HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Joint Study Session Town Board and County Commissioners 2022-08-19
TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES
BOARD OF LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Joint Study Session
No public comment will be heard
Friday, August19, 2022
2:00 p.m.
Town Hall Upstairs Rooms 202/203
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services,
programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities.
Please call (970) 577-4777. This study session will be streamed live and
available on the Town Youtube page at www.estes.org/videos
Agenda
I.Introductions.
II.Stormwater AuthorityDiscussion. (Director Muhonen)
III.Adjourn.
NOTE: The Town Board and County Commissioners reserve the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the
agenda was prepared.
Report
PUBLIC WORKS
To: Honorable Chai
r Stephens
Board of Larimer County Commissioners
Through: County Manager Hoffman
From:Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Mark Peterson, PE, Larimer County Engineer
Date: February 2, 2022
RE: Estes Valley Stormwater Utility
Purpose of Work Session Item:
Update the Board of County Commissioners on the stormwater utility organizational and
fee structure previously discussed jointly with the Town Board and Larimer County
Commissioners in 2019.
Direction Requested:
Provide direction to Town and County Public Works staff regarding the desire to pursue
a stormwater utility in Estes Park. Confirm if the BCC wishes to attend a future joint
study session with the Estes Park Trustees to explore terms of an Intergovernmental
Agreement that would potentially address:
Defining the desired utility service area toinclude both Town of Estes Park
(about 5400 parcels) and Larimer County (about 3100parcels) within the former
Estes Valley Development Code boundary.
Program funding options which are currently proposed to include: 20% grants
($28M), 30% user fees ($40M), and 50% sales tax ($70M) for a total program
cost of $138M by the year 2050 (3% inflation applied to a 2017 program cost of
$79M).
Imposition of a new user fee (estimated to range from $3/mo to $24/mo
depending on parcel size and annual inflation) on both Town and Larimer County
residents living within the former Estes Valley Development Code boundary.
Present Situation:
After the 2013 flood, the Town’s Strategic Plan was revised annually in 2016 through
2021 to include various goals and objectives to address flood mitigation. Since 2017,
several Town Board study sessions and joint meetings with the BCC explored this topic
(the history is reflected in 2 attached Town Board reports and the sample user fee
letter). The stormwater utility effort was paused in 2019 when the Town Board selected
Option 4 (take no further action) while waiting to see if grant funding would materialize
to pay for an initial stormwater infrastructure project on the Big Thompson River. These
grant applications were denied in both 2019 and 2020.
A
t the August 24, 2021, study session, Public Works staff provided updated information
regarding stormwater utility efforts in other Colorado communities and a proposal for the
Town to elevate our stormwater infrastructure maintenance efforts in 2022. At this
meeting, the Town Board affirmed its interest in resuming dialogue regarding rate
structures and a potential partnership with Larimer County regarding the formation of a
stormwater utility in the Estes Valley.
On September 29, 2021, Public Works Engineering staff met virtually with the Larimer
County Engineering staff to explore receptivity to resuming the joint stormwater effort.
The County staff was receptive and clarified the need to confirmhigher level interest
with the County Manager and the new County Commissioners prior to taking any further
action.
Proposal:
The Town Board has established 2022 Strategic Plan Objective 5.B.1: “Develop a
funding proposal to expand stormwater infrastructure and maintenance through a
stormwater utility.”
An infinite number of options exist for implementing a new stormwater utility. Two
detailed cost models for this utility were presented in February, 2019. Four additional
options (including no action) were proposed to the Trustees and Commissioners in May
of 2019.
Public Works staff recommends the following:
1.Formation of a stormwater utility which achieves maintenance and aims to
complete the full scope of infrastructure improvements identified in the
Stormwater Master Plan over 30 years. The utility would be managed by the
Estes Park Public Works Department.
2.Inclusion of parcels within the former Estes Valley Development Code boundary
as documented in a future Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County.
