HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2011-09-27* Revised
STUDY SESSION
TOWN BOARD
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
3:00 p.m.
Rooms 202/203
170 MacGregor Ave.
AGENDA
3:00 p.m. MissionNision/Goals
Capital Asset Prioritization / Other Budget Issues.
6:15 p.m. School Board Update on Ballot Issue.
Future Agenda Items.
6:30 p.m. Meeting Adjourn — Prepare for Board Meeting.
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the
agenda was prepared.
TOWN OF ESTES PARIK
ADMINISTRATION
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
From: Town Administrator Halburnt
Date: September 22, 2011
RE: MissionNision/Goals
The town board requested that we review the Town's Vision, Mission, Guiding
Principles and Goals in September, prior to the budget work sessions.
We will be reviewing the following information and determining if changes should be
made for 2012.
2011 Mission, Vision and Goals
Mission
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 our natural setting.
Vision
The Town of Estes Park will enhance our position as a premier mountain resort
community.
Guiding Principles
The Town of Estes Park strives to maintain a balanced approach while we:
A. Maintain and strengthen our economic vitality
B. Provide services which are responsive, sensitive, and reliable
C. Preserve our unique character and history
D. Sustain a family -friendly community for our citizens and visitors
E. Consider the impact of our actions on the environment
F. Support diverse, affordable housing
G. Enhance recreational and cultural opportunities
H. Employ and maintain a professional, innovative, and productive team
2011 Goals
Improve Transportation
- Enhance Visitor Experience
- Evaluate/Improve public transportation services
- Complete Transportation Hub and measure effectiveness
- Reduce congestion
- Continue to partner with CDOT and RMNP to seek solutions
Li Sustain Infrastructure
- Develop Comprehensive Street Maintenance/Replacement Program
- Examine internal and external funding sources
- Recommend street maintenance/replacement plans for 2012 budget
Stanley Park Redevelopment
- Review MPEC Proforma
- Establish plan for new horse stalls
- Resolve SOPA feasibility at Fairgrounds and FOSH funding by May 2011
Bond Park Redevelopment
- Complete Phases I and Ili
- Develop scope for Phase 11
Develop Economic Strategy
- Explore grant opportunities
- Evaluate economic development opportunities
- Participate in economic development plan with Larimer County
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
From: Town Administrator Halburnt
Date: September 22, 2011
RE: Capital Asset Prioritization and Other Budget Issues
The town board recently ranked the following projects and the results will be presented
on Tuesday.
1. SOPA Site Prep
2. Museum Storage
3. MPEC
4. Remodel Barn W
5. Indoor Arena
6. Affordable Housing
7. Stall Barns
8. Bond Park Phase II
9. Moraine Streetscape
10.Police Lobby
11. Elkhorn Project, Inc — infrastructure assistance
12.Elkhorn Project, Inc — loan
13. Parking Structure, Location TBD
14.Transportation Hub restroom facilities
15.CVB 2nd Floor Remodel for LMD
These items were ranked based upon the 2011 Guiding Principles; Budget/Legal;
Project Year and other categories for a total score not to exceed 100 points. Each year
the town board ranks projects to determine where the group's priorities lie and if a
project will be integrated into the next year's budget/Community Reinvestment Fund.
Staff has not budgeted any 2012 projects and is looking for guidance.
Other outstanding budget issues the staff would like to discuss with the town board
include:
-Transit routes. We have received three different proposals for transportation from the
Estes Area Lodging Association, the Transportation Visioning Committee, and a lodge
owner. For 2011, staff delivered a fiat budget to the board and did not recommend
spending more money on shuttles. EALA approached the board with $30,000 worth of
extended routes, both by time and days, and the board approved the increase. This
year EALA is again asking for extended routes and also has some ideas for producing
revenue to offset the increase. There is also an additional cost to keep the public
restrooms open to match the shuttle times/days.
-Medium Size Rodeo. The Town was unexpectedly placed into the Medium Size Rodeo
category by the Professional Rodeo Cowboys' Association due to our purse size. The
Rodeo Committee endorses this change and there are ongoing budget implications to
consider. If the town wants to stay a Medium Size Rodeo, we would like it to be a
conscious decision and not because we unknowingly placed ourselves there.
Memo
To:
Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Halburnt
TOWN or FSTES PARI
From: Betty Kilsdonk, Community Services Director
Date: September 27, 2011
RE: Shuttle Service
u
Background:
This year the Town was fortunate to receive lots of feedback on the shuttle service. It is
wonderful that so many organizations and individuals care enough about the shuttle
system to take the time to offer suggestions and recommendations. The feedback has
actually been a bit overwhelming and it has proven impossible to put a cost to every
request in a timely manner. Therefore, presented here are detailed cost analyses of the
2012 requests from EALA/LMD and the Transportation Visioning Committee, and a less
detailed analysis of requests made by the Estes Park Business Association. In addition,
input from several additional sources is compiled here, as is a list of anticipated input
still to come. More research on any of these suggestions can be done on request.
Estes Area Lodging Association/Local Marketing District
Staff met with members of the Estes Area Lodging Association (EALA) Board and Cory
Blackman, Chairman of the Local Marketing District (LMD), on August 30, 2011. Staff
received an email summary of the EALA/LMD request for 2012 shuttle service.
The request was fourfold. The first two have the most budget impact.
•Start one hour earlier and end one hour later for all routes.
