: N/A Recommendation: I move to approve/deny Ordinance # 12-11 Wholesale Power Cost Adjustment Page 1 ORDINANCE NO. 12-11 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING THE LIGHT AND POWER UTILITY THE AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT A WHOLESALE POWER COST ADJUSTMENT RATE TO ITS ELECTRIC RATE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park, through its Light and Power Enterprise, owns and operates its municipal electric system; and WHEREAS, in 1991, a purchase power rider was adopted to pass through changes in wholesale power costs to the customer; and WHEREAS, new electric rates were adopted in Ordinance No. 5-11 which referred to a purchase power rider; and WHEREAS, the new industry name of this rate adjustment is the wholesale power cost adjustment; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to include a wholesale power cost adjustment in the Electric Rate Schedule to accurately reflect the increase or decrease in the wholesale electric costs from Platte River Power Authority (PRPA); and WHEREAS, it is also necessary to include within the wholesale power cost adjustment a wholesale renewable energy surcharge; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has determined that it is necessary to adopt this Ordinance to authorize the Light and Power Department to pass through to the consumer a wholesale power cost adjustment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO. Section 1: That the Light and Power Rate Schedules shall be changed as more fully set forth on Exhibit A. Section 2: This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF , 2011. TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at the meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2011, and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2011. Town Clerk EXHIBIT A Wholesale Power Cost Adjustment Applicability The Wholesale Power Cost Adjustment rate set forth in this ordinance shall be applicable in Estes Park's service territory to all applicable electric rate schedules. Purpose The wholesale power cost adjustment will pass on changes in the wholesale electric tariffs and wholesale renewable energy tariffs from our wholesale electric power provider. Authority The Estes Park Town Board, as the governing body of The Town of Estes Park Light and Power electric utility, grants authority to the Town of Estes Park Light and Power Utility, to change electric rates based on this Wholesale Power Cost Adjustment. The amount of change shall be calculated as set forth in this schedule. The timing of the PCA rate change will coincide with the wholesale electric energy purchased under the new wholesale tariffs. Method of Determining the wholesale Power Cost Adjustment (PCA) and Renewable Energy Surcharge Power Cost Adjustment (PCAR1 1. Formula for determining the PCA: PCA= (New wholesale costs - Current wholesale costs) / Current kWh sales a. Current wholesale costs = The most recent twelve months' cost of wholesale power purchased from PRPA by the Town, using the most current twelve months of invoices, excluding renewable energy surcharges b. Current kWh sales = the electric kWh sales to the Town's customers for the same twelve-month period as the current wholesale cost. c. New wholesale costs = New wholesale tariff applied to the wholesale power purchased for the same twelve-month period as used for the current wholesale costs. 2. The power cost adjustment shall be calculated to the nearest one -hundredth of a mill ($0.00001) per kWh. 3. The electric rate schedules with demand rates may as an option have the PCA spread between the energy and the demand rates. The demand portion shall be set as $/kW. 4. Formula for determining the renewable energy surcharge PCAR: PCAR= New wholesale renewable energy surcharge tariff - Current wholesale renewable energy surcharge tariff a. Current wholesale renewable energy surcharge tariff = The most recent wholesale renewable energy surcharge tariff. b. New wholesale renewable energy surcharge tariff = The new wholesale renewable energy surcharge tariff. 5. Consecutive changes in wholesale tariffs will produce a cumulative PCA and PCAR. 6. The cumulative PCA shall be stated as a separate line item on each customer's utility bill. EP Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees From: Eric Rose, Commander Date: April 26, 2011 TOWN OF ESTES PARCK, POLICE DEPARTMENT RE: Amending Estes Park Municipal Code Section 9.08.080 Harassment Background: When the Harassment section of the Estes Park Municipal Code (9.08.080) was initially adopted in 1998, the language was current for the time period. In 2010, the state law was amended to include advancements in technology, specifically regarding electronic communication. Currently, Colorado Revised State Statute 18-9-111 (1) (e) only refers to telephone communication. The amended State Statue includes the following language: (e) Initiates communication with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, telephone network, data network, text message, instant message, computer, computer network, or computer system in a manner intended to harass or threaten bodily injury or property damage, or makes any comment, request, suggestion, or proposal by telephone, computer, computer network, or computer system that is