3.Include a sales tax revenue component (which must be approved by Town
voters) to lower user fees and decrease dependence on grant sources.
Advantages:
Implements the Town Board strategic plan goals and the Town-adopted Estes Valley
Stormwater Management Program.
Respects the input of the majority of survey respondents (52%) that indicate user
fees, sales tax, and grants should all be used to fund a stormwater utility.
Provides funding to address approximately 350 residential drainage problems.
Generates new revenue that can be leveraged as local match contributions for future
grant funding applications as soon as 2022.
Spreads the funding burden of the stormwater program to a large pool of property
owner, visitor, and federal funding participants.
Disadvantages:
The proposal contains a mandatory user fee for owners of improved parcels within
the former Estes Valley Development Code boundary. Some owners argue this is a
tax while the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.
Some residents feel the proposed residential tiered fees are inequitable and should
be based exclusively on impervious area instead.
Non-Town residents cannot vote on a proposed sales tax that they would pay when
making purchases at town businesses.
Modeled sales tax revenue is delayed until an approving public vote occurs.
Revisiting a proposed stormwater utility rate structure will require investment of staff
time which will divert work effort available for other work demands; however, Town
staff feels strongly that a long-term, multi-faceted funding solution to our stormwater
challenges needs to be developed.
Finance/Resource Impact:
Implementation of a Stormwater Utility proposal will provide the financial resources to
provide sustainable funding for:
Maintenance of the existing Estes Valley drainage system; and
Modernization and upgrades for Estes Valley stormwater infrastructure which
sets the stage for lower flood insurance premiums for all who participate in the
National Flood Insurance Program.
Level of Public Interest
Public interest in the problem is low until flooding occurs. Public interest in new
stormwater utility fees is expected to be high.
Attachments:
1 Sample Letter – Stormwater Management Fee (March 4, 2019)
2 Town Board/BCC Report (May 15, 2019)
3 Town Board/BCC Report (February 19, 2019)
4 Presentation Slides
Unnamed Resident
xyz CENTENNIAL DR
ESTES PARK, CO 80517
9/52 02/0/3%$ %34%3 6!,,%9 34/2-7!4%2 -!.!'%-%.4 &%%
0 ±¢¤« !££±¤²² 0 ±¢¤« )$ 0±®¯®²¤£ Mo³§«¸ Fee
179 CENTENNIAL DR 2406321012 $9.91
501 SAINT VRAIN LN 201 2530361003 $4.12
501 SAINT VRAIN LN 203 2530361004 $8.19
**Please refer to our webpage for those fees associated to additional parcels you own**
(/7 $/ 9/5 &%%, !"/54 4()3 02/0/3%$ 34/2-7!4%2 54),)49Ȉ
Complete the questionnaire at www.estes.org/stormwater by Friday, March 29, 2019.
Dear Estes Valley Property Owner: March 4, 2019
We have a problem in the Estes Valley. We flood. Repeatedly. In neighborhoods and roadways. We lack
adequate river channel capacity, stormwater pipes and inlets. Not every property sees damage, but
virtually all improved parcels shed water downstream and contribute to flooding in our community. It
hurts all of us and it requires a community effort to reduce the damage.
The Stormwater Management Project was conceived after the destructive 2013 Flood. The Town received
a grant to complete a Stormwater Management Plan and Utility Feasibility Study, which led to the
proposed Stormwater Management Program. Potential projects would cost $79 million (2017 dollars),
constructed over 30 years. With inflation, operation and maintenance, program costs are modeled to
exceed $152 million.
After considering many ways to manage stormwater, staff determined a stormwater utility is the best
approach to fix our drainage issues, with large projects along rivers and up to 350 smaller projects in
neighborhoods (Table ES.4, page ES9 of the Stormwater Master Plan at estes.org/stormwater).
The Town explored a dozen potential funding strategies. The strategy recommended by Town and County
Public Works staff consists of 20% grants (goal), 29% user fees, and 51% sales tax (voters must approve).