Red, Blue and Silver routes would be 9 am - 11 pm (currently 10 am - 10 pm).
Brown route would be 9 am - 9 pm (currently 10 am - 8 pm).
•Extend the days of operation to June 15 - Sept 11, 2012.
Staff met with the Rocky Mountain Transit (RMT) manager to assign costs to the
request. Please note that the shuttle service contract will go to bid so all costs are
estimates.
Item
2012 EALA/LMD Request
2012 Status Quo
Service Days
89
79
Service Hours
4628
2992
Direct Shuttle Cost*
$245, 900
$202, 604
Difference
+$43, 296
*Includes base cost, fettering, pickup/return, and fuel surcharge. Does not include
signage, maps, special charters, etc.
The EALA/LMD representatives made two other requests:
•Code colored hand-out maps so color-blind people can read them. Use dashes,
dots, etc, so the maps will be universally read.
*Make a version of the map that can be printed in black/white.
Staff will make every effort to honor those requests. The 2011 EOY est. total for signs,
maps, special charters, etc. is $11,255. Staff anticipates that the 2012 EALA/LMD map -
related requests will have minimal budget impact.
*2011 total end -of -year expense estimate is $212,916.
•Including the EALA/LMD requests, signs, maps, special charters, etc., a safe estimate
for the 2012 total expense would be about $257,000.
In 2011, the public cleaning service contract was extended by two hours a day to
accommodate the extended shuttle service at a cost of $3840. Extending the 2012
public restroom cleaning contract by an additional two hours a day for the 89 days of
service would cost an estimated $7120.
Steve Kruger, an EALA member who attended the August 30 meeting and the general
manager of Solitude Cabins, located at Brodie and Fish Creek, separately requested a
shuttle stop be added at his establishment. This is a challenging request, but there are
at least four options:
•Expand the Silver route. This would most likely add about 10 minutes into the loop.
*Ask Solitude Cabins to call RMT when there are passengers, and RMT would divert
the Silver shuttle to pick them up.
•Suggest that Solitude Cabins advise its guests to drive to the Manford hub and catch
the shuttle there.
•Expand the Brown route. This would mean passengers would be on the bus at least 45
minutes before they came into town.
Transportation Visioning Committee
Staff met with the Transportation Visioning Committee's (TVC) Shuttle Work Group,
headed by Kimberly Campbell, on August 15, 2011. The work group presented staff
with an outline of four proposed shuttle routes in addition to the Silver express route:
1. Green Route/Shopper Shuttle: Run two -three vehicles so that it stops no less
than three times an hour at each location; use a unique vehicle such as a tram or
uniquely -decorated shuttle van. Route: Manford hub — EP Visitor Center — Town
Hall — Performance Park — Elkhorn Lodge (tentative) — Grubsteak — Rocky Mtn.
Traders — Barlow Plaza — Conference Center — Manford hub.
2. Red Route: EP Visitor Center — Timber Creek Chalet — Fall River Visitor Center —
McGregor Mountain Lodge — Estes Park Condos — Boulder Brook — Stonebrook
Resort — Nicky's Resort — EP Visitor Center. Stops Removed: 4 Seasons on Fall
River — Mrs. Walsh's Garden — Grubsteak — Rocky Mountain Traders — Barlow
Plaza.
3. Blue Route: Visitor Center — Budget Host — Best Western — Grumpy Gringo —
Lake Estes Marina — Ride -a -Kart — KOA — Rodeway Inn — Stanley Hotel — Visitor
Center. Stops Removed: Lower Stanley Village, Rocky Mountain Traders, Barlow
Plaza.
4. Brown Route: EP Visitor Center — Marys Lake Lodge — Mary's Lake Campground
— National Park Village — EIk Meadow Lodge & RV Park — Estes Park
Campground — Estes Park Center — YMCA — Glacier Lodge — Rockmount
Cottages — Beaver Meadows Visitor Center — National Park Village — Worldmark
— Piccadilly Square — Barlow Plaza — EP Visitor Center. Stops Removed: Alpine
Trail Ridge Inn.
The TVC's emphasis is on reworking routes rather than extending days and hours of
service. They see the ideal shuttle experience as more than a means to an end, with the
potential of enhancing one's experience of Estes Park. For the Green Route/Shopper
Route, they are suggesting use of a trolley. Coins or tokens could be dropped in an
onboard collection box to make it more fun and raise funds to offset costs.
The TVC recommendation is to "run two -three vehicles along the Green/Shopper route."
Cost per each additional vehicle is $53,202. If four shuttles plus one additional vehicle
or trolley were added, here is the estimated cost:
Item
2012 TVC Request
2012 Status Quo
Service Days
79
79
Service Hours
4424
2992
Direct Shuttle Cost*
$255, 805
$202, 604
Difference
+$53, 201
`Includes base cost, lettering, pickup/return, and fuel surcharge for four shuttles plus
additional trolley. Does not include signage, maps, special charters, etc.
Estes Park Business Association
Also present at the August 15 TVC meeting with Town staff was Charley Dickey, a
member of the TVC and president of the Estes Park Business Association (EPBA). Mr.
Dickey presented a list of his personal recommendations at the meeting (some of which
were also TVC recommendations) and subsequently polled the EPBA membership for
additional feedback; two responses were received and shared with the Town. These
recommendations include:
•Signage change from Park-n-Ride to "Free Shuttle" must be larger.