obscene; Therefore, we are recommending the following change to our municipal code, highlighted in red: 9.08.080 Harassment. A person commits harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person, he or she: (1) Strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise touches a person or subjects him or her to physical contact; (2) In a public place directs obscene language or makes an obscene gesture to or at another person; (3) Follows a person in or about a public place; (4) Initiates communication with a person, anonymously or otherwise by telephone, telephone network, data network, text message, instant message, computer, computer network, or computer system in a manner intended to harass or threaten bodily injury or Page 1 property damage, or makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal by telephone which is obscene; (5) Makes a telephone call or causes a telephone to ring repeatedly, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate conversation; (6) Makes repeated communications at inconvenient hours that invade the privacy of another and interferes in the use and enjoyment of another's home or private residence or other private property; or (7) Repeatedly insults, taunts, challenges or makes communications in offensively coarse language to another in a manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response. Budget: No budgetary impact. Recommendation: I move to approve/deny Ordinance #13-11: Harassment 9.08.080. Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. 13-11 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9.08.080 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, THE SAME RELATING TO HARASSMENT WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town to amend certain sections of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. That Section 9.08.080 (4) Harassment shall be amended to read: A person commits harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person, he or she: (4) Initiates communication with a person, anonymously or otherwise by telephone, telephone network, data network, text message, instant message, computer, computer network, or computer system in a manner intended to harass or threaten bodily injury or property damage, or makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal by telephone which is obscene; Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF , 2011. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2011, and published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on the day of , 2011. Town Clerk TOWN O. ESTES PARI Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Date: April 22, 2011 RE: Meeting Procedures Background In reviewing the Public Guide to Estes Park Town Board Meetings that has been adopted by the Board and is in my Board Meeting book, I have some concern about one matter. The policy concerning ending time of board meetings as stated could be used to require that at 11 p.m. all activity must cease and the Board must immediately adjourn. There may be certain instances when the Board wishes to go beyond 11 p.m. to finish up an item that is close to being concluded and/or go beyond 11 p.m. due to the fact that an action needs to be taken at this board meeting. To prevent this from occurring, it would be my recommendation that the following should be added to the paragraph: "The Town Board reserves the right, by a majority vote, to further extend the time of meeting to conclude any business the Board deems necessary." My concern is that the deadline of 11 p.m. may be construed as an absolute deadline which would prevent the Board from taking an action in a timely fashion. Recommended Motion I move to amend the Public Guide to Estes Park Town Board Meetings to include the following language: "The Town Board reserves the right, by a majority vote, to further extend the time of meeting to conclude any business the Board deems necessary." Section 2. Length of Meetings a. Council meetings will begin precisely at 6:00 p.m. Proclamations will be presented prior to the meeting at approximately 5:30 p.m. or such earlier time as may be necessary in order for the presentation of proclamations to end by 6:00 p.m. b. No more than two (2) ten-minute breaks will be planned per meeting. All Councilmembers and staff will return to their seats in the Council Chambers at the conclusion of each ten-minute break. The Mayor will resume the meeting at the prescribed time. c. Every Council meeting will end no later than 10:30 p.m., except that: (1) any item of business commenced before 10:30 p.m. may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the City Council may, by majority vote, extend a meeting until no later than 12:00 a.m. for the purpose of considering additional items of business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Council meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting which have not yet been considered by the Council, will be continued to the next regular Council meeting and will be placed first on the discussion agenda for such meeting. Section 3. Citizen Comment. a. Up to thirty (30) minutes will be allowed for citizen comment during the "Citizen Participation" segment of each meeting. A maximum of five (5) minutes will be allowed per speaker. In order to determine the actual amount