Parcel fees vary by man-made impervious area -- where rain does not soak into the ground. Aerial
imagery allowed us to create four tiers of proposed monthly residential fees and individual monthly
non-residential fees.
170 MACGREGOR AVE. P.O. BOX 1200, ESTES PARK CO. 80517 WWW.ESTES.ORG
Public Works 970-577-3587
Engineering Streets Parks publicworks@estes.org
Facilities Fleet Parking & Transit
The estimated stormwater fee(s) shown in Table 1 reflects the rate at the beginning and end of the
proposed 30-year program, and assumes we receive $28 million in grant funding AND voters approve a
0.4% sales tax for stormwater projects in 2024. The fee will adjust annually according to inflation. We
estimate the fee will more than double in 30 years.
4 ¡«¤ ΐȡΑΏυ '± ³² Ȩ͡ΑΗ -¨««¨®ȩȁ 0±®¦± ¬ ¢®²³ ώ ͡ΐΒΗ -¨««¨® Ȩ!²²´¬¤² Βυ ¨¥« ³¨®ȩ
NON-
2%3)$%.4)!, 0!2#%,3
2%3)$%.4)!,
PARCELS
,/4 3):% Ȩ ¢±¤ȩ Under 0.04 0.05 to 0.44 0.45 to 1.01 1.02 to 204 varies
!µ¤ )¬¯ !±¤ Ȩ²° ¥³ȩ 1195 3149 4110 5610 varies
ΑΏΑΏ %²³ &¤¤ȝ¬® $3.13 $6.13 $7.61 $9.91 Median = $8.92
ΑΏΔΏ %²³ &¤¤ȝ¬® $7.47 $14.61 $18.12 $23.61 Median=$21.26
If no grants were awarded to the Town during the 30-year term of the stormwater management program,
the funding shortfall could be provided by increasing the monthly user fees as shown in Table 2.
4 ¡«¤ Αȡ:¤±® '± ³² ±¤¢¤¨µ¤£ȁ 0±®¦± ¬ #®²³ ώ ͡ΐΔΑ -¨««¨® Ȩ!²²´¬¤² Βυ ¨¥« ³¨®ȩ
NON-
2%3)$%.4)!, 0!2#%,3
2%3)$%.4)!,
PARCELS
,/4 3):% Ȩ ¢±¤ȩ Under 0.04 0.05 to 0.44 0.45 to 1.01 1.02 to 204 varies
!µ¤ )¬¯ !±¤ Ȩ²° ¥³ȩ 1195 3149 4110 5610 varies
ΑΏΑΏ %²³ &¤¤ȝ¬® $5.57 $12.55 $15.99 $21.35 Median = $19.05
ΑΏΔΏ %²³ &¤¤ȝ¬® $12.79 $28.82 $36.71 $49.02 Median=$45.40
For comparison, at 3% annual inflation, a gallon of gas that costs $2.00 in 2020 would cost $4.85 in 2050.
When deciding on this proposal, the Town Board and County Commissioners must balance constituent
desires with their commitment to protect the life, health and property of residents and visitors. Your
voice matters. Visit estes.org/stormwater to learn more and complete the Stormwater Utility
Questionnaire by March 29, 2019. To schedule time to talk with our staff, contact Christy Crosser at
ccrosser@estes.org or 970-577-3574.
Respectfully,
Gregory P. Muhonen, PE
Public Works Director
170 MACGREGOR AVE. P.O. BOX 1200, ESTES PARK CO. 80517 WWW.ESTES.ORG
Public Works 970-577-3587
Engineering Streets Parks publicworks@estes.org
Facilities Fleet Parking & Transit
Report
PUBLIC WORKS
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Board of County Commissioners
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From:Greg Muhonen, PE, Estes Park Public Works Director
Mark Peterson, PE, Larimer County Engineer
Date:May 15, 2019
RE:Proposed Stormwater Management Program Public Feedback
Objective:
Discuss with the Town Board and County Commissioners the public input received
during the April 2019 survey period and options for future action regarding the formation
of a Stormwater Management Program and utility to serve the Estes Valley.
