HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2022-11-08 November 8, 2022
5:00 p.m. — 6:45 p.m.
TOWN BOARDEP ® Board Room
STUDY SESSION 4:45 p.m. Dinner
In Person Meeting — Mayor, Trustees, Staff and Public
AGENDA
No public comment will be heard
This study session will be streamed live and available on the
Town YouTube page at www.estes.org/videos
5:00 p.m. Downtown Estes Loop Update.
(Director Muhonen)
5:45 p.m. Fractional Ownership Code Amendment.
(Town Attorney Kramer and Town Clerk Williamson)
6:15 p.m. Zoom Public Participation Option.
(Town Clerk Williamson)
6:35 p.m. Trustee & Administrator Comments & Questions.
6:40 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items.
(Board Discussion)
6:45 p.m. Adjourn for Town Board Meeting.
Informal discussion among Trustees concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this
meeting at approximately 4:30 p.m.
Page 1
F
A
IP
TOWN OF ESTES P
Report PUBLIC WORKS
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Project Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
Date: November 8, 2022
RE: Update on Downtown Estes Loop (DEL) Project
Purpose of Study Session Item:
Update the Town Board on the activities that have taken place on the Downtown Estes
Loop (DEL) project since the bid opening on October 11, 2022.
Town Board Direction Requested:
• Is the Town Board willing to consider a future request for an amendment to the
Memorandum of Agreement and Reimbursable Agreement with Central Federal Lands
Highway Division (CFLHD) that appropriates $1 million of additional local match funds,
so the project may move forward to construction?
• Does the Town Board want staff to schedule a special Town Board meeting on
November 17, 2022, to consider action on this supplemental funding request, in order to
maintain the currently proposed construction schedule?
Present Situation:
• Right of Way: The Phase 1 full acquisition of 8 parcels is complete. The Phase 2 partial
acquisition of 42 easements and rights-of-way slivers from 23 property owners is
complete.
• Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR): The application to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) for the CLOMR was approved by FEMA and the project is
cleared to commence construction.
• Budget: CFLHD previously updated the project budget from $17.2 million (2014) to
$22.58 million (2021) to $30.8 million (2022) to reflect the estimated additional costs to
complete the preliminary engineering (design, right of way acquisitions, easement
acquisitions, building demolition, and construction). The estimated construction budget
has risen from $9 million (2014) to $11.2 million (2021) to $17 million (2022). The two
bids for construction received on October 11, 2022, were $27,087,298 and $33,560,900.
The current anticipated total project cost is $42 million (exclusive of any Option X overlay
work on West Elkhorn Avenue, which is no longer under consideration). Additional
funding is needed to build this project.
Page 3
• Schedule: This project was initiated with a Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) grant
application submitted by the Town and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
to CFLHD in 2013. The final design drawings were completed in August 2022. The
project was advertised for construction bids in September. Bids were opened October
11. The proposed Notice to Proceed for construction work is December 1, 2022. The
proposed contract completion date is December 15, 2024. The early completion
incentive date is July 26, 2024.
• Memorandum of Agreement (MoA). The MoA and Reimbursable Agreement signed in
2014 were amended by all parties in 2021. A second amendment was approved by the
Town Board in July 2022 to increase the Town's local match funding by an additional
$500k so the project could be released for competitive bidding of the construction work.
Proposal:
The community and three partner agencies want closure to this long-duration project. In
response to the higher-than-expected bids received, the three partner agencies staff
have offered three options for moving forward:
1. All further work on the project could be terminated. This option discards 9 years
of work on the project, eliminates the infrastructure benefits previously requested
by the community in the 2013 FLAP grant application, and delivers minimal
benefit for the $10+ million of tax dollars spent to date on this project. Cancelling
the project does not save any taxpayer money, as the FLAP construction funds
would be reallocated by CFLHD to other projects in other communities. The full
burden to repair and improve the downtown infrastructure will then be the sole
responsibility of the Town and CDOT. This option is not recommended.