•Vehicle wraps for all shuttles such as EIk, Bear, Moose, Eagle, etc.
•Audio information piped through speakers in the shuttle on the area, history, music or
advertising.
•Efficient schedule of routes (see Kimberly [Campbell's] suggestions).
•Benches for waiting riders at shuttle stops and especially the EP Visitor Center.
•Functional restrooms at the hub that are cleaned daily.
• Town trash can and recycle bin at the hub.
•Better signage showing each route.
• Maps need to be less confusing at each stop.
•Bicycle racks for all shuttles.
*Sell ads inside the bus, as was done a few years ago, to pay for some of these other
suggestions. "That was some of the only advertising I ever got a reaction to in five
years!" (from a retail business service center).
•"Provide an earlier morning start time for the YMCA of the Rockies shuttle route [Le.
the current Brown route]. We get frequent requests for people at the YMCA who do not
have a car. We have to go out and pick them up so they can take a 9:15am or 6:45am
morning raft trip. Then we drive them back when they return because they don't know
anything about the free shuttle to catch it on their own" (from a rafting company).
Cost Analysis:
Staff worked with RMT to address most of these suggestions.
Vehicle Wraps: Because the buses are leased each year, a vehicle wrap would need to
be installed at the beginning of the season and removed at season's end. A decal that
would cover two sides of a bus (but not the back) and would not go above the windows
would cost $600 per vehicle. A decal that would cover the windows (but passengers
could still see out) would cost $1000. The vendor consulted by RMT has stock graphics,
including animals, which might work, or could custom design the artwork for $110 per
hour.
Audio Information: All the Town shuttles have CD players, so the cost would be in
creating the product.
Benches: The Parks Dept. recently purchased outdoor benches at $896 each. Some
stops already have benches; some could not accommodate benches. If 30 benches
were purchased, cost would be $26,880.
Bicycle Racks: RMT does not recommend bike racks for a few reasons. The Park
discourages bicycles on their shuttle system so anyone bringing a bicycle onto a Town
shuttle expecting to connect with a Park shuttle would not be happy. The Town shuttles
are leased and they are usually new. There is a likelihood that adding bike racks will
scratch and otherwise physically damage the vehicles, for which the Town would need
to pay. Another concern is that the shuttles get delayed in traffic as is, and
accommodating bicycles would add further delays.
Selling Ads: Staff consulted with the LMD on selling ads in 2010. At that time, the LMD's
recommendation was that selling ads on buses that were not of uniform size was
impractical and would not work.
The following represents feedback for which no cost analysis was done.
Rocky Mountain Transit
Thirteen user comment forms and one letter were received by RMT and forwarded to
the Town. RMT also received occasional phone call feedback which was shared with
the Town. Much of this feedback was just commentary on friendly customer service, etc.
Comment related to shuttle budget included:
*It would be very nice for us locals to extend the shuttle service from Thursday to
Sunday through September/October.
*The Brown shuttle route needs to return later since I didn't have a car and there were
no rentals available from Estes/Lyons. Need more local transportation. $13.00 for cab
ride from Visitor Center to cabin [on] Rte. 66.
•Reducing shuttle service after 7 PM [on July 4] resulted in massive overcrowding . .
driver was terribly verbally abused by a handful of travelers... the evening was just
beginning, not ending...many people needed and expected transportation, wonderful
through the day, challenging after 7pm.
*Start the Visitor Shuttle earlier so [the] Hiker Shuttle can be met early ... Have a
shuttle stop at Upper Stanley shopping center so groceries can be purchased at
Safeway.
RMT conducts exit interviews with shuttle drivers and a copy of the drivers' sixteen
suggestions was forwarded to the Town:
1. Check ridership at Timbercreek & Boulder Brook.
2. Try to use Riverside Drive. Helps avoid traffic congestion on busy days and
services Skyslide, Crags Lodge & Sweet Basilico. Keeps people from walking
uphill at World Mart.
3. Go into the YMCA before the Campground at end of Rt. 66.
4. Start the Brown route at 8:00am.
5. Need to make sure desk people know where the stop is at Marys Lake Lodge.
6. Town Visitor Center closes at 5pm no one to answer questions after 5pm.
7. YMCA must inform people they do not get into the Park without paying fee.
8. Need better signage once cars turn off Hwy. 36 onto Community Drive. Too
many cars want to park at the gun range or baseball field. Need better signs
leading them to the Fairgrounds Park-n-Ride. Once at the Park-n-Ride, need
signage pointing them to the shuttle stop.
9. Porta-potty [at the Park-n-Ride] was horrendous. Smelled and was out of order
during Scottish Fest. Needs to be cleaned almost daily especially during events
at the Fairgrounds.
10. Need a bench at the Silver route pickup point at the Visitor Center.
11. Town buses should have signage inside bus showing the stops that it serves.
12. It would be great if we did not combine the Red & Blue routes after 7:00pm.
There is still too much confusion about times etc.
13. Add a stop on the Blue route at entrance to Ranch Meadow condos.
14. Consider running the Silver route up Hwy. 34, down McGregor. Drop
passengers at First National Bank of Estes then return up Virginia to Hwy. 34 and
back to Visitor Center.
15. Silver Route should run up Hwy. 7 to Graves to Community. Pickup at housing
near Community & Graves.