Present Situation:
In 2013 the Town experienced extensive flooding which prompted pursuit of state grant
funding to use current technological tools and stream gauge records to update the
regulatory peak discharges used by FEMA for flood insurance purposes (mapping).
This hydrologic analysis was completed in 2016. These flows are currently being used
by FEMA to redefine new floodplain maps for the Estes Valley.
In 2016 the Town received a grant to fund the development of a Stormwater Master
Plan (SMP) and used local funds for a companion Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study.
The SMP was completed and presented to the public in 2018. The SMP identified
projects estimated to cost $62 million to contain the forecasted 1% probability flood
flows nearer to the river channels and reduce the new floodplain limits closer to the pre-
2013 conditions. Another $17 million was proposed to address an estimated 350
neighborhood flooding problems.
In 2017 thru 2019 the Town Board’s Strategic Plan directed staff to pursue projects and
funding to reduce flood risk and flood insurance cost for properties in the Estes Valley,
implement the recommendations of the SMP, and pursue funding for flood mitigation
projects. These are the objectives of implementing a formal Stormwater Management
Program in the Estes Valley. The replacement of the Moraine Avenue Bridge is an
example of progress on these goals.
Grants alone are insufficient to complete projects that will meaningfully reduce the new
draft floodplains proposed by FEMA. Eligibility for future grant revenue is dependent
Page 1 of 5
upon inclusion of local matching funds. The consultant and staff modeled a variety of
funding strategies containing different combinations of new stormwater user fees, sales
tax revenue, and grant funding. These revenue options were presented to the public in
open houses, surveys, individual meetings, and study sessions with the elected officials.
After the February 19, 2019 joint meeting between the Town Board of Trustees and
Board of County Commissioners, staff sent a direct-mailed summary of two user fee
options (no grant revenue and 20% grant revenue) to over 8500 recipients and invited
them to share feedback on the proposed stormwater utility via an online survey. Over
900 respondents provided a broad range of comments and the following feedback:
63% agree stormwater drainage problems exist.
70% agree the Town and County should act to address flooding risk.
52% indicate a user fee of some amount should be part of the program funding
solution. 48% feel the user fees should be zero or less than 5% of the program
costs.
71% suggest a sales tax should be used to fund 40% to 100% of the program
costs.
53% of respondents feel grants should pick up more than 20% of the program
cost. 95% feel grants should provide more than 5% of the program revenue.
\[Note: additional local match funds (typically 20% -50%) are required in order to
receive grant funding.\]
71% feel their proposed stormwater management fees are too high.
71% favor funding some type of stormwater utility. 30% indicated a preference to get
started now. 29% say take a different approach such as not moving forward.
Proposal:
There are a variety of different actions available for moving forward. Staff offers four
options for discussion and consideration. The advantages and disadvantages listed
below are representative for discussion purposes, and are not intended to be all-
inclusive.
OPTION 1. Refine the staff recommendation by lowering user fees, increasing
assumed grant contributions, and eliminating tiered user fees. Implement a stormwater
utility funded with a combination of user fees (20%--based on impervious area of
improved parcels), sales tax (50%), and grants (30%) to build all the master planned
improvements ($79 million) over a 30-year period.
Advantages
Implements the Town Board strategic plan goals.
Page 2 of 5
Respects the input of the majority of survey #2 respondents (52%) that indicate user
fees, sales tax, and grants should all be used to fund a stormwater utility.
Responds to the feedback that proposed user fees should be reduced.
Responds to the feedback that proposed residential tiered fees are inequitable and
should be based exclusively on impervious area instead of parcel size.
Provides funding to address 350 residential drainage problems.
Generates new revenue that can be leveraged as local match contributions for future
grant funding applications as soon as 2020
Spreads the funding burden of the stormwater program to a large pool of property
owner, visitor, and federal funding participants.
