Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - Urban Renewal Authority - Joint Session 1989-01-13BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Joint Session Board of Trustees/Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority January 13, 1989 Board of Trustees: Mayor Dannels, Trustees Aldrich, Barker, Dickinson, Garrett, Habecker, and Hix Board of Commissioners: Chairman Phares, Commissioners Ericson, Godbolt, Hondius, Pauley, and Pohl Board of Trustees, excluding Mayor Dannels, Chairman Phares, Commissioners Ericson, Godbolt, Hondius and Pohl Also Attending: Town Administrator/Commissioner Klaphake, Light and Power Director Dekker, Public Works Director Widmer, Community Development Director Stamey, Executive Director Anderson, Technical Planner Joseph, Paul Talmey and Jeff Caird/Talmey Research & Strategy, Inc., Clerk O'Connor Absent: Mayor Dannels, Commissioners Pauley Town Administrator/Commissioner Klaphake called the joint meeting to order at 12:17 P.M. TALMEY SURVEY - PRESENTATION. Attending: Paul Talmey presented the results of the survey taken of Estes Park residents during October, 1988. The results were based on 408 random telephone interviews. Questions assessed resident's views of urban renewal and related local issues. The firm found that Estes Park residents generally hold EPURA and the work the Authority has accomplished in high esteem. They feel the proj- ects have been worth the tax dollars spent; however, they are concerned about the cost of future projects and the es inbdirect t effect of EPURA's tax increment financing. OpPont they are not well represented on either the Town Board or the EPURA Board; local taxes, particularly property taxes, are way too high; and they receive little or no benefit from either completed or contemplated EPURA projects. A copy of the survey document entitled "The People Look at EPURA" dated January 13, 1989, prepared by Talmey Research & Strategy, Inc., Boulder, Colorado is on file and made a part of the record of these proceedings by reference thereto. 1989 PROJECTS - DISCUSSION. Executive DirectorAndersonpresented a list of 1989 projects the Authority is proposing to undertake, as follows: 1. West Elkhorn Streetscape - extend the sidewalk and limited pedestrian amenities west from Tregent Park to West Park Center. Upon suggestion by the Colorado Department of Highways, this project will also involve widening of West Elkhorn Avenue to provide three (3) lanes at Spruce Drive to enable eastbound traffic to turn left onto Spruce Drive. Construction8-week ntic- tin- ipated to occur in April, with a 6 struction timetable. 2. West Elkhorn Parking Lot Acquisition - the property known as the "old lumberyard property" is now available; integration of this parking lot into the streetscape design will ensure pedestrian/auto access. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Joint Session - January 13, 1989 - Page two 3. Tourist Information Transfer System - an experimental tourist information transfer system will be installed and evaluated. This project will consist of two or three kiosks that can provide electronic information on Town activities to the visitor/resident. An interac- tion system which provides specialized information, as well as a passive television system to supply general information, may be utilized. As associated information project will be a pedestri- an -scale visual identification system to be used on Elkhorn Avenue and West Riverside Drive to identify access points to all river parks. 4. East Confluence Park - involves rebuilding of the Riverside Restroom to stabilize the Big Thompson riverbank and reduce the threat of flooding in the area. A children's play area and pedestrian amenities have been included. Fall 1989 - Winter 1990. 5. Big Thompson Riverbank Stabilization - if sufficient funds are available, this project will be undertaken concurrently with Project #4. Based upon available funding the following projects may be included: 1. East Entry Shoulder - low-level cleanup and beautification of the area across Highway 36 from the entry island to the Mountain Legacy sculpture. 2. Streetlights to Courtyard - installation of streetlights along Virginia Drive. 3. Modification of the Municipal Parking Lot - restripping with minor changes to accommodate an additional twenty (20) vehicles. 4. Replacement of Nagl Bridge - this project contains two (2) options: use the existing bridge and install a new deck and railing, or, replace the entire unit with a bridge similar to other bridges used in the Riverside Plaza Project. Optional projects include: 1. River Corridor Easements - continuing discussions to acquire pedestrian easements along the Fall and Big Thompson Rivers. 2. Trolley Operation - EPURA has stated its support of the existing trolley operation. Should the the Authoritynconvey- is ance be removed from the community, proposing to become actively involved in a replacement system. Upon discussion, Town Administrator Klaphake advised the first three (3) projects (West Elkhorn Streetscape, West Elkhorn Parking Lot Acquisition, and Tourist Information Transfer System) will be considered by the Public Works Committee at their meeting scheduled January 19, 1989. No further action was taken concern- ing the remaining projects. There being no further business, Administrator Klaphake adjourned the meeting at 1:27 P.M. Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk The People Look at EPURA - January 13, 1989 - Talmey Research & Strategy, Inc. Boulder, Colorado TABLE OF CONTENTS TOPIC PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 BROAD SUPPORT FOR EPURA 2 Downtown Landscaping Projects 3 Riverside Plaza Project 6 OPPOSITION TO EPURA 9 GENERAL CONCERNS ABOUT EPURA 11 EPURA Funding 12 Slow Down Pace 14 FUTURE PROJECTS 15 TOWN BOARD/ CITY GOV. RATINGS 17 CONCLUSIONS 19 INTRODUCTION In 1983 the Estes Park Town Board established a local Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA), and charged it with the task of designing and creating an urban environment which promotes economic opportunity while amplifying the magnificent natural setting of the community. The first phase of the Downtown Redevelopment Program focused on the enhancement of the pedestrian environment, the development of the Riverside Plaza, various traffic improvements and property acquisition. This phase also encouraged the joint public and private redevelopment of buildings and open spaces. With many of the phase one improvement projects completed, a desire to reexamine the Town's urban redevelopment program has been voiced by citizens and elected officials, alike. As a preliminary step