16. Red Route has a difficult time keeping on schedule due to traffic tie ups on
Elkhorn. It would be nice to somehow avoid downtown and have only one drop
off point in Town, possibly by the First National Bank of Estes.
Comments from the RMT manager: There is a definite problem with people coming to
the Visitor Center and trying to figure out the map at the front door. The first three years
during the trial period we supplied a "dispatcher" at a table to answer bus questions.
The following years the Town chose not to hire a dispatcher to answer questions. Now
when people are asked to go inside to ask a bus question many times they don't want to
wait in line because they are in a hurry and don't want to miss their bus.
When people ask our drivers a question many times it causes the driver to run late and
off schedule. If the driver suggests to folks to go inside and ask their questions people
feel the driver is not being friendly or helpful and puts our drivers in a bad light.
Next year there will be a lot of confusion with the Bear Lake construction project and
delays etc. It would be really helpful if some type of information ambassador could be
outside to answer bus related questions. Our company could supply this person, but
unfortunately, it would come as an additional cost to the Town.
Other
We heard from at least ten individuals or businesses through the Town's website
feedback form, letters to the Mayor, visits or phone calls to the Visitor Center and the
Town Clerk's office, etc.
For example, Elkhorn Lodge requested to be added to the shuttle route. A downtown
business owner requested a shuttle stop on the north side of Elkhorn Avenue in central
downtown. Someone suggested installing clear recycle boxes on the shuttle signs so
the maps could be recycled. A local who lives off Hwy. 7 asked if the shuttle schedule
could be friendlier to locals, such as including stops along Hwy. 7 so the shuttle could
be used to get to and from work in the summer. However, the local also commented
that the length of the round trip on the shuttle (one hour) was too long to make this
work, and that other communities try to keep the wait to twenty minutes or less.
Another local suggested
Two turnarounds: one at the Performance Park parking lot, as well as at the
Visitor Center lot. No stops on the core of Elkhorn Avenue. Coming from the
west, get off at the Performance Park turnaround. Go home from there. Corning
from the east, get off [at] the Visitor Center, walk down town. Want to go home,
walk back to the Visitor Center. Coming from the west, want to eat at Grumpy
Gringo, get off at Performance Park, walk through town, get on the East van and
then reverse .... If buses are not sitting stopped on Elkhorn, they can run more
routes and keep to schedules.
Future Input
Commentary expressed at public forums hosted by the Transportation Visioning
Committee, which occurred on September 20 and 22, was not available at the time of
this summary.
Results of the Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Technical Assistance Center
Transportation Survey, conducted from July 26-August 9, 2011 as a joint effort between
RMNP and the Town of Estes Park, will be available later this fall.
Staff attended the Partners for Commerce Board meeting on September 21, 2011 and
requested feedback on the shuttle service, if any. (Partners representatives also
planned to participate in the TVC public forums.)
Staff will attend the October 11 Ambassador meeting and solicit feedback.
Staff will meet with the RMNP Transportation Supervisor John Hannon in September,
and will attend the RMNP closeout meeting of Park Shuttle operations on October 6.
RMNP anticipates that Bear Lake construction will impact both the RMNP and Town
shuttle systems, plus parking at the Visitor Center and the Manford hub lots.
Staff will hold a closeout meeting of Town shuttle operations on Oct. 6 with Rocky
Mountain Transit Management, including McDonald Transit Assoc. President Bob
Babbitt.
Memo
To:
Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Halburnt
TOWN OF EST ES PARI
From: Betty Kilsdonk, Community Services Director
Date: September 27, 2011
RE: Mid -size Rodeo Implications
s
Current Status
Last month, staff learned that the Rooftop Rodeo had been reclassified as a medium -
size rodeo by the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association (PRCA) for 2011. Estes
Park's Rooftop Rodeo is sponsored by the Town of Estes Park and coordinated by the
Rooftop Rodeo Committee, which includes volunteers from across Northern Colorado.
PRCA Rodeo category size is based on total purse size.
•The Small Rodeo category has a purse of $3000 or less per event.
•The Medium Rodeo category has a purse of $3001-$9999 per event.
In 2011 there were 474 PRCA rodeos, classified as follows:
Committee of the Year Cometitive Categories:
Rodeo Size
2011
Small ($3,000 or less per event)
298
Medium ($3001-$9,999 per event)
131
Large Indoor ($10,000 or greater)
12
Large Outdoor ($10,000 or greater)
33
Total PRCA Rodeos
474
In 2010, the Rooftop Rodeo total purse was $19,950 for seven events or an average of
$2,850 per event.
In 2011, the total purse size was $23,600 for seven events or an average of $3,371 per
event. Because our 2011 average was $3,371, we were placed in the medium category
on the voting ballot for best rodeo.
The purse size was increased at the recommendation of the Rooftop Rodeo Committee.
One of the seven events, team roping, has two winners, and before this year, the two
winners split the purse. The Rodeo Committee wanted to make this fairer to the
contestants in 2011 by providing a bigger purse for an event which has two winners.
Many PRCA rodeos follow this practice for team events. It has been discussed at the
PRCA convention, is strongly encouraged by PRCA, and may become a PRCA rule in
the future.
However, the resulting PRCA reclassification from small to mid -size rodeo was
unforeseen by the Committee or staff. From the Rodeo Committee's perspective, the
purse was now divided by eight, providing $2950 per event participant, and thereby
staying beneath the PRCA mid -size rodeo threshold. From the PRCA perspective,
there were eight participants but seven events, for a $3371 event average.