Disadvantages
Contains a mandatory user fee for owners of improved parcels within the Estes
Valley Development Code (EVDC) boundary. Some owners argue this is a tax while
the Supreme has ruled otherwise.
Non-Town residents cannot vote on a proposed sales tax that they would pay when
making purchases at town businesses.
Modeled sales tax revenue is delayed until an approving public vote occurs.
Parcels with large impervious area will pay proportionately higher monthly fees.
OPTION 2. Revise the funding source assumptions. Eliminate all user fees and ask
Town voters if they wish to raise sales tax to implement a stormwater utility funded with
a combination of sales tax (50%), and grants (50%) to build all the master planned
improvements ($79 million inflated to over $150 million) over a 30-year period.
Advantages
Implements the Town Board strategic plan goals.
Respects the input of the majority of survey #2 respondents (70%) that indicate the
Town and County have a responsibility to address flooding risk that threatens the
economic vitality of the Estes downtown.
Respects the survey respondent request to not implement user fees.
Provides funding to address 350 residential drainage problems.
Generates new revenue that can be leveraged as local match contributions for future
grant funding applications.
Disadvantages
No new local match funds available for grant applications until a sales tax election
passes.
Non-Town residents cannot vote on a proposed sales tax that they would pay when
making purchases at town businesses.
Increased sales taxes could discourage visitation and spending.
OPTION 3. Reduce the program cost by reducing the scope of work to reach a target
revenue cap/objective provided by others. Model different combinations of work scope,
funding, and time of construction to develop a different stormwater management
program.
Page 3 of 5
Advantages
No new fees are implemented in the short term while further study occurs. This
respects the input of the majority of survey #2 respondents (71%) that the proposed
user fees are too high.
Disadvantages
Delays action and perpetuates uncertainty regarding flood damage risk. Effort and
funds are directed toward studies instead of mitigative action and resiliency projects.
New strategic planning objectives and funding are needed from the elected officials
to provide clear and specific direction for studying a different course of action.
The Town’s eligibility for stormwater mitigation and resiliency grants is severely
reduced while no new revenue is generated for local match contributions.
Devalues four years of planning to implement the Town Board strategic plan goals to
reduce the number of properties included in the updated floodplain and reduce flood
insurance premiums.
OPTION 4. Take no further action and do not implement a stormwater utility.
Advantages
No new fees are imposed on property owners or visitors
Other flood mitigation options could be explored in the future.
Disadvantages
The Town’s eligibility for stormwater mitigation and resiliency grants is severely
reduced as no new revenue is generated for local match contributions.
The stormwater masterplan effort delivers no benefit to the community, and
credibility with the grant funding agency is compromised.
Disrespects four years of planning to implement the Town Board strategic plan goals
No new revenue is generated to mitigate flooding risk in Estes.
Disregards the desire of 70% of survey #2 respondents that expect the Town and
County to take action to mitigate flood risk in the Estes Valley.
Disregards 63% the majority opinion that stormwater drainage problems exist.
Action Recommended:
Staff requests guidance on the preferred next-steps. Do the elected officials want staff
to bring back a draft stormwater ordinance and draft Intergovernmental Agreement
modeled after any of the above options, or take a different action regarding the
formation of a stormwater utility within the Town of Estes Park Public Works
Department?
Finance/Resource Impact:
The implementation of any stormwater management program will require new funding.
The range of values for fee and sales tax revenue can vary widely depending on the
size of the stormwater program, its speed of implementation and preferences on how to
balance revenue generation between user fees, grants and sales tax.
Page 4 of 5
Level of Public Interest
The level of public interest is moderate for this program. About 12% of the impacted
property owners have provided input. No input has been solicited from visitors
regarding a potential sales tax.