in response to these concerns, the Estes Park Town Board commissioned Talmey Research Sr Strategy, Inc. to conduct a survey of Estes Park Valley residents about their perceptions of EPURA's past performance as well as its plans for the future. The results of this survey show that EPURA has earned the community's overwhelming endorsement of itself and its projects, but that there is an underlying concern about how EPURA is funded and that its tax increment financing may cause financial problems for the school, sanitation and hospital districts. And while respondents were quick to applaud the contribution of EPURA's completed projects to the local economy, they nevertheless wanted to slow the pace of future projects. Results from the survey are based on 408 random telephone interviews with Estes Park area residents. Questions assessed residents' views of urban renewal and related local issues. Respondents were screened so that the final sample included an equal representation of men and women and only residents who had lived in the Estes Park area for at least six months. A random sample of 408 has a 95% confidence interval of plus or minus 4.9% about any one reported percentage. 1 BROAD SUPPORT FOR EPURA In order to measure fundamental support or opposition to EPURA, survey respondents were presented with a hypothetical election to abolish or preserve the Authority. Those who have managed or helped EPURA over the past half decade should find the results particularly gratifying. Only a small minority, 28%, favored doing away with EPURA, while a healthy plurality of 44% said they were against abolishing it. However, given the awareness of the Authority's projects and the large amount of recent publicity, a surprisingly large 29% were undecided about how they would vote, given the opportunity. Graph 1: Would you vote YES, to abolish EPURA or would you vote NO, not to abolish it? No, don't abolish 44% Yes, abolish 28% Undecided 29% Respondents who live within the city limits supported EPURA more than those who live in unincorporated areas of the Estes Park Valley. Forty-nine percent of Town residents said they would vote to keep EPURA while only 38% of respondents who live outside the city limits said they would vote against abolishing the Authority. However, the lack of support outside city limits is due more to those who live there being undecided about EPURA, rather than being against it. 2 The two major reasons people support EPURA are the high level of satisfaction they have with past projects and the belief that the Urban Renewal Authority's ventures help the local economy. More specifically, respondents approved of how EPURA had spent the tax revenue it had collected since 1983. Most respondents (59%) believe that the approximately $8.5 million the Urban Renewal Authority had spent on downtown projects was justified based on both the improved appearance of Estes Park and the impact of the projects on the local economy. This general sense of a good value received is further evidenced by the majority of respondents, 56%, disagreeing with the statement that "the Urban Renewal Authority just isn't worth the money people have had to pay for it." This belief that Estes Park's appearance and economic livelihood are interconnected or interactive is widespread. When respondents were asked: "Does improving the appearance of downtown provide an important economic boost to the local economy or do downtown improvements have little or no economic effect," seven out of ten felt that improving the appearance of downtown was important to the local economy. The widespread belief that EPURA's expenditures are well justified undoubtedly stems from the strong approval residents give to EPURA's two largest projects, the downtown landscaping and Riverside Plaza. Downtown Landscaping Projects The predominant view held by residents about EPURA's downtown landscaping projects is one of satisfaction with both appearances and costs. For interviewing purposes, the long list of landscaping projects were condensed into a short synopsis. These projects were collectively referred to as "the planting of trees and flowers, placement of benches and lights downtown and the rebuilding of sidewalks and streets..." When asked whether these downtown landscaping projects improved downtown Estes Park appearance, an astounding 95% of respondents said the landscaping programs "greatly contributed" or "somewhat contributed" to improving the physical appearance of the downtown. A mere 5% of the people thought that these projects only slightly or did not at all contribute to the downtown. 3 Graph 2: Would you say the landscaping has contributed or not contributed to improving the physical appearance of downtown Estes Park? Greatly Contributed 75% 6.1 Somewhat Contributed 20% No Contribution 1% Only Slightly 4% Even those who wanted to abolish EPURA thought that the landscaping looked good. In somewhat of a surprise, 87% of the people who said they would vote to abolish EPURA, believed the downtown landscaping either "greatly contributed" (56%) or "somewhat contributed" (31%) to Estes Park's physical appearance. Closely associated with improving Estes Park's physical image, almost three-quarters (74%) of respondents felt that the downtown landscaping would help the local economy. Additionally, they believed that EPURA's landscaping was a good value for their tax dollars. Well over one-half (59%) of respondents said the landscaping projects were worth the $2,800,000 it cost, while less than one-third (31%) disagreed. Moreover, seventy-eight percent of those interviewed disagreed with the statement: "Planting all those trees and flowers along Elkhorn Avenue is a poor use of taxpayer's money." As one might expect, approval of the landscaping's appearance and economic benefits translated directly into superior job performance ratings for the Authority's work. When asked, "...how would you rate the job the Urban Renewal Authority has done on the downtown landscaping project. Would you say EPURA has done an excellent, good, only fair or poor job?" A resounding 91% of those interviewed gave EPURA a favorable rating (excellent or good) for the job they had done on the landscaping project. 4 When asked why they felt EPURA had done an excellent job on the downtown landscaping, 62% of residents gave the number one reason as liking the completed projects' appearance. Other reasons respondents awarded an excellent rating included: general approval (23%); that the tourists would like the work (16%); and the work was well planned (15%). Graph 3: Why do you say that EPURA has done an excellent job on their landscaping? Like Appearance General Approval Tourists Llke N \ Well Planned PI t/ Relaxing �� 7% ��i Other Proud A000mplish. -� 5% 6% Worth Money --N 2% 16° 15% 23% 62% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Of the relatively minor 2% that rated the EPURA's landscaping work as "poor", the reasons given included: the job was overdone; the project looked artificial; or the work done was too expensive or a waste of money. 