2. The current project solicitation could be canceled, and the CFLHD could
readvertise the project in 6 to 12 months, hoping the uncertainty in the
construction industry might stabilize and trigger lower prices and improved
predictability in material and labor availability. Forecasting future economic
conditions is difficult. This option may risk increased pricing and will delay
planned, concurrent utility upgrades. This option is not recommended.
3. The project could be built as designed and bid. CFLHD is willing to continue
funding 82.79% of the project cost through the FLAP program, contingent upon a
17.21% contribution from the local agency partners. This would require an
additional $1 million each in local match funds from both the Town and CDOT to
secure an additional $9.3 million in FLAP grant funds. The total FLAP
contribution would increase to $34.71 million. This is the option recommended by
the partner agency representatives. Updated funding agreements would be
required from both the Town and CDOT.
Advantages:
• Construction of the project leverages $1.5 million in local funds to return an investment
of$40.50 million in Federal and State funds targeted on infrastructure improvements in
downtown Estes Park. These include new roadway and parking surfaces; four new
Page 4
traffic signals; expanded sidewalks, trails, and bike lanes; a new bridge across the Big
Thompson River; a flood overflow and stormwater collection system; a new roundabout
intersection; and a 16" domestic water distribution pipe for improved fire protection.
• The complete project will bring improvement to the Town's downtown traffic congestion
problems, improved downtown mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians, reduction in
downtown flood risk from the Big Thompson River, and mental/emotional closure to
community uncertainty surrounding the DEL.
• Completing the project finishes deferred road surface repairs on both Town and CDOT
roads within the project limits.
• During, and subsequent to, the project planning stages, many community members
strongly supported the infrastructure improvements, economic betterment, and improved
visitor experience expected from the project.
Disadvantages:
• Some community members do not support construction of the DEL by the partner
agencies.
• The long construction duration of 18-24 months in the heart of downtown will be
disruptive to businesses and users of the impacted roadways.
• The requested $1 million in additional local match funding could be used on other priority
needs within the community.
Finance/Resource Impact:
The Town has expended its original obligation to pay a local match of $4.2 million
(CDOT devolution funds) for the Phase 1 project. No invoice has been received or
payment issued for the additional $500k contribution from the Town agreed to in MoA
Modification 2. The Town has $600k available in the unappropriated 2022 Construction
Reserve in the Community Reinvestment Fund. An additional $400k could be provided
from the proposed $1 million 2023 Construction Reserve. A total of$10.1 million has
been obligated by CFLHD to-date for this project.
PROJECT FUNDING SUMMARY
Year Project Cost FLAP Share CDOT Share Town Share
2014 _ $17.2 million $13 million $4.21 million*
2021 $22.58 million $22 million $580,000 $4.21 million*
2022 (Jul) $30.74 million $25.4 million $580,000 $4.71 million*
2022 (Nov) $42.00 million $34.71 million $1.58 million $5.71 million*
*$4.2 million CDOT devolution funds provided to the Town for future maintenance of West Elkhorn Avenue
Level of Public Interest
High
Attachments:
1. Presentation slides
Page 5
11/9/2022
Attachment 1
DOWNTOWN I
LOP)
Downtown Estes Loop Project
Estes Park Town Board Study
Session
November 8, 2022
4
®p: COLORADO e® Department of
Draft Presentation subject to change. Lr® Transportation
)owNTOWN Today's Agenda
• Progress Update
• Bid Results and Analysis
Air
• Project Options
• Funding
•• Project Benefits ' ��.�'. �:'"�.
• Next Steps
• Q&A
acooT COLORADO
rn ®P,: Department of
Draft Presentation subject to change. Lr Transportation
Page 6
11/9/2022
DOWNTOWN
Progress Update
L01' `
• All Right of Way(ROW)easements and acquisitions needed for the project construction
have been acquired. Process followed Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970(Uniform Act).
• FEMA issued the Conditional
Letter of Map Revision(CLOMR) I"
for the Project. •
• 404 Permit for the project was
acquired from United States v , r ' 45 .