Attachments:
Link to Survey 1 summary
Link to Survey 1 comments
Link to Survey 2 summary
Link to Survey 2 comments
Link to Meeting log comments
Floodplain Comparison Map
Project List
Page 5 of 5
Report
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
PUBLIC WORKS
Board of Trustees
Board of County Commissioners
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From:Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Date:February 19, 2019
RE:Proposed Stormwater Management Fees
Objective:
Discuss with the Town Board and County Commissioners the foundational assumptions
incorporated into the cost modeling and the associated stormwater management fees to
be shared with the public for review and comment.
Present Situation:
In October, 2018 PW staff received direction from the County Commissioners and Town
Board to proceed with the distribution of proposed stormwater management fees and
educational information through a direct mailing to the owners of 7676 improved parcels
within the Estes Valley Development Code boundary. Additionally, a public opinion
survey is to be conducted to learn property owner reactions to the proposed fee and
funding structure for a future stormwater utility.
In January 2018 Town and County Public Works (PW) staff jointly worked through the
parcel data and presented summaries of potential monthly user fees options separately
to both the Board of Trustees and Board of County Commissioners. Concerns were
expressed regarding potential modeled fees in excess of $35/month for a fraction of the
larger residential parcels. Other concerns were expressed about asking only the
owners of 7676 improved lots to bear the burden of sharing the local cost contribution to
the program instead of all owners of the 8583 parcels within the Estes Valley
Development Code boundary. It was pointed out that the flood runoff watershed
contains 210 sq miles, the proposed stormwater program area (EVDC boundary)
encompasses 36.8 sq miles which consists of 35.3 sq miles of vacant land and 1.5 sq
miles of impervious area.
Following the January meetings Town and County PW staff created several new cost
models to temper the high outlier residential fees and more closely examine the annual
cash flow needs to construct the $79M master planned projects. Fee charges on
vacant land are omitted due to concern about elevated exposure to legal challenge of
administrative imposition of a tax rather than a fee.
Proposal:
Staff prepared and attached a summary of two options (no grant revenue and 20%
grant revenue) for calculating fees. Both options include the following key assumptions.
All fees are based on impervious area within 7676 improved parcels. No fees
are proposed for the vacant 907 parcels (or the vacant fraction of improved
parcels) within the Development Code boundary.
Non-residential property fees are individually calculated. This includes parcels
with multi-family development.
Residential fees are based on the average impervious areas within four lot size
tiers of 1656 parcels each. These quartile sizes are: under 0.04 ac, 0.05 to
0.44 ac, 0.45 to 1.01 ac, and over 1.02 ac.
Fees are proposed to be adjusted annually based on the rise or fall of the
Construction Cost Index provided by CDOT for their transportation
projects. Our inflation assumptions project a potential 238% increase in the
fees over the program duration.
The program duration is assumed to be 30 years, and can be shortened
depending on revenue (user fees, grants, and sales tax).
A sales tax of 0.4% is dedicated to this program from 2024 thru 2047 (27 years)
to generate $70M. An election is necessary to approve this.
This is a no-debt, pay-as-you-go cost model. Low user fees and zero sales tax
in the early years delay the start and increase the cost of construction projects.
Before mailing proposed fees to our property owners, we need guidance from our policy
makers on the following elements that impact the proposed user fees:
1.Do you agree with the assumptions listed above?
2.Grant revenue can accelerate construction timing and lower user fees. The
user fees more than double if we assume no grant revenue in the cost
model. Is there guiding direction on the grant revenue assumption to be used?
3.If a stormwater utility is created, a revenue stream would be established that
could service debt incurred thru future revenue bonds. The timing of the
construction could be accelerated which lowers the total program cost. Does
this need to be considered/modeled before user fees are calculated and
shared with the property owners?
4.Do you wish to see any new information before staff presents the calculated,
first-year user fees to owners of improved parcels?
Upon receipt of direction on which fee structure to present to the public, Staff will launch
an additional month of public outreach. When complete, Staff proposes to return to the
Town Board and County Commissioners for further discussion of the feedback received
from the public and to receive direction from both Boards regarding potential
implementation of a stormwater utility for managing stormwater in the Estes Valley.