5 Riverside Plaza Project Residents for the most part expressed satisfaction with the Riverside Plaza Project, albeit to a slightly lesser extent than with the downtown landscaping. In a clear approval of Riverside Plaza's aesthetics, 83% of those interviewed said that "Riverside Plaza contributed to improving the physical appearance of downtown Estes Park." Even 64% of those who favored abolishing EPURA said they liked the looks of the Riverside Plaza project. Only, seventeen percent of all respondents thought Riverside Plaza contributed minimally or not at all to the beauty of Estes Park. Just as respondents perceived the downtown landscaping projects as enhancements to the town's economic strength, so they saw the tax dollars invested in Riverside Plaza as a profitable investment in Estes Park's economic future. A majority (60%) believed that Riverside project would help the local economy. Even when respondents were told that the Riverside Plaza cost $1.4 million (including the land), by a margin of 54% to 38%, they thought the project well worth the amount. Graph 4: Would you say the Riverside Plaza has contributed or not at all to improving the physical appearance of downtown Estes Park? Greatly Contributed 56% No Contribution 5% Only Slightly 12% Somewhat Contributed 27% As expected, both the perceived economic and aesthetic benefits of the Riverside Plaza translated into exceptional performance ratings for EPURA. A very positive 81 % of respondents gave the Urban Renewal Authority excellent or good grades for the work it had done on the Riverside project. 6 When probed why they gave an "excellent" job rating for Riverside Plaza, respondents primarily responded that they liked the appearance of the completed project. Other reasons for giving an "excellent" job rating included: the work was well planned (17%); the tourists will like the Plaza (16%); and the Riverside is pleasant and relaxing (14%). Graph 5: Why do you say EPURA has done an excellent job on the Riverside Plaza? Like Appearance -• General Approval Well -Planned �� Tourists Like ti Pleasant/ Relaxing NN Other 6% Proud Accomplish. �a 2% 18% 17% 16% 14% 59% O% 26% 60% 75% 100% Once again, a minimal 5% gave a "poor" rating to EPURA's Riverside Plaza work. Of those who rated the Riverside Plaza as "poor," the majority felt that the project was too expensive or wasted money. Other responses included: the project was overdone; the work looked artificial; or it favors tourists over residents. 7 Satisfaction with the Urban Renewal Authority extended beyond the downtown landscaping and Riverside Plaza projects to include other EPURA undertakings. Most people (93%) also handed out "excellent" or "good" job ratings for the Authority's and other city government's efforts on rebuilding after the 1982 flood, making Estes Park an attractive place to live (88%) and promoting economic development (54%). Graph 6: Percent of residents rating Estes Park Town government as excellent or good on rubuilding after the 1982 flood, making Estes Park an attractive place to live, and promoting economic development. Rebuild after flood Estes Pk. Attractive \\\ ' Economic Development-�� 54% 3% 88 0 t t r 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 8 OPPOSITION TO EPURA Despite widespread backing for EPURA and it's projects, the Authority should not ignore the 28% of residents who favor its demise. Though as a group, those who would vote to end EPURA are older, and have a slightly lower income than EPURA's backers, they have lived in Estes Park longer and strongly believe that local government does a poor job representing them, that they pay too much in taxes and that they receive no benefit from EPURA's projects. In particular, EPURA opponents are generally dissatisfied with the direction the Town is going in, and disaffected with the Town Board. Only 47% of those who favor abolishing EPURA feel that "...things in Estes Park are generally going in the right direction." This contrasts to 87% of EPURA supporters feeling that Estes Park is on the right track. Further, while 67% of those who back EPURA believed one could "... trust the Estes Park Town Board to do what is right" all or most of the time, only 45% of opponents felt this way. Fifty-seven percent of those who would get rid of EPURA agreedwith the statement "The Estes Park Town Board is just not responsive to the needs of the people of Estes Park." And, 71% believed that "...the Estes Park Town Board is more responsive to the needs of local businesses than they are to the needs of the average home owner." Coupled with this political alienation, EPURA's opponents have a much higher sensitivity to taxes than the average Estes Park citizen. While only 37% of EPURA supporters believed that "Local taxes in Estes Park are too high ..." Fifty-five percent of opponents believed this was true. Similarly, 60% of the opponents disagreed with the statement: "Next year, if Estes Park does not have enough revenue, it would better for the Town to raise taxes than reduce services." This compares to only 40% of EPURA's supporters feeling this way. And, if the feeling of being unrepresented and over taxed were not enough to engender doubts about the Authority, a majority (58%) of those who favor abolishing EPURA believe that "...neither the current nor the proposed urban renewal projects" will effect them or their families." It should come as no surprise that those who feel they have had no say in the decision to be taxed, albeit indirectly, for something they don't want are not the happiest of campers. And while, should push come to shove, they lack the numerical strength to win, the depth of their dissatisfaction will likely cause them to continue to actively oppose EPURA should there be no response to their concerns. 