Army Corp of Engineers. tti N
Included purchase of required CDOT owned properties
stream mitigation credits. �.
tea,
• Project was cleared for \ al
construction and Advertised by '•.'j
FHWA Central Federal Lands for E, E o°Nw•oopwsmow wws
bids
4 COLORADO
ffl ;•®p: e® Department of
Draft Presentation subject to change. Lr® Transportation
)OWNTOWN
Bid Result
L01'
• Contractor bids received 10/11/2022
Project No CO FLAP US 36(I1
Project Name Downtown Estes Park Loop
(out:autos Respo•sh.? Bate Schedule A Base Schedule N
Eopue.•c Ewmwte S15.749,991.00 S1.715.313 00
Am oms Cull Comovcmo tar S33,560,900.30 $2,183,46100
Flamm Cmorvnas 4a S27.087,34100 $1,116,181.00
_ COLORADO
fll 4),� co.,'
Department of
Draft Presentation subject to change. Lr - Transportation
Page 7
11/9/2022
DOWNTOWN 111
�
4'
Cost Factors and A na
LOI
Factors affecting cost difference:
— Unprecedented construction cost index
— Workforce and supply chain/availability of materials
— Project proximity and complexity
— Maintainace of traffic and seasonal closure restrictions
— Specialized work items with limited cost data
Major item bid analysis primary differentiators:
— Mobilization
— Testing and quality control
— Asphalt, aggregate, and bridge items
— Irrigation and electric systems
— Traffic signals and lighting
— Traffic control and maintainace of traffic items
— Concrete flatwork, steel, and labor-intensive work items®D
COLORADO
rf1 �t Department of
Draft Presentatlon subject to change. Lr 4 ' Ttansportation
DOWNTOWN
LOIP),
1. Terminate further work on the project
2. Cancel solicitation and readvertise in six to twelve months
3. Confirm bid results and move into construction
COLORADO
ED 1,t Department of
Draft Presentation subject to change. Li
.. ®Do Transportation
Page 8
11/9/2022
DOWNTOWN
L01')i
_ Option 1 : Terminate Further Work
Proposal Details:
• Solicitation would be canceled and not awarded
• Project plans shelved and no further work would be completed
• Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP)construction funds would be
reallocated to other projects
Pros:
• No additional project costs
Cons:
• Discards nine years of work on the project
• Eliminates the infrastructure benefits previously requested by the
community
• Delivers minimal benefit for the 10+ million of tax dollars spent to date
on this project
COLORADO
ffl u e® Department of
Draft Presentation subject to change. Lr® Transportation
)OWNTOWN
LOP
2: Resolicit in 6-12 Months
Proposal Details:
• Current project solicitation would be canceled
• Project would be readvertised in six to twelve months
Pros:
• Potential for stabilization of construction industry resulting in lower bid
prices
Cons:
• Risk of increased pricing may be greater than the potential of price
stabilization or lowering.
• Overall project and concurrent work for utilities within project would be
delayed.
A COLORADO
fp eft Departme.,e of
DraftPresentation subject to change. Lf Transportation
Page 9
11/9/2022
DOWNTOWN
Option 3: Begin Construction
Proposal Details:
• Pending determination of Fair and Reasonableness of low bid,contract would be
awarded,and construction would begin in early 2023
• FHWA Central Federal Lands would contribute additional FLAP funds at 82.79%of the
total project cost,contingent upon a 17.21%match from local agency partners
• Additional match required of$2M to meet 17.21%match would be split at$1 M each
between partner agencies to fund construction. This amount would allow for some
construction contingecy for any change conditions encountered during construction.
Pros:
• Fastest implementation of new roadway, bridge,and river channel infrastructure,relief
to the Town's downtown traffic congestion problems,improved downtown mobility for
bicyclists and pedestrians,reduction in downtown flood risk from the Big Thompson
River, improved domestic water delivery for fire protection,and improved pavement
quality/longevity.