of time to be allotted to each speaker, the Mayor will ask for a show of hands by all persons intending to speak. If the number of persons intending to speak is more than six (6), the Mayor will shorten the allotted time in order to allow as many people as possible to address the Council within thirty (30) minutes. b. Citizen input will be received with regard to: (i) each item on the discussion agenda, (ii) each item pulled from the consent agenda, and (iii) any item that is addressed by formal Council action under the "Other Business" segment of the meeting that may directly affect the rights or obligations of any member of the general public. Such citizen input will be permitted only once per item regardless of the number of motions made during Council's consideration of the item. c. The time limits for individual citizen comments regarding agenda items will be established by the Mayor prior to each such item. In order to determine 2 TOWN or ESTES Pi ZI� Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Steve McFarland — Finance Officer. Date: May 10, 2011 RE: Extension of Estes Park Housing Authority Loan Background: The Town of Estes Park (Town) and the Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) entered into a 2-year agreement on June 1, 2006, whereas the Town loaned the EPHA $2,700,000 for the purpose of acquisition and resale of low-income housing. At inception, the interest rate was 3.38% (interest rate of Colo Trust MMF) + 0.25% basis points. The interest rate is reset annually. On June 1, 2008, the EPHA had paid the loan down to approximately $1,650,000, and requested a 2-year extension. The extension was granted. A new extension was granted in 2010. The remaining balance of the loan (as of the date of this memo) is approximately $355,000. The EPHA has requested an additional extension, for a period of two years (June 1, 2011 — May 31, 2013). The interest rate for the next fiscal period (June 1, 2011 — May 31, 2012) will be approximately (depends upon interest rate as of June 1, 2011) 0.13% + the 0.25% basis point, for a total of 0.38%. Budget: The General Fund portion of the loan was repaid in June 2008. However, by absorbing the Catastrophic Loss Fund (CLF) as of December 31, 2010, the General Fund also inherited the CLF's portion of the EPHA Loan. The General, L&P, and Water Funds are due varying percentages of the remaining $355,000 (General - $150,000, L&P - $117,000, Water — $88,000). Required ratios in the Enterprise (L&P, Water) funds are not affected by the proposed extension of the loan. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends extension of the EPHA loan for a period of two years. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny extending the Estes Park Housing Authority Loan for a period of one year. Page 1 Estes Park May 6, 2011 Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt Dear Mayor Pinkham, Trustees and Ms. Haiburnt: The Estes Park Housing Authority is respectfully requesting a 24 month extension on the Loan currently held by the Town of Estes Park for The Pines project. Background: In an effort to preserve low income Senior rental housing, the EPHA, with assistance from the Town, purchased The Pine Knoll apartments now known as 'The Pines'. The plan called for major renovations of the units then sale of 23 of the condominium units. Through these sales we would be able to have minimal debt on the property, thus allowing us to maintain 24 low income senior rentals. The low debt service would enable us to keep rents at a very low level. Renovations on all units were complete in winter of 2006. The senior rental portion of the project was at full occupancy by early 2007. Sales: • 2007: 1 unit • 2008: 7 units (price was lowered to $139,900 and added decks and patios) • 2009: 6 units 2010: 2 unit 7 units remain to be sold. We have encountered some issues with financing of the individual units as financing of condominiums in general has tightened across the country. We are constantly striving to work through these issues arid explore ways in which to mitigate. The current mix of homeowners is: Local full time residents working in the Estes Park area: 9 • Second home:.6 • Retired, full time resident: 1 1I<<^- 170 MacGregor Avenue, P.O. Box 1200 • Estes Park, CO 80517 • (970) 577-3730 • Fax (970) 586-0249 The current balance on our note is $354,463.95. With each sale the EPHA pays down on the principal and makes quarterly interest payments as per the terms of the note. The fact that this project has taken much longer than anticipated to complete is very frustrating to us. However I would like to point out the successes that we have and continue to experience. • Have provided low income seniors with affordable housing options. • 3 of the Senior renters have moved into the homeownership • Have maintained a less than 2% vacancy rate in the senior rentals • Have filled a need for our senior population • Have provided affordable home ownership to 16 households I must point out that none of this would have been possible had it not been for the commitment and vision of this Board of Trustees. It is with extreme reluctance that we ask for another extension and truly wish we did not have to, but we do. I respectfully ask that you grant this extension and know that the EPHA is doing everything