9 Unfortunately there is no easy response. Political distrust, by its very nature, is particularly difficult to dispel, and it will certainly be equally difficult to sell the benefits of EPURA's projects to people who may, in fact, receive only meager rewards from improving the Town's aesthetics or economy. This leaves reducing EPURA's tax implications. Though respondents were not specifically queried about whether or not they believed EPURA's tax increment financing caused increases in the school or special district mill levy, a majority (53%) favored returning the property tax increment to the districts. Among those who would vote to abolish EPURA, 86% wanted the incremental tax revenue to go to the districts, compared to only 31% of those who backed EPURA. Further, over one-third (36%) of the opposition would switch sides, if EPURA were no longer receiving funds from the incremental increase in property tax revenue. Of course, public opinion does not always make good or efficient government, and the decision rests with the Town Board and the Authority as to whether or not it is in the best interest of Estes Park to maintain EPURA's financing and pace of operations or to appease a deeply felt minority concern and slow the redevelopment. 10 GENERAL CONCERNS ABOUT EPURA While less than a third of Estes Park residents favor abolishing EPURA, even those who support or who are undecided about the Authority's future share the opponents concerns about taxes. Thirty-seven percent of EPURA supporters and 50% of undecided voters agreed that, "Local taxes are too high, the Town Board has got to do something about cutting the local tax burden." Tax concerns were particularly acute among the lower income, 18-to 35-year olds, the over-65 citizen groups. Over one-half of those with incomes less than forty thousand dollars agreed that taxes are too high, while less than one-third of those with incomes over forty thousand dollars felt the same way. Younger citizens and senior citizens also agreed that local taxes are too high. Senior citizens represent the largest age group in Estes Park (27%) and within this important segment, a 45% plurality agreed taxes were too high and something should be done to lower them. Despite the fact that the mill levy is charged only to property owners, renters, undoubtedly because of lower incomes, appear more tax sensitive than the average home owner. Among all respondents there was a general reluctance to support anything that would increase taxes. Seventy-two percent of those interviewed said they opposed "expanding and improving the town's parks if it meant raising taxes." And 53% opposed "increasing parking downtown if it meant raising taxes." Finally, one-half (50%) agreed that it would be "better for the Town of Estes Park to reduce services than to raise taxes," if there is a revenue short fall this year. 11 EPURA Funding As one might expect, the majority of respondents said they did not understand EPURA's tax increment financing. Only one-third (35%) said they felt knowledgeable about how it works. However, when read a brief explanation of how tax increment financing works, one-half said it sounded like a "good" way to fund EPURA. But like the spring snow before chinook winds, this top of mind support for tax increment financing melts quickly once respondents are presented with information about the effect of increment tax financing on school, hospital and other district property tax revenues. When asked their opinion on, " Should EPURA turnover its property tax revenue to the districts or should it keep them to continue the current pace of redevelopment," fifty-three percent said to give all and 17% favored giving at least some of the property tax increment back to the school and hospital districts. Graph 7: Should EPURA turnover its property tax increment to the districts or should It keep the Increment to continue the current pace of development? Give to districts 53% jj:ftt1 •. Keep for development•••)7 20% Don't Know 10% Give districts some 17% This concern about EPURA drying up funds for schools and other districts is not surprising. Schools and education were most often mentioned as the number one issue facing Estes Park today. Women were not only more likely to see schools and education as the number one issue, they were more likely than men to favor turning over at least some of the property tax increment. 12 Among those who supported EPURA, 35% favored keeping the property tax increment for development, while those who were undecided however, 57% approved of giving the increment back to the districts. Restoring the property tax increment to the school, hospital and other districts, would cause 37% of opponents to now support EPURA and convince another 54% of those who were undecided to become supporters. If EPURA's funding were revised so that it no longer received the property tax increment, support for EPURA in the hypothetical election would grow to 70% and the opposition would shrink to 14%. Graph 8: How returning the property tax Increment back to the districts changes support for EPURA. No, don't abolish 70% 13 Still, abolish 14% Still Undecided 16% Slow Down Pace Removing the property tax increment from EPURA's budget would, of course, force EPURA to slow down the pace of it's projects. Though this is undoubtedly frustrating to those who are dedicated to accomplishing as much as possible-- as quickly as possible — it is nevertheless in tune with the feeling of a majority of Estes Park residents. Sixty-five percent of all respondents felt "EPURA's projects should be spread out over a longer period of time." Graph 9: Should EPURA's projects be spread out over a longer period of time rather than trying to do a lot In a short period of time? Neutral/Don't Know 10% Disagree 25% However, the public's desire to move more slowly on future redevelopment projects should not be taken as a condemnation of EPURA's past performance. Just the opposite, it means that the public feels EPURA has solved the problem that caused its creation in the first place, and now that the crisis has passed, the Authority can proceed at a more leisurely pace. In addition to concerns about funding and the spread of redevelopment, worry also exists about the control and supervision of EPURA. Residents desire greater supervision of the Authority's activities. Almost three-quarters (72%) of those interviewed felt that the Estes Park Town Board should do more to oversee what the Urban Renewal Authority is doing. Curiously, even 74% of those who said they had little trust in the Town Board, nevertheless, desired to have the Board provide more oversight of EPURA. 14 FUTURE EPURA PROJECTS While a majority of residents were quick to heap accolades on EPURA's completed projects, they were much less inclined to view future projects in such a positive light. When read a brief description of three projects the Urban Renewal Authority is considering undertaking: landscaping additional river walkways, building a parking lot and expanding East Riverside Drive to four lanes, there was majority support for only one project - the 100 space parking lot at a cost of $600,000. Graph 10: Are you FOR or AGAINST the Urban Renewal Authority doing the following projects? 