Advantages:
Careful study of fee amounts should improve fairness, reasonableness, & payer support.
Disadvantages:
Ongoing analysis of the numerous fee calculation options delays the process of
gathering additional citizen feedback for consideration of the proposed stormwater utility
by the Trustees and Commissioners.
Action Recommended:
Fee guidance as outlined above.
Finance/Resource Impact:
The implementation of any stormwater management program will require new funding.
Staff’s previous recommendations used a mixture of utility fees and future sales tax.
Consideration of grants is now added in an effort to further reduce parcel owner fees.
The range of values of fee and sales tax revenue can vary widely depending on the size
of the stormwater program, its speed of implementation and preferences on how to
balance revenue generation between user fees, grants and sales tax.
Level of Public Interest
The level of public interest seen to date is moderate for this program. Staff believes the
interest level will increase when fee estimates are shared publicly.
Attachments:
Program Funding Option Summary
БΉЊВΉЋЉЋЋ
ESTES VALLEY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
1
JOINT WORK SESSION
TOWN BOARD & BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
AUGUST 19, 2022
Њ
Meeting Purpose
In separate work sessions held with the Town Board and County Commissioners in
2021 and 2022, staff heard interest in consideration of forming a storm water
utility.
The purpose of this meeting is confirm the interest and obtain guidance for
assembling the structure and implementation details for such a utility.
It is assumed this structure would be captured in an Intergovernmental
Agreement adopted by both entities.
Ћ
Њ
БΉЊВΉЋЉЋЋ
What is the problem?
The Estes Valley contains five major drainage basins. Numerous homes and
businesses are situated in close proximity to these streams. The Estes region has
experienced loss of life and/or significant private property and public
infrastructure damage due to flooding in 1949, 1951, 1953, 1957, 1965, 1976, 1982,
and 2013. As continued building encroachment toward the streams increases
over time, the risk of repetitive flood damage increases.
Ќ
The restudied flood zone impacts the economic &
transportation core of Estes Park
Ѝ
Ћ
БΉЊВΉЋЉЋЋ
Who is responsible for solving the problem?
Guiding Principle for the Proposed Stormwater Utility:
Past and future floods cause damage to transportation and
utility infrastructure that is essential for community safety and well-
being. Substantial private property damage also occurs. These
repetitive risks of harming our economy are a community problem
which should be addressed by all community members. Our local
elected officials and staff (Town of Estes Park and Larimer
County) should lead the effort to mitigate these flood damage
risks.
Ў
Estes Valley Stormwater Management Project
What do we have?
Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) (Adopted by EPTB July 9, 2019)
_________________________________________________________________________________________
What do we want?
Develop a funding proposal to expand stormwater infrastructure and
maintenance through a stormwater utility (ToEPStrategic Plan Objective 5.B.1).
_________________________________________________________________________________________
How do we get it?
¤Build a program that implements the recommendations in the SWP.
¤Partner with Larimer County to more equitably allocate user fees to all
benefitting parcel owners in the Estes Valley.
¤Consider moderating user fees by including sales tax and grant revenue in
the funding model.
Џ
Ќ
БΉЊВΉЋЉЋЋ
Stormwater flows do not respect jurisdictional boundaries
А
Б
Ѝ
БΉЊВΉЋЉЋЋ
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
1.Establish a new Stormwater
Enterprise . . .
2.Enact user fees based primarily upon
their parcelÔs impervious area.
3.For the initial years focus upon local,
less expensive projects . . .
4.Track actual revenues . . .
5.Remain vigilant for grant funding . . .
В
Estes Valley Stormwater Management Project
Stormwater utility concepts have been researStormwater utility concepts have been researched and discussed for the last four years.ched and discussed for the last four years.
Implementation relies on decisions about scopeImplementation relies on decisions about scope, service area, and funding combinations., service area, and funding combinations.