In August, PRCA notified staff that Estes Park would appear on the ballot in the mid-
size category. Ballots were mailed out to the 5,000 PRCA members, which include
cowboys, vendors, stock providers, etc., for voting. On September 15, PRCA notified us
that we are in the top five in the mid -size rodeo category. The four competing rodeos
are Abilene, KS; Ogden, UT; Deadwood, SD; and Gunnison, CO.
Here is a comparison with the other Medium Rodeo of the Year candidates.
Rodeo
Dates
# Performances
Total Payout
Estes Park, CO
July 12-17
6
$68,542
Abilene, Texas
September 14-18
5
$76,180
Ogden, Utah
July 20-23 & 25
5
$132,211
Deadwood, SD
July 28-30
3
$177,049
Gunnison, CO
July 8-17
3
$48,034
The winner will be announced in Las Vegas on November 30, during the National Finals
Rodeo.
2012 Ramifications
The Rooftop Rodeo's classification on the PRCA ballot for 2012 depends on how much
total purse money is paid out, divided by the seven events. If the purse is less than
$3,000 per event, the Rodeo will return to the small category.
PRCA recommends that rodeos stick to one category, rather than switch between
categories. PRCA recommends that at least 17% of ticket sales must be in the purse.
(This year, ticket sales were $135,000. Seventeen percent of $135,000 = $22,950. Total
purse for 2011 was $23,600.)
Expense
if we choose to remain in the medium category, it would mean an increased financial
commitment from the Town in two areas: purse size and stock fees.
a) Purse Size
Fairgrounds/Events Manager Winslow, in consultation with the Rodeo Committee, is
proposing a 2012 purse size of $32,000 ($5714 per event or $4000 per contestant). As
compared to 2011, that would mean an additional $8400 in the total payout.
b) Stock Fees
Manager Winslow is proposing an increase of $8000 to the 2012 budget for stock fees.
(Per the contract, the stock contractor fees go up each year. The 2011 stock contract
was $76,000. The 2012 stock contract will be $77,900. The stock fee total with the
additional $8000 would be $85,900.)
Manager Winslow's opinion is that the increased purse size will mean a slight increase
in the bucking stock participation. Rules say the maximum number of bucking stock is
ninety per event. Rooftop Rodeo now averages about seventy. Timed cattle events do
not have a maximum, and the expense could increase there as well. Whereas the
actual total stock fee increase could be as high as $12,000, staff is discussing with the
stock contractor regarding cost sharing, wherein the contractor would absorb the cost of
adding bucking stock and the Rooftop Rodeo would take on the cattle cost.
Revenue
Remaining in the mid -size category also offers revenue potential, such as:
*Increase in attendance and therefore gate take
•More sponsorship money
Should the Rooftop Rodeo stay in the mid -size category, it will attract higher quality and
better-known contestants. Attendance is likely to increase, since fans come to see top
athletes. Increased visibility also provides the opportunity to attract more sponsorship
dollars.
To:
Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Halburnt
TOWN OF EST ES PARK
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: September 19, 2011
RE: Future Town Board Study Session Items
October 11th
LMD Funding
Volunteer Policy
Other Items Not Scheduled for Town Board Study Sessions
• Kathay Rennels — Economic Council
• Mayor's right to vote (1st Quarter 2012)1 Town Board Compensation
• Communication Policy
• Workforce Housing Presentation (Rita Kurelja)
Other Items Not Scheduled for Town Board Regular Meetings
• Cheley Reservoir / Spring House — Authority to Sell (Ordinance)
• Agreement for Water Augmentation — Cheley
• Moraine Ave. Ped. Improvements — Award Construction
• Special Event Liquor Licensing
• Bond Park Phase II
CAMP PRIORITIZATION 2011
Summary of Results
Projects ranked by percentage score:
1
Fairgrounds at Stanley Park - Stall Barns Phase III
85%
2
Bond Park Phase Two
81%
3
Moraine Avenue Streetscape
80%
4
Fairgrounds at Stanley Park - Remodel Barn W
71%
*
5
Fairgrounds at Stanley Park - Multipurpose Event Center MPEC
68%
*
6
Performing Arts Center Site Preparation
64%
*
7
Public Restroom at Transportation Hub Bus Shelter
59%
8
Estes Park Museum Storage Facility
50%
*
9
Elkhorn Project Inc. Infrastructure Assistance
50%
*
10
Affordable Housing on the Fish Hatchery Property
49%
11
Parking Structure Location TBD
49%
*
12
Fairgrounds at Stanley Park - Indoor Arena
47%
*
13
Police Department Lobby Remodel
40%
14
Elkhorn Project Inc. Loan
34%
*
15
2nd Floor CVB Remodel for the LMD
8%
*
*Pending more information, Trustee Miller did not rate this item. Percentage determined using 600 total.