100% 75% 69% 49% 50%—.._.-. _.......43 / 25% — 0% Landscaping 55% / / 33% 20 Parking Lot E. Riverside 4-lanes E FOR ® AGAINST Even though only 40% of respondents thought there was a need for additional parking in downtown if it meant increased taxes, when asked about EPURA building of a 100 space parking lot, 55% favored this project. This support for more parking undoubtedly reflects people's frustration with the lack of parking which was also expressed when 13% of respondents mentioned parking as an important issue facing Estes Park. The broad support for additional parking also probably stems from the fact that it would benefit both tourists and residents alike. In contrast, only 43% favored additional landscaping of river walkways and small parks, at a cost of $1 million, while 49% opposed this renewal effort. 15 Further, an overwhelming 69% of respondents opposed widening East Riverside Drive to four -lanes. However, several alternate proposals for projects on East Riverside Drive were also explored. When asked to choose one of two options to reduce congestion on East Riverside: making the road four -lanes or converting it to one-way at a cost of $700,000. A majority (51%) preferred making the road one-way, with only 15% choosing to construct a four -lane road. However, 21% said that it should be kept the way it is today. 16 ESTES PARK GOVERNMENT RATINGS AND RELATED ISSUES In addition to the questions about EPURA, respondents were asked to rate the Town Board's (city government) job performance. Sixty-three percent of all respondents gave the Town Board an "excellent" or "good" job rating for the way it runs the City of Estes Park. And an almost equally large percentage (60%) of respondents felt they could trust them to do what is right "most" or "almost all of the time." Only 4% said they could "almost never" trust the Board. Moreover, 60% of residents disagreed with the statement "the Town of Estes Park has been poorly managed" and over one-half (53%) disagreed with the statement that the 'Town Board is just not responsive to the needs of the people of Estes Park." Residents were also asked whether the city government was doing an "excellent," "good," "only fair," or "poor" job on a series of tasks. With excellent and good added together as a positive rating, 93% of the respondents gave the Town a positive rating for rebuilding after the flood; 88% for maintaining the streets; 88% for police and fire protection; and 88% for keeping Estes Park an attractive place to live. Registering slightly lower was: parks and recreation at 76%; economic development at 54%; keeping citizens informed at 46% and finally keeping taxes down at 39%. Graph 11: In general, how would you rate the Estes Park city government at carrying out the following responsibilities? Excellent and good ratings. Rebuild after flood — \ \'` Maintain Streets Police/Fire Protect - Estes Pk. Attractive \�����\\�\ Parks & Recreation i\\\\\\\\ 76% Economic Development N 54% Citizens Informed . Keep Taxes down • 46% 39% 88 88 88 0% 25% 17 50% 75% 100% Compared to the ratings given to most governments, the Estes. Park received unusually good grades. While only 39% of respondents rated the Town Board as "excellent" or "good" at keeping taxes down, the Board can take heart in knowing that when a similar question was asked in Denver only 28% gave their elected city representatives a favorable rating. Similarly, 46% positive score residents give the Town Board on "keeping citizens informed" compares to only a 34% positive rating on this task for Denver City Council. Most residents did not seem concerned about the effects of continued growth on Estes Park. Fifty-six percent disagreed with the statement "if Estes Park keeps growing like it has over the past five years, the quality of life will be seriously harmed." However, over one- third (38%) of the residents of Estes Valley did express concern about growth. Only 28% of business owners viewed growth as potentially harmful compared to 43% of non -owners, and a majority of respondents (57%) felt that the Town Board should be doing more to attract business and industry to the area. There was no clear cut opinion on whether or not respondents thought the Town Board should spend less on tourism and more on making Estes Park a better place for residents. Respondents were split, with 45% agreeing and 48% disagreeing with the statement, '"The Town Board should spend less on attracting tourists and more on making Estes Park a better place to live." Owners of businesses supported continued spending to promote tourism, with 60% disagreeing that less should be spend on attracting tourists. However, two-thirds of those who thought the EPURA's downtown landscaping projects was not worth the money believed that less should be spent on tourism and more on improving Estes Park for those who live there. Despite the overall good impressions citizens had of their local government, people believed that the Town Board cared more about business development than about the people who live there. Sixty percent of respondents agreed that the 'Town Board is more responsive to the needs of local businesses than to the needs of the average homeowner." Among those who felt that the various EPURA projects were not worth the money spend on them, this feeling the businesses receive greater support than residents was more widespread. However, among those who actually own a business in Estes Park this feeling was not as pervasive, with just 51% of business owners believing this was true. 18 CONCLUSIONS The people of Estes Park generally hold EPURA and the work its done in high esteem. They like the effect its projects have had on the Town's appearance and economy. And though they feel the projects have been worth the tax dollars spent, they are nervous about the cost of future projects and the indirect effects of EPURA's tax increment financing. Despite the broad support EPURA as built in the last half decade, it has also engendered a vocal opposition. The roots of this discontent are very specific. Opponents believe: o Their feelings about issues are not well represented on either the Town Board or the EPURA Board. o Local taxes, particularly property taxes, are way too high. o That they receive little or no benefit from either completed or contemplated EPURA projects. While a majority of citizens don't agree with EPURA's opponents on these issues, the opponents have struck a responsive cord with the freezing of downtown property tax revenue that goes to the school, sanitary and other special districts at the 1983 level. This inturn has or will make many reluctant to support the rapid start and completion of new EPURA projects. Clearly EPURA must make the case that due to the new school financing act, returning the property tax increment will not produce more revenue for the school district, and that its projects produce benefits for all Estes Park citizens. 