we can to sell the remaining units and pay the debt owed to the Town. Rita Kurelja Executive Director Estes Park Housing Authority 21Page 4 EP Memo To: Halburnt Administration Honorable Mayor Pinkham, Board of Trustees and Town Administrator From: Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator and Scott Zurn, Director of Public Works Date: 5/6/2011 RE: Change Order to Transportation HUB Contract (Manford Avenue). Background: Staff asked the Transportation HUB contractor what the cost would be to complete an overlay to Manford Ave. the contractor (Coulson Construction) said they would honor their quoted price for asphalt of $56 a Ton. This price is 20% less than the market rate as confirmed by a LaFarge representative whose verbal quote estimated cost at $70 a ton. To initiate this change to the project required approval from the State of Colorado since this project is grant funded. CDOT staff reviewed the request and approved the change. Their review process required insuring prices quoted would not have changed the low bid to the overall project based on the current market cost of asphalt and to ensure their purchasing standards were not compromised. Approval was received May 6tn Public Works Staff inquired about the overlay to Manford Ave because the road is in poor condition. If completed, the overlay would extend the life of the road by 8 years moving its rating from poor to fair. This overlay work would support the Transportation HUB project since Manford Ave serves as the primary road to the shuttle stop and is contiguous to the parking structure. Budget: This would increase the project cost by $100,000 from the Public Works Street Improvement Program budget line item account 101-3100-431-35-51. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval of this change order to the Transportation HUB project. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny the proposed change order to the Transportation HUB project in the amount not to exceed $100,000 for the overlay to Manford Avenue. Note — Any item requiring a change to the Municipal Code, Development Code or any other action requiring an Ordinance to be passed by the Town Board is required to have the Ordinance included. 5x� To'T or ESTES PARIK Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Scott A. Zurn, PE, CFPM Date: May 10, 2011 RE: Tree Board Appointment Background: The Town of Estes Park's Tree Board has a current vacancy due to the resignation of Craig Adams. Local resident Carol Shannon has submitted an application for this position. Carol has been a strong supporter of Tree Board activities and has participated in the past two Tree Symposiums. Carol has run her landscaping business in Estes Park, Shannon Landscaping, for seven years. She also writes a weekly column in the Estes Park News, "Green Talk," which she feels would be a good forum to help educate the public on Tree Board activities. In her letter of interest, Carol mentioned her wish to focus on wildfire mitigation which would be a great asset to the Tree Board. She noted her past community involvement which includes being a founding member of the Sustainable Mountain Living Group, a volunteer for Victim's Advocates, an Estes Park Chamber of Commerce member and a participant in Earth Festivals. In her interview in mid -April, Carol expressed her wish to contribute to the pine beetle education efforts conducted by the Tree Board. Staff is recommending Carol Shannon to complete Craig Adam's vacated term, expiring in April, 2012. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny the appointment of Carol Shannon to the Estes Park Tree Board, for a term expiring in April, 2012. Page 1 TOWN or ESTES PARI Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees From: Town Administrator Jacquie Halburnt Date: May 6, 2011 RE: 2011 Transportation Shuttle Routes Background: Summer Shuttle routes began in 2006 as a result of recommendations made by the Republic Parking Study. The study recommended shuttles for the busier weekends and events. It recommended running the shuttles May -September from Thursday to Sunday and a late night shuttle for employees. Each year since 2006, we've monitored the ridership numbers and adjusted the schedules as a result. We've run shuttles late at night and encountered criticism from the community and residents because of limited ridership. We've changed routes because residents didn't want buses running down "their streets," we changed from diesel buses to gasoline buses because they were "loud and noisy," we've added routes to accommodate Fall River Road and now the Transit Hub. Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) has been a great partner to the town as we refine our routes. The first three years, we used their excess bus fleet to run our shuttles. At the end of the three year trial, the town board approved the increased expenditure to lease our own buses to continue the service. The 2011 budget for shuttles is $204,772. It includes the summer routes, special events like ScotFest, Catch the Glow Parade, miscellaneous requests, traffic signs and maps. Staff delivered shuttle routes that fit into the town board approved budget, which included the Estes Area Lodging Association's request from 2010. This request for two additional shopper shuttles in the evening was paid for out of the Mayor's Contingency fund in 2010. The original philosophy for summer shuttles was to reduce congestion during the busiest times of the summer. The reason the shuttles have never been run after Labor Day weekend is because it hasn't been considered one of the busiest times in town. The traffic into RMNP isn't necessarily the same traffic for services in town. Another outstanding issue is businesses don't stay open late. The businesses would have to be a partner in extending the routes. Are they willing to stay open until 10 p.m. every night during the additional days? Page 1 A valid question for the town board is: Is it time to change the town's philosophy for providing bus routes? Does the town board want to move from running buses during our busiest times to reduce congestion - to -running buses so they are available during more times of the year irrespective of ridership numbers? There isn't a right or wrong answer. Also, budget increases are a concern. This is an increase in service which is estimated to cost $31,069. The staff has delivered a flat budget for 3 years; the last two without staff raises. Delivering a flat budget doesn't mean carrying over items, it means cuts and reductions in service because the cost of doing business goes up each year. We have two months worth of 2011 sales tax data collected, which shows we are 2% ahead of 2010 and 12% behind budget (a three year monthly average). If it's time to increase service in any area in the budget, is shuttle routes your choice? Again, there isn't right or wrong answer. May 2, 2011 Dear Mayor Pinkham and Town Trustees, Thank you for taking the time to discuss the shuttle schedule on April 26 at the Town Board Meeting. We appreciate your willingness to extend the shuttle hours by one hour. The original contract for 2011 stated the following: All the routes start at 10am but the Brown route last leaves the Visitor Center at 7pm, the Red at 8pm and the Blue route at 8:30 pm. You agreed to change the "last routes" to: Brown at 8 pm, Red at 9 pm and Blue at 9:30 pm. The cost of this change will be: $ 3,000* We are still very concerned about the gaps that are still in place with the current 2011 shuttle contract. The gaps are: August 29, 30, 31 Sept. 1 and 2 Sept. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 The cost of closing these gaps would be: $24,000* *Please confirm the costs listed are correct, as we did not get a response back from town staff when we inquired about them. We kindly request that you consider one last time why the tourism community in Estes is concerned about having the 11 day gap in the shuttle schedule: • Year over year, the guests are confused and frustrated by the two gaps in the schedule. • The gap is during our peak season. • Bags are put over the signs at the bus stops during the gaps. • Businesses are expected to not give out maps. • Schedule does not encourage people to come during those times. It literally "advertises" that those dates are not an ideal time to come to Estes. (When in fact, we need to be using our resources toward encouraging people to visit during those times). • Our competition in other mountain towns still have a more extensive schedule (longer hours and year- round dates) than what our recommended schedule would include. • The RMNP hiker shuttle runs continually without a gap. Guests use the town shuttle to get to the hiker shuttle. • The shuttle riders are most often the overnight guests that are spending more money than the day visitor. • Ridership did increase from 2009 to 2010 due to the increase in the schedule accommodation made that year. • September hotel occupancy rates are as high or higher in Sept., compared to August. • A $1 million transportation hub will be heavily promoted, yet guests will be inconvenienced by the gap. • Ambassadors have confirmed that later shuttles and "no gap" are continuous requests made by visitors. • Area merchants and restaurants would benefit from a "no gap" schedule. EALA will once again implement the "Ride the Shuttle" campaign." This includes printing the shuttle maps for the Town out of the member budget (average cost is $650), advertising the shuttle on member websites and reservation confirmation letters, and distributing & displaying posters all over town throughout the season. We at EALA would like to see the 2011 schedule run from June 25 — September 11th without interruption (9/11 is the last day of the Scottish Festival). We do understand the budget challenge, however we firmly believe the return on the investment will outweigh the cost. We hope you can find room in the budget to support a shuttle schedule that runs without interruption. We appreciate your consideration and encourage you to contact us with any questions. The next Town Board meeting is May 10. The Town staff has been extremely accommodating in agreeing to hold off printing until May 11. Warm regards, EALA Membership and Estes Park hospitality businesses Lynette Lott, EALA President - info@valhallaresort.com Elizabeth Fogarty, EALA Vice President — elizabeth@estescondos.com Coni Householter, EALA Secretary - info@swiftcurrentlodge.com Ken Arnold, EALA Board - info@deercrestresort.com John Buller, EALA Board - columbineinnestes@yahoo.com Cory Blackman, EALA Member - cnbestes@gmail.com