• Maintains current construction schedule with known costs and contract completion
incentive
• Moves long standing project into construction to make improvements that are
supported by many community members
Cons:
• Additional cost to partner agencies which could be used on other community priorities.
to, ®.D° COLORADO
ffl ,T Department of
Lr
Draft Presentation subject to change. Transportation
)OWNTOWN
Proposed Funding Summary
L01'
SCHEDULE A PROJECT FUNDING SUMMARY
Year Project Cost FLAP Share CDOT Share Town Share
2014 $17.2 million $13 million * $4.21 million*
2021 $22.58 million $22 million $580,000 $4.21 million*
2022(Jul) $30.74 million $25.4 million $580,000 $4.71 million*
2022(Nov) $42.00 million $34.71 million $1.58 million $5.71 million*
*$0.2 million CDOT devolution funds provided to the Town for future maintenance of West Elkhorn Avenue
cool COLORADO
21, Department of
�� t"' Transportation
Draft Presentation subject to change. ® •
Page 10
11/9/2022
DOWNTOWN
,�
;' Project Benefits
L01')
$1.5M local funds leverages $40.5M in Federal & State funds
--,..0L_
0
COLORADO
p ;�. e® Department of
Draft Presentation subject to change. ® Transportation
)OWNTOWN
11 Project Benefit
L01')
w arwm�uiax L / /
mpaoairt, ? New Roundabout "11
_ 1 -.:
111.4j) Ili
i-t. ` s n' _ i L
New Access Control i \\u Four New Traffic Signals
&Trail Extension �
is ''. '7:t7,- 4k-lizy,/ w istfia
New Bridge&Channel Improvements Iry — myll to,'
Illlllllliuii1jjp1ii�°mr� :
sr
1 A
t
i
_ 4 DOT COLORADO
Departmentof
Draft Presentation subject to change. P® ®� Transportation
Page 11
11/9/2022
DOWNTOWN 1
Next Steps
L01')
• Town Board Direction Requested
- Is the Town Board receptive to considering a future request for
an amendment to the Memorandum of Agreement with CFLHD
that appropriates not more than $1 M of additional local match
funds so the project may move forward into construction?
— Does the Town Board want staff to schedule a special Town
Board meeting on November 17, 2022, to consider action on this
supplemental funding request, in order to maintain the currently
proposed construction schedule?
_ 4 COLORADO
ffl ( ; e® Department of
Draft Presentation subject to change. Lr® Transportation
)OWNTOWN 11
LOP)
Questions and Answers
FT" l-i FFrrk '/� -��
1 . ohifill i Ili � �
€ =`�44 -�3 fir,t+rF Q.
m
pt ..,�,�
.� rower .....„r,►w.'`�q�- ' �Y�` m Mom.;.
! \ wax\ as ---��x
1
COLORADO
L
raj TOW a jt Department of
Draft Presentation subject to change. r.. Transportation
Page 12
Public Comments received by 2022-11-07
Downtown Estes Loop Comments
Scrap the loop!
Kay Rosenthal <epltr@aol.com> Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 11:00 AM
I never wanted the loop to begin with. Cost over runs!!! Scrap it!
Please and Thanks,
Kay Rosenthal
loop
Jeanne Buffy <jeanne.buffy3@gmail.com> Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 11:02 AM
I am opposed to the LOOP. Joan Buhlmann
The Loop
Yvonne Adrion <yadrion@yahoo.com> Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 12:52 PM
The Loop is totally wrong for Estes Park and will ruin downtown. Please save money by terminating this project now.
Yvonne Adrion
Loop
Kathleen Smith <katkat1127@yahoo.com> Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 4:33 PM
Stop the project...put money to other uses....ie out lying road repair all around Estes....pay summer cops to start
earlier, stay longer. With the permit system in the Park, the FLAP idea is obsolete.