19 Talmey Research, Inc. Project 88062 October 1988 ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL SURVEY Hello, my name is , and I'm with Talmey Research, a public opinion research firm here in Colorado. We're conducting a study of Estes Park area residents concerning local issues. Do you have a few minutes to spare to answer a few questions? First, I would like to confirm . . . SCRLENLR A. That you have lived in the Estes Park area for at least six months? Yes 1 No 2 ---» ASK B B. Is there someone at this number who has lived in the Estes Park area for six months or more with whom I might speak? Yes 100% No 2 ---» TERMINATE INTERVIEW C. Do you actually live within the city limits of Estes Park or do you live nearby in an unincorporated part of Larimer County? City Unincorporated county DK/NS/R D. Sex [DO NOT ASK] Male 52% 41% 0 50% Female 50% -2- 1. First, would you say things in Estes Park are generally going in the right direction, or do you feel things there have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track in the past few years? Right direction 72% Wrong track 20% No opinion 9% 2. And generally speaking, do you think you can trust the Estes Park Town Board to do what is right almost all of the time, most of the time, some of the time or almost never? Almost all of the time 10%. Most of the time 50% Some of the time 33% Almost never 4% No opinion 3% 3. And, what do you consider to be the one most important issue facing Estes Park today? [DO NOT READ LIST. RECORD ONLY 1 RESPONSE] Q.3 Q.4 Uncontrolled growth/too much growth. . . . 8% 7% Preservation of open space * 2% Environmental protection/pollution 1% 2% Lack of growth 1% * Economy/unemployment/lack of jobs 10° 4% Weak taxbase 1% 1% Poor city government 1% 1% Taxes too high/city gov. spending 7% 3% Traffic/Streets/Trans. issues 5% 8% Poor police/fire protection * 1% Lack of recreation facilities/parks . . . 1% 2% Schools/education 15% 9% Crime in general including drug/alcohol . 1% * Housing/affordable housing * 4% DK/NS/No problems 7% 31% Parking 6% 7% Tourism 6% 7% Arena/Convention Center 2% 3% Skiing/Hidden Valley 4% 2% EPURA 14% 5% Library 3% 7% Other 7% 12% * Less than 1 percent. 4. What are some of the other issues or problems you think Estes Park will have to solve in the coming years? [PROBE] [DO NOT READ LIST. RECORD ABOVE.] -3- 5. Thinking about the Town Board for a moment, how would you rate the job the Estes Park Town Board is doing? Would you say the Town Board is doing an excellent, good, only fair or poor job running the City of Estes Park? Excellent 8% Good 55% Only Fair 33% Poor 3% DK/NS/Refused 2% 6. Next I am going to read to you a list of tasks or jobs that are the responsibility of city government. After I read each one, please tell me if you think that, in general, Estes Park' city government is doing an excellent, good, only fair or poor job carrying out that responsibility. Only DK/ Exel Good Fair Poor NS a. Maintaining the city's streets. 30% 58% 10% 2% * b. Keeping citizens informed about what goes on in city government. 6% 40% 39% 12% 3% c. Keeping local taxes down. 5% 34% 36% 17% 8% d. Rebuilding after the 1982 flood. 54% 39% 3% 1% 3% e. Providing police & fire protection. 38% 50% 7% 2% 3% f. Promoting economic development. 9% 46% 31% 10% 5% g. Providing parks and recreation facilities. 23% 53% 19% 5% 1% h. Making Estes Park an attractive place to live. 44 % 44% 10% 2% * Less than 1 percent. 7. Next I am going to read you some statements about a variety of local issues. As I read each statement, please tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the statement. If you don't have any feeling about the statement, one way or the other, just say so. [PROBE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN "DK/NS" AND "NEUTRAL."] a. Local taxes in Estes Park are too high, the Town Board has got to do something about cutting the local tax burden. b. The Estes Park Town Board is just not responsive to the needs of the people of Estes Park. ----Agree--- --Disagree-- Strong Some N Some Strong DK 21% 25% 9% 25% 12% 9% 12% 26% 4% 35% 18% 5% c. Next year, if Estes Park does not have enough revenue, it would be better for the Town to raise taxes than reduce services. d. The Town Board should spend less on attracting tourists and more on making Estes Park a better place to live. e. If Estes Park keeps growing like it has in over the past five years, thequality of life here will be seriously harmed. f. The Estes Park Town Board should be doing more to attract business and industry to the area. g. For the past few years, the Town of Estes Park has been poorly managed. h. Planting all those trees and flowers along Elkhorn Avenue is a poor use of taxpayer's money. i. Estes Park needs to expand and improve its parks, even if it means raising taxes. j. Generally speaking, the Estes Park Town Board is more responsive to the needs of local businesses than they are to the needs of the average homeowner. k. Estes Park needs to increase the amount of parking available down- town, even if it means increasing taxes. -4- ----Agree--- Strong Some N --Disagree-- Some Strong DK 10% 27% 7% 25% 25% 7% 25% 20% 5% 24% 24% 3% 21% 17% 2% 28% 28% 4% 26% 31% 3% 19% 19% -3% 8% 19% 7% 34% 8% 11% 2% 26% 6% 15% 3% 36% 26% 7% 52% 1% 36% 3% 29% 31% 6% 17% 8% 8% 22% 18% 4% 25% 28% 3% 8. Some people say that to attract tourists and keep the economy of Estes Park strong, more money will have to be spent to improve the appearance of the Town's commercial area. Others say that this is a waste of money because tourists come to see Rocky Mountain National Park and the natural beauty of the area and that just as many will come regardless of what downtown Estes Park looks like. What do you think? Does improving the appearance of downtown provide an important economic boost to the local economy or do downtown improvements have little or no positive economic effect. Help local economy 70% Have no effect on economy . . . . 