CAMP Project 1: Fairgrounds at Stanley Park - Stall Barns Phase IIl
Total score: 594
Rank among projects: 1
Name
Percentage: 85%
Project score
Time frame indicated
Pinkham
90
2013-2014
Levine
100
2012
Blackhurst
49
2012
Elrod
100
2012
Ericson
100
2012
Koenig
100
2012
Miller
55
None
Total:
594
CAMP Project 2: Public Restroom at Transportation Hub Bus Shelter
Total score: 413
Rank among projects: 5
Name
Percentage: 59%
Project score
Time frame indicated
Pinkham
50
2012
Levine
25
None
Blackhurst
0
None
Elrod
70
2012
Scored 15
1
Ericson
98
2012
Koenig
100
Date not provided
Miller
70
2012
Total:
413
CAMP, Project 3: Performing Arts Center, Site Presentation..
Total score: 383
Rank among projects: 7
Name
Percentage: 64%
Project score
Time frame indicated
Pinkham
40
None
Levine
56
• None
Biackhurst
45
2013-2014
Elrod
65
None
Ericson
97
2012
Koenig
80
2013-2014
Miller
0*
None*
Total: 383
*Pending more information, Trustee Miller did not rate this item. Percentage determined using 600.
CAMP Project 4: Fairgrounds at Stanley Park - Multipurpose Event Center MPEC
Total score: 408
Rank among projects: 6
Name
Percentage: 68%
Project score
Time frame indicated
Pinkham
80
2013-2014
Levine
80
2013-2014
Blackhurst
73
2012
Elrod
15
None
Ericson
90
2013-2014
Koenig
70
None
Miller
0*
None*
Scored 15
Total: 408
*pending more information, Trustee Miller did not rate this item. Percentage determined using 600.
CAMP Project 5: Moraine Avenue Streetscape
Total score: 562
Rank among projects: 3
Name
Percentage: 80%
Project score
Time frame indicated
Pinkham
95
2012
Levine
75
2012
Blackhurst
52
2012
Elrod
85
2012
Ericson
90
2012
Koenig
100
2012
Miller
65
2012
Scored 15
Scored 15
2
Total:
562
CAMP Project 6: Elkhorn Project Inc. Infrastructure Assistance
Total score: 297
Rank among projects: 10
Name
Percentage: 50%
Project score
Time frame indicated
Pinkham
90
2012
Levine
77
2012
Blackhurst
0
None
Elrod
0
None
Ericson
50
2015-2016
Koenig
80
Date not provided
Miller
0*
None*
Total: 297
*Pending more information, Trustee Miller did not rate this item. Percentage determined using 600.
CAMP Project 7: Fairgrounds at Stanley Park - Remodel Barn W
Total score: 426
Rank among projects: 4
Name
Percentage: 71%
Project score
Time frame indicated
Pinkham
80
2013-2014
Levine
86
2012
Blackhurst
45
2013-2014
Elrod
45
2013-2014
Ericson
70
2015-2016
Koenig
100
2013-2014
Miller
0*
None*
Total: 426
*Pending more information, Trustee Miller did not rate this item. Percentage determined using 600.
CAMP Project 8: CVB 2nd Floor Remodel for LMD
Total score: 45
Rank among projects: 15
Name
Percentage: 8%
Project score
Time frame indicated
Pinkham
15
None
Levine
30
None
Blackhurst
0
None
Elrod
0
None
Ericson
0
None
Koenig
0
None
Miller
0*
None*
Total: 45
*Pending more information, Trustee Miller did not rate this item. Percentage determined using 600.
CAMP Project; 9: Parking Structure Location TBD
Total score: 295
Rank among projects: 11
Name
Percentage: 49%
Project score
Time frame indicated
Pinkham
90
2012
Levine
45
None
Blackhurst
0
None
Elrod
90
2012
Ericson
0
None
Koenig
70
Date not provided
Miller
0*
None*
Total: 295
*Pending more information, Trustee Miller did not rate this item. Percentage determined using 600.
CAMP Project 10: Elkhorn Project Inc. Loan
Total score: 204
Rank among projects: 14
Name
Percentage: 34%
Project score
Time frame indicated
Pinkham
80
2013-2014
Levine
34
None
Blackhurst
0
None
Elrod
0
None
Ericson
0
None
Koenig
90
Date not provided
Miller
0*
None*
Total: 204
*Pending more information, Trustee Miller did not rate this item. Percentage determined using 600.
CAMP Project 11: Police Department Lobby Remodel
Total score: 277
Rank among projects: 13
Name
Percentage: 40%
Project score
Time frame indicated
Pinkham
50
2012
Levine
40
2015-2016
Blackhurst
42
2012
Elrod
85
2012
Ericson
10
2015-2016
Koenig
30
Date not provided
Miller
20
. 2013-2014
Total:
CAMP Project 12: Bond Park Phase Two
Total score: 566
Rank among projects: 2
Percentage: 81%
277
Name
Project score
Time frame indicated
Pinkham
90
2013-2014
Levine
90
2012
Blackhurst
71
2012
Elrod
90
2012
Ericson
35
2015-2016
Koenig
90
2013-2014
Miller
100
2012
Total:
566
CAMP Project 13: Affordable Housing on the Fish Hatchery Property
Total score: 340
Rank among projects: 8
Name
Percentage: 49%
Project score
Time frame indicated
Pinkham
50
2015-2016
Levine
65
2015-2016
Blackhurst
0
None
Elrod
30
None
Ericson
20
None
Koenig
85
2015-2016
Miller
90
2012
Total:
340
CAMP Project 14: The Fairgrounds at Stanley Park - Indoor Arena
Total score: 281
Rank among projects: 12
Name
Percentage: 47%
Project score
Time frame indicated
Pinkham
80
2013-2014
Levine
70
2013-2014
Blackhurst
5
2015-2016
Elrod
21
2015-2016
Ericson
15
None
Koenig
90
2013-2014
Miller
0*
None*
Total: 281
*Pending more information, Trustee Miller did not rate this item. Percentage determined using 600.