Loop
Kathleen Smith <katkat1127@yahoo.com> Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 4:44 PM
Let locals vote on what to do with the money
Loop NO
Patricia Baker<cbpbaker@gmail.com> Sun, Nov 6, 2022 at 2:48 PM
Hello-
I just heard that some people are still unclear how the community feels about the loop proposal. I can say without
hesitation that NO ONE I know wants or wanted the loop when it was proposed several years ago and NO ONE
know wants it now. Certainly neither my husband nor I want it and we know the owners of the Donus Haus, who
clearly were against it-what a very unnecessary destruction they suffered! The other business owners and workers
we know are against it, and the neighbors we know in Carriage Hills are also against it.
Please take this under consideration when re-evaluating the rationale for continuing or not.
Thanks,
Patricia Baker
Page 13
Downtown Estes Loop Comments
Downtown Loop Project
1pgorski@flash.net <Ipgorski@flash.net> Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 10:26 AM
I am writing to express my opinion on whether the city should continue on with the Loop project.
Here are my takeaways on this big issue:
The biggest concern to me is the money that will be spent on this by a city and its residents that I doubt can
really afford to do it, for a problem that exists for about 2 months, on 2 blocks for a few hours a day. Most
people who come to town are coming from places that really have traffic problems and get through the town
in minutes compared to hours where they come from. So, is it now a pride issue with the town to get this
done regardless of how much it costs or whether it is really an advantage?
In the beginning, the project was to help the crowded National Park. Now that we have timed entry, that
doesn't seem to be a valid point anymore.
It has always bothered me how the merchants would be hurt. The tourists go to the park early and go
shopping on their way back from the park. With the design of the Loop, they bypass town and will not see
any of it to be tempted to stop and shop.
It seems counterproductive for the roundabout to go from 2 lanes to one from Moraine onto 66. It seems that
it might cause a traffic jam there, slowing down the traffic coming from Elk Horn to Moraine on the way out
66 to the Park entrance.
We already have a bypass down Wonderview which is a nice wide road and could be advertised better to get
people who want to avoid town to use it. I do not understand why we need another one to the tune of an
extra $1,000,000.
Not the least in my mind is the destruction of the cozy, inviting, greatly used Baldwin Park. There is literally
no where else like it in Estes Park. I live right across from it and families come with their pallets, picnics,
chairs, fishing poles etc and sometimes spent the whole day. It would be s0000 sad to see that disappear
and I do not believe that that wouldn't happen.
From my personal stand point, it would make me have to go all the way around downtown or over Moccasin
Pass to get home since I would no longer be able to turn at the Dairy Queen to come home. I also think it
would increase traffic on East Riverside which is already a very busy street. But, I could stand it if I thought it
"was for the common good" but I don't think of it is for anyone's good except the people making money off of
it.
These are my main objections. It makes me sick to think of spending that money on 2 blocks for a few weeks
of a few months when there are so many people hurting financially. It seems very irresponsible to me.
Thanks for letting me voice my opinion (especially since I get no vote on it but will be directly impacted by it).
Lou Gorski
281-460-0297
Loop Project
Susan Harris <suskharris@gmail.com> Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 10:40 AM
I understand that the Town Board will once again be discussing the Loop project due to the bids coming in higher than
expected and the need for more funding from the Town.
I am aware that 10 million dollars has been spent on this project, a project that many community members have been
opposed to since the beginning, as many of us see very little value in turning East Elkhorn and Moraine into one way
thoroughfares, building bike lanes in a tourist town with hilly terrain (how many tourists bring their bikes?)is probably
not a high priority, and many of us like Baldwin Park and do not wish to see it reduced in size. The initial reasoning of
Page 14
Downtown Estes Loop Comments
moving traffic faster to and from Rocky Mountain National Park has always been ridiculous, and timed entry has
proven that Rocky Mountain can't handle any more people, no matter how fast they move through town.
I have always assumed that the real reason for the Loop plan was to get some federal money for some infrastructure
improvements and I do see the value in the waterline, new bridge, and flood/stormwater improvements. I suspect that
the roundabout will probably be another accident waiting to happen, like the one on the bypass, and will not really
solve anything, certainly not in moving traffic faster. The one on the bypass just slows everything down to a crawl.