28% DK/NS 2% -5- 9. As you may know, after the flood of 1982 the Town Board created the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority -- EPURA [E-poor-ah] --to redevelop downtown Estes Park. In the past few months have you read or heard anything about the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority? Yes 81% No 18% DK/NS 1 % 10. One of EPURA's [E-poor-ah] projects has been a landscaping program of planting trees and flowers and putting in benches and lights downtown as well as rebuilding the sidewalk and street from the State Highway 34/36 intersection to Tregent Park. Would you say this project has greatlycontributed to, somewhat con- tributed to, only slightly contributed to or not contributed at all to improving the physical appearance of downtown Estes Park? Greatly contributed to 75% Somewhat contributed to 20% Only slightly contributed to. . 4% Not contributed at all to . . . 1% 11. And ultimately do you think this project will help the local economy or not help it? Help local economy 74% Not help it 21% DK/NS 5% 12. Overall, how would you rate the job the Urban Renewal Authority has done on the downtown landscaping project. Would you say they have done an excellent, good, only fair or poor job? Excellent 51° ---» ASK 12a Good 40% Only 7% Poor fair 2% ---» ASK 12b 12a. [IF EXCELLENT]Why do you say they have done an excellent job on this project? Like the appearance . . . . 62% Well -planned, well-done . . 15% Pleasant/relaxing 7% Worth the money 2% Tourists like it/Makes Estes competitive. . . . 16% Proud of accomplishment . 5% General approval 23% Other 6% -6- 12b. [IF POOR] Why do you say they have done a poor job on this project? Overdone 22% Artificial 11% Too expensive/wasted money22% Other 56% 13. The cost of the downtown landscaping project -- including the cost of the land -- was two million eight hundred thousand dollars. Overall, would you say the project is worth this amount to Estes Park, or not worth it? Worth the amount 59% Not worth it 31° DK/NS 10 % 14. Another one of EPURA's [E-poor-ah] projects has been the con- struction of Riverside Plaza at the confluence of the two rivers in downtown. Would you say this project has greatly contributed to, somewhat contributed to, only slightly contributed to or not contributed at all to improving the physical appearance of down- town Estes Park? Greatly contributed to 56° Somewhat contributed to 27% Only slightly contributed to. . 12% Not contributed at all to . . . 5% 15. And ultimately do you think the construction of Riverside Plaza will help the local economy or not help it? Help local economy 60° DNot K/NSelp it 390 % 16. Overall, how would you rate the job the Urban Renewal Authority has done constructing Riverside Plaza? Would you say they have done an excellent, good, only fair or poor job? Excellent 45% --» ASK 16a Good 36 Only fair . . 12% Poor 5% --» ASK 16b DK/NS 2% -7- 16a. [IF EXCELLENT] Why do you say they have done an excellent job on this project? Like the appearance . . . . 59% Well -planned, well-done . 17% Pleasant/relaxing 14% Worth the money Tourists like it/Makes Estes competitive. . . . 16% Proud of accomplishment . 2% General approval 18% Other 5% * Less than 1 percent. 16b. [IF POOR] Why do you say they have done a poor job on this project? Overdone 5% Artificial 10% Favors tourists over residents 10% Too expensive/wasted money. 57% Other 48% 17. The cost of this project -- including the cost of the land -- was one million four hundred thousand dollars. Overall, would you say the project is worth this amount to Estes Park, or not worth it? Worth the amount 54% Not worth it 38% DK/NS 8% 18. The Urban Renewal Authority's projects are funded from revenues from what is called "tax increment financing." Do you feel you are knowledgable about how tax increment financing works? Yes 35% No/DK/NS 65% 19. Regardless of how much you know about tax increment financing, I would now like to read you a statement about how it is used to finance the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority. To the best of my knowledge, the following statement is factually correct. Each year the Urban Renewal Authority receives the amount of sales tax collected in downtown Estes Park that is above what was collected in 1983. For example, in 1983 there was approximately $950 thousand dollars of sales tax collected from downtown sales. In 1987 there was approximately 1 and a half million dollars in sales tax collected. So in 1987 the Urban Renewal Authority received the difference between these two amounts, or about $550 thousand dollars. -8- It is important to note that this increase in sales tax collections is due to the increased volume of sales in the Urban Renewal District; not an increase in the sales tax rate. However, the increase does include amounts due to inflation and fixes the tax revenue from downtown available to other governments at 1983 levels. The Urban Renewal Authority also receives the incremental increase in the amount of property tax collected from downtown. Generally speaking, do you consider tax increment financing a good method or a bad method to finance the Urban Renewal Authority's projects? If you're not sure one way or the other, just say so. Good 50% Poor 15% DK/NS 35% 20. Since 1983 the Urban Renewal Authority has spent approximately eight and a half million dollars on projects in downtown Estes Park. Overall, would you say these projects -- particularly in terms of their effect on the appearance and economyof the Town -- have justified, or have not justified, the expenditure of this amount. Yes, justified expenditure. . . . 59% --» ASK 20a No, not justified 31% --» SKIP TO 21 DK/NS 10% --» SKIP TO 21 20a. Would you say the primary justification for spending this amount on these projects is to improve the local economy or is it to improve the appearance of the Town? Economy 21% Appearance of Town 20% Both [NO PROMPT] 59° 21. Over the next five years or so EPURA [E-poor-ah] is considering several additional projects. I would now like to read you a brief description of some of these projects, and after I read each one please tell me if you are for or against the Urban Renewal Authority doing the project. a. Develop additional landscapedriver walkways and small parks, similar to those recently developed in downtown, at a cost of about one million dollars which includes the cost of the land. 43% 49% 8% FOR AGAINST DK/NS b. Put in a parking lot adjacent to downtown with space for 100 cars. The cost of this parking lot would be about $600,000. 