CAMP Project 15: Estes Park Museum Storage Facility
Total score: 300
Rank among projects: 9
Name
Percentage: 50%
Project score
Time frame indicated
Pinkham
60
2015-2016
Levine
60
2013-2014
Blackhurst
10
2013-2014
Elrod
85
2015-2016
Ericson
0
None
Koenig
85
2015-2016
Miller
0*
None*
Total: 300
*Pending more information, trustee Miller did not rate this item. Percentage determined using 600.
2011 "CAMP" PRIORITIZATION WORKSHEET COMMENTS
To: Board of Trustees, Estes Park, Colorado
From: Jerry W Miller, Trustee
Date: 25 September, 2011
First, I wish to commend Kate for coming up with' this first attempt at a project evaluation format.
1. SOPA Site Prep:
The question remains whether or not their fund rasing goals will be met in accordance with
the agreed upon time table or if the facility will remain at Stanley Park even if it does get
funding. 1 think we need to wait and see what happens.
As a result, I did not rate this item.
2. Museum Storage Facility:
Prior to the Board taking any action on this item, I think we need to, again, wait and see what
happens with the fund rasing efforts.
• As a result, I did not rate this item.
3. MPEC:
Construction Documents for this facility were prepared to the 2003 Building Codes, instead of
the 2009 Codes as directed by this Board, and so are now obsolete and cannot be used.
IF SOPA fails to get funding or moves to a different location, I believe the Board needs to
take another look at the location of this facility. The original 2005 Stanley Park Master Plan
had it located near the intersection of Manford and Community, in a similar location to where
the Performing Arts Center is currently shown. Based on neighborhood input and the 2005
Master Plan, I believe it shouldmove back to that location if circumstances allow.
Given the fact the facility has to be redesigned to meet adopted Codes, I think we need to
reexamine the size of the facility and some of the amenities provided in it based on reality vs.
desire.
Looking back at the history of this facility, a need for new livestock barns was
identified in 2004. In 2007, an RFP was authorized for a preliminary design for "new
stall barns" and $50,000 was budgeted for their design in the CRF. It was during this
design process that the "barns" morphed into the MPEC and the original intent of
"multi -use stall barns" was lost. I think we need to take a close look at the proforma
for this facility and maybe rethink the original intent. Maybe it's more appropriate to
look at a facility who's primary use is housing livestock which can then be used in the
winter for other functions rather than a dedicated "Event Center" that can house
livestock until other facilities are built.
If the real need is for additional conference space, then maybe what shouldbe looked
at, in conjunction with Rocky Mtn Park Inn people, is an expansion to the Conference
Center.
As a result, 1 did not rate this item.
4. Barn W "Remodel":
I don't believe we have enough information to move forward with this. The cost is projected
at $385,000 without any data, such as realistic estimates, to support this cost. Also, what is
the cost for a complete replacement of the building? What is the scope of the remodel?
As a result, I did not rate this item.
5. Indoor Arena:
Based on the Citizen Survey, this facility ranked low on the list of things the people would like
us to do. Regardless, I think a need may exist but I've heard nothing factual about that need
yet, especially considering the cost. I think a basic question needs to be asked about whether
or not it's realistic to complete with the Larimer County Facilities or just provide adequate
facilities to meet our projected user needs.
• As a result, I did not rate this item.
6. Stall Barns:
I do not agree with staff s decision regarding the location. If we're going to build a new stall
barn(s) now, they need to be close to the action, not put at the farthest distance from them. I
think the first one needs to replace Barns `T' & `U'. Maybe it makes sense to build a second
one to replace Barn 'W'. I don't know because we don't have sufficient data on which to
base a decision.
As I have done on numerous occasions, I have to question the costs projected by staff without
any supporting data.
• Regardless, I see an immediate need for one or two barns to be constructed this year,
to replace the existing ones, for liability reasons if nothing else.
7. Bond Park Phase II:
I'm surprised at Staff's recommendation for the next phase, although it was presented as part
of the Master Plan by the Consultant. The Town Administrator has created a new
"Stakeholders" committee in order to make recommendations for the next phase, yet presents
a solution and associated costs for it prior to any meetings by the committee.
• However, I think something needs to be done to continue development of Bond Park
and the scope of those improvements should come from the Stakeholder Committee.
8. Police Lobby:
Once again, I don't think we have enough data to make a decision. Staff's CAMP lists a new
Police Lobby yet the Citizen Survey listed a new Police Building! That was apparently a
wasted question.
• How is handicapped accessability going to be maintained to the rest of the building if
the lift is removed?
9. EPI "Stuff':
I realize this was added to the evaluation form because a Trustee requested it. However, I
think this is way too premature to even consider and, should it get RTA funding, will require a
great deal of Board discussion, and public input, before any decision is made on what level of
participation, if any, the Town should have in this proposed project and when, if ever, that
participation could occur.
I'm also concerned that inclusion of these items for consideration for funding, under a CAMP
process, further sends our constituents the wrong message. I think it means we all agree the
project should move forward and has the full support of the Town Board. I do not think
that's the case at all.