Direction requested from the TB & BCC
Do the Trustees and Commissioners wish staff to draft an Intergovernmental Agreement that would
potentially address:
¤Defining the desired utility service area to include both Town of Estes Park (about 5400 parcels) and
Larimer County (about 3100 parcels) within the former Estes Valley Development Code boundary.
Program funding options which are currently proposed to include: 20% grants ($28M), 30% user fees
($40M), and 50% sales tax ($70M) for a total program cost of $138M by the year 2050 (3% inflation
applied to a 2017 program cost of $79M).
Imposition of a new user fee (estimated to range from $3/moto $24/modepending on parcel size
and annual inflation) on both Town and Larimer County residents living within the former Estes Valley
Development Code boundary.
Questions and Discussion.
ЊЉ
Ў
БΉЊВΉЋЉЋЋ
Estes Valley Stormwater Management Project
Stormwater utility concepts have been researStormwater utility concepts have been researched and discussed for the last four years.ched and discussed for the last four years.
Implementation relies on decisions about scopeImplementation relies on decisions about scope, service area, and funding combinations., service area, and funding combinations.
Direction requested from the TB & BCC
Do the Trustees and Commissioners wish staff to draft an Intergovernmental Agreement that would
potentially address:
1.Defining the desired utility service area to include both Town of Estes Park (about 5400 parcels) and
Larimer County (about 3100 parcels) within the former Estes Valley Development Code boundary
that drain into the Big Thompson River.
¤Is the proposed service area acceptable?
ЊЊ
Estes Valley Stormwater Management Project
Stormwater utility concepts have been researStormwater utility concepts have been researched and discussed for the last four years.ched and discussed for the last four years.
Implementation relies on decisions about scopeImplementation relies on decisions about scope, service area, and funding combinations., service area, and funding combinations.
Direction requested from the TB & BCC
2.Proposed program funding options include: 20% grants ($28M), 30% user fees ($40M), and 50%
sales tax ($70M) for a total program cost of $138M by the year 2050 (3% inflation applied to a 2017
program cost of $79M).
¤Is the scope of work acceptable? The $79M generally consists of $62M in large, river-oriented
projects and $17M in small, neighborhood-oriented projects.
¤Is the proposed allocation to these three funding sources acceptable?
¤The estimate cost reflects 2017 values. It is likely 30% higher in 2022 dollars
¤An election is needed to create a special sales tax funding stream. Do the governing officials
wish to seek the electorateÓs approval of the entire storm water utility funding structure, or only
the sales tax element?
¤Larimer County residents cannot vote on an Estes sales tax proposal. How should their input be
obtained on the sales tax idea? Survey, special district election, other?
ЊЋ
Џ
БΉЊВΉЋЉЋЋ
Estes Valley Stormwater Management Project
Stormwater utility concepts have been researStormwater utility concepts have been researched and discussed for the last four years.ched and discussed for the last four years.
Implementation relies on decisions about scopeImplementation relies on decisions about scope, service area, and funding combinations., service area, and funding combinations.
Direction requested from the TB & BCC
3.Imposition of a new user fee (estimated to range from $3/moto $24/modepending on parcel size
and annual inflation) on both Town and Larimer County residents living within the former Estes Valley
Development Code boundary.
¤The cost model needs updated to reflect current economic conditions and selected funding
allocations. A 30%+ increase is expected.
¤Do the governing officials wish to impose a user fee thru executive action or seek input thru an
election, survey, or other tool?
¤A direct-mailed summary of two user fee options were sent to over 8500 impacted addresses to
gather input in 2019. It is recommended this be repeated with the updated fee estimates.
ЊЌ
Estes Valley Stormwater Management Project
Stormwater utility concepts have been researStormwater utility concepts have been researched and discussed for the last four years.ched and discussed for the last four years.
Implementation relies on decisions about scopeImplementation relies on decisions about scope, service area, and funding combinations., service area, and funding combinations.
Direction requested from the TB & BCC
4.Other content suggestions for an IGA, or staff action?
5.Preferred next step?
Questions and Discussion.
ЊЍ
А