55% 33% 12% -9- c. Expand East Riverside Drive to a four -lane street. This would cost about two million dollars which includes the cost of two new bridges and land acquisition. FOR AGAINST DK/NS 20% 69% 11% 22. An alternative to making East Riverside Drive a four -lane street would be to make it a one-way street going east. This alternative would only cost $700,000. Which of these two options to reduce traffic congestion in downtown do you prefer:making East Riverside Drive a four -lane street at a cost of 2 million dollars or making it a one-way street going east at a cost of $700,000? Four -lane 15% One-way 51° Keep it the way it is [NO PROMPT] 21% Other 5% DK/NS 9% 23. Almost a fourth of EPURA's funds come from the property tax increment. Some people say that this is hurting the school district and the hospital because it fixes the amount of property tax they receive from downtown at the 1983 level. These people say the money. the Urban Renewal Authority receives from the property tax increment should be turned over to the school, hospital and other districts. Others say that this would slow down the redevelopment too much. How do you feel? Should EPURA turn over its property tax revenue to these districts or should it keep them to continue the current pace of redevelopment? Give prop. tax rev. to districts. 53% Keep for development 20% Give some [NO PROMPT] 17% DK/NS 11% 24. I would now like to read you some statements about the Urban Renewal Authority. As I read each statement, please tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the statement. If you don't have any feeling about the statement, one way or the other, just say so. [PROBE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN "DK/NS" AND "NEUTRAL."] - -Agree--- --Disagree-- Strong Some N Some Strong DK a. The Town Board should be doing more to oversee what the Urban Renewal Authority is doing. 40% 32% 4% 11% 7% 7% b. The Urban Renewal Authority just isn't worth the money people have had to pay for it. 17% 17% 3% 29% 27% 6% c. You can pretty much trust the Urban Renewal Board to do the right thing. 13% 35% 6% 21% 19% 6% -10- ----Agree--- --Disagree-- Strong Some N Some Strong DK d. In general, the urban renewal projects are good, but they cost more than they're worth. 26% 29% 3% 25% 13% 4% e. EPURA's projects should be spread out over a longer period of time rather than trying to do a lot in a short period of time. f. In the long run, neither the current nor the proposed urban renewal projects will have much effect on you or your family. 34% 31% 5% 14% 11% 5% 21% 17% 2% 24% 34% 3% 25. Now suppose you had the opportunity to vote on whether abolish the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority as organized and funded. Would you vote YES to abolish adequate provision to pay off any of its debt obligations, or would you vote NO not to abolish it? undecided at this time, just say so. or not to it's now it with or other If you're YES to abolish EPURA 28% ---» ASK 25a No, not to abolish EPURA 44% ---» SKIP TO 26 Undecided 29% ---» ASK 25a 25a. Now suppose the Urban Renewal Authority only received the sales tax increment and no longer received any funds from the property tax increment, thus restoringthese tax dollars to the school, hospital and other districts. Would you still [VOTE TO ABOLISH EPURA / BE UNDECIDED ABOUT HOW TO VOTE] or would you now vote to keep the Urban Renewal Authority in operation? Now vote to keep EPURA 45° Now undecided (was against) . . . . 8% Still vote to abolish EPURA . . . 26% Still undecided 21% 26. Generally speaking, how good a job would you say the Urban Renewal Aurthority does keeping the public informed about what it does? Would you say they do an excellent, good, only fair or poor job keeping the public informed? Excellent 9% Good 35° Only fair 34% Poor 19% DK/NS 3% -11- Our last questions are about you and your family. The answers to these questions help us statistically classify the results we obtain. Your responses to these questions, as well as all others in this survey, will be kept strictly confidential, and only used when statistically combined with the hundreds of other interviews conducted for this survey. D1. Some people are always following what's going on in politics and public affairs. Others just aren't that interested. Do you follow what's going on politically and in government all of the time, most of the time, some of the time or almost never? All of the time 22% Most of the time 49% Some of the time 26% Almost never 3% D2. And are you registered to vote here in Colorado? Yes No 92% 8% 0 D3. Are there children under the age of 18 living in your household? Yes 30% No 70% D4. And are you married, separated, divorced, widowed or have you never been married? Married 70% Separated/divorced 9% Widowed . . . . . . . . 9 % Single [NEVER MARRIED] 12° D5. Approximately how long have you live in the Estes Park area? 2 years or less 13% 3 to 5 years 16% 6 to 10 years 24% 11 to 15 years 16% 16 to 25 years 18% 26 years or longer 13% D6. In the last 12 months, about how many times did you personally visit Rocky Mountain National Park? 2 times or less 12% 3 to 9 times 22% 10 to 15 times 21% 16 to 30 times 16% 31 to 99 times 15% Daily/Work in Park 13% -12- D7. Do you rent or own your Estes Park residence? Rent Own 26% 74° D8. And do you or someone else in this household own or manage a business in Estes Park? Yes No 33% 67° ---» SKIP TO D9 D8a. Is the business located along Elkhorn Avenue? Yes 28% No 72% D9. Over the next two years do you expect things to get better or get worse financially for you and your family? Better 61- No change 25% Worse 11% DK/NS 3% D10. And, are you or anyone in your immediate family concerned about losing a job or being laid -off in the next six months? Yes 7% No 92% DK/NS 1 % D11. What was the last grade in school you had the opportunity to complete? [DO NOT READ LIST] Less than HS degree 4% HS grad/voc ed 22% Some college 29% College graduate 26% Post grad. degree or study. . . 18% D12. May I ask how old you are? 18-24 years 3% 25-34 years 20° 35-44 years 21% 45-54 years 11° 55-64 years 17% 65 years or over 27% -13- D14. Finally, which of the following income groups includes your family's total annual income from all sources in 1987? [READ LIST EXCEPT "REFUSED"] Under $10,000 5% $10,000 to $20,000 16% $20,000 to $30,000 22% $30,000 to $40,000 24% $40,000 to $50,000 12% $50,000 to $75,000 9% Over $75,000 5% Refused 7% «--- DO NOT READ Methodology The Estes Park Urban Renewal Survey was conducted on behalf of the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority by Talmey Research & Strategy, Inc., a public opinion research firm in Boulder, Colorado. The results of the survey are based on 408 random telephone interviews with residents of Estes Park Valley between October 9 and October 23, 1988. Quotas were established to obtain equal representation for men and women. A random sample of 408 has a 95% confidence interval of plus or minus 4.9% about anyone reported percentage.