• As a result, I did not rate these items.
10. Parking Structure:
Once again, I require more data. What is the status of the grant request? If we get the grant,
what is the timing? Do we have additional time to come up with the matching funds, i.e.
postpone it until 2013 or later? Is the cost estimate realistic and, if so, where's the supportive
data?
• As a result, I did not rate this item.
11. CVB Remodel:
Based on Staffs cost estimates to provide tenant finish for 1,400 square feet of space within
that building, I don't think it's worth spending another penny on it, except for maintenance of
course. It was supposed to have been designed to have a second floor that could be finished
to provide additional space, yet doing so is cost prohibitive.
• As a result, I did not rate this item.
While l realize this needs to be discussed in order to move forward with budgeting, this process also
needs to consider the results of the Citizens's Survey, which we've just received. As I believe
Trustee Ericson requested, I think a Community Center should also have been included in this
evaluation process. Since it wasn't, I think it should be included in next years discussions. A
Community Center rated much higher than anything else under consideration.
c
w
0.
v
0
u
J
0
C
9
7
0
N O
M
2011 CAMP PRIORITIZATION PROJECTS
vv vv
L
o O cn Ln c to al c c o 0) c
aZi >" y y E E f ?,
y 40 Q 4) Q Q 6' 4 a Q
E J c3 E E EE J E
E a °' o 0 0 o o
E U U U U U
0
U
LL
V -0 a
C C
W LL LL J
�"� LL LL L.L l.L U. LL LL
a Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m
U N= U U U U U OUU al al
zLII C C
Z W al v
a 07
O
M u'1 0 O O O
M O tO p 0 0
Ln O 10 O
ri
ON V V.). 1-1 N
v1 v} L1
O O O O O O O O
0000 0 0 0 0 0 0
O Vi O' O O O O
O inoN 001 al m LA0
L1 N 1--I L} (0
0/1 0'1 L1 L}
CVB Remodel 2nd Floor
Funding Source
3
0
$8,803,038 $16,215,000
ra
(0
N
1- 3
Funding Source
3
0
4La
O lO 10 d' n n f- n n n 0 0 0 0 0 CO
0 01 N CO N N N N n N 00 I- N CO 0 lO
O CO n e-I 01 01 -1 In cf N l0 Cr, rt1 O Ln l0
ON N n O1 01 01 O O 00 N Ln N LD n Co 0 N
N .-1 coM N (0 N N d' N N 40 N C y
L1 L1 (1 L. -LA 01 L1 L} L} L1 a1 L1 L} L1
04 E
C
a)
E c
a! N
U ci N C E
0 O O N 0
m al fa m E a, 8
' E a a m c o
L al '
C al 2 2 N d'
.� O LL a C C
2 a Q Q C 'a a
N y n_ .o N g w
t0 C C C M 4 10 4 U. al al
c 8: aJ 3 aJ 6 a) a ° a°' ° o
'0 a s m a-O- v 3=
Q N aJ al L .0 t t G Y a
m cc cc a a a a c . E
io ` YO
v a`, o 0 0 0 0 0> 'm 3 a
0> ro 0 (o m m m 2 v Y C
as c E E E E E E o m> m
ny m a ro 0 n:s0 m ro La - c
0 0 u u u 0 i 3
vo.> 5ccccccc 010 > (0
m c o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0' al p`
h 0 .0 T J J J J J J t20 N al N
1-= E co to co m ro P. U> -o
C 2 2 2 2 al d C J i 2 O
N J J J = n = a1 _ Q (0 L— 0
0
o
c
00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000
O O O O O Ln O O
Ln Ln 00 (0 00 01 O 00
n Li", O a W 0 O1 00
L1 0' cY 0. t0 N N LO
L1 L1 L1 Ll L} L1 L1
(-4 J
-o v 01
O J N ++ U E,
o O0 a i G U
W -0
O c '2 0 m C
15 'a 0 u•. c O 'o
c o a
E m 0 U n N
0 0 aJ L i j
0 ` _ ais o m
a m _v 10 0 -o
a-' o j LL Q 0 -c (0
c. v m o c 0.
� •- "O '6 '6 = 0_
1.
c - J a 4 ao 4
a a a
E m>a vJo Y
a c oc .J.n .0 3 0 o al
G U U 40 0. 01 Z
Funding Source
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 in
W
Funding Source
0
0
J
.c
0
S
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 (c 0 0+
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-1 0 1 0 0 1
O O O O O O O O O N O N 0 0 N O
lO O N N O (rj O V1 O (» O' rl 00
0 0 N to 0 to 0 N 0 to CO (11 N 0 0 N
V} V} V} V} t/} a-1 in. an. V} a --I (/} N Y V to (0 0
N 0> N' A 0> N o1 O
} 4?
iR
c
c
0
v 2
E u a,u a oi E
a o 2 a
2 n
C '^ u O
C v c 0 0 C N
t u v Q -C E E E
E
v
EmQvoo u u a'Jo'
y u O pa m tu aU
O. Y Y K )C» Q Qv 6
C t
C c =
Q
a E
O. A 0 In Z VI V, -6 O Y "O
T N Vf Y Y= LL 1n
m • '= ,,,, a, `o `o coa a, a
00>>- v 3 3 3 •Y
Z (n v, 0. > Z Z it- 0 a Q F
Requested Totals