I would like to see the Town Board stop the Loop project and quit throwing good money after bad. Sometimes the
universe is trying to tell you something and you are not listening. This project was sold on so many falsehoods and
disinformation from the beginning, with some of the original meetings offering options that included a parking garage,
several new bridges, etc., and now it comes down to a large taxpayer expenditure (I am talking about federal monies
involved, not just the Town's costs)that really does not do much for anyone. AND, we have to put up with months of
construction for the privilege of dealing with one way streets that add time and gas use to our daily lives. Please
reconsider. Is it really worth the infrastructure improvements that you may get? Are they necessary? Is there another
way to pay for them? Have you gotten in so far that you will never get another Federal grant if you back out of this
one? Just some of the many questions to consider when you discuss the project.
Thanks for listening. I wanted to make sure that Mr. Muhonen heard from some "voices calling for the project to be
scrapped", since according to the Loveland Reporter Herald, he had not heard from us.
Page 15
Public Comment received by noon on 2022-11-08
Downtown Estes Loop Comments
LOOP
Patti Brown <pcb1956@gmail.com> Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 8:49 PM
Mayor and Town Trustees, I have read with interest the information on the cost issues of the loop project.
I hope that the Town can find a way to undertake the construction and bring the project to fruition, at least the round-
a-bout, before the costs rise again.
As it stands now, the area where the old Donut Haus stood is a terrible eyesore and a traffic nightmare. I live "above"
this area on Cyteworth Road and have to navigate this intersection often. It can be hair-raising.
In a perfect world, I wish that the whole of the Picadelli Shopping center could undergo a total "urban renewal"tear
down and rebuild because it too is an eyesore and not an efficient use of land.
It would be wonderful if a developer wanted to re-do that area as a mixed use commercial, retail and residential
space, but the current three-point traffic curve of Moraine and Riverside in front of Picadelli is an ugly and dangerous
mess that needs to be addressed sooner than later.
Patti Brown
Fwd: Study session for the LOOP
Ann Taylor<grannyannie23@yahoo.com> Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 9:52 AM
Dear Town Administrator, Mayor, Board members,Greg Muhonen,
Once again the LOOP has raised its ugly head in our Town. The costs continue to rise, the project continues to be
pared down, residents and visitors are opposed and the Town Board continues to find ways to continue this ill thought
out project.
I would like to go on record as being opposed to the continuation of the LOOP. Just stop the project. I know that
turning down a federal grant basically guarantees that Estes Park will be put on the bottom of the list for grants in the
future; but frankly, I don't care. The project was wrong in the first place. We never needed easier access to Federal
Lands as we have two very nice entrances to our National park. National forest access has never been an
issue. Please, reconsider the cost of this project and vote to stop it...Option #1...or put the issue to a vote and let the
public decide. Previous boards have already decided that the public shouldn't be involved in the LOOP decision; but
I'm hoping that this board will see the value of a town vote. I believe that if this issue were put on the May ballot we
would at least get a true picture of what the public would like...if I were a board member, I would feel relieved to have
this decision decided by the residents of Estes Park.
Sincerely,
Ann Taylor
Page 16
A
EP
TOWN OF ESTES P
MEMOTOWN CLERK OFFICE
To: Mayor Koenig
Town Board of Trustees
Through: Travis Machalek, Town Administrator
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Dan Kramer, Town Attorney
Date: November 8, 2022
RE: Fractional Ownership Code Amendment
Purpose of Study Session Item:
To educate the Board on a new type of ownership and discuss an amendment to the
Municipal Code to address the use within town limits.
Town Board Direction Requested:
Staff requests direction from the Board on drafting an amendment to the Municipal
Code to address fractional ownership.
Present Situation:
Staff became aware earlier this year of a new form of fractional ownership through a
company called Pacaso. This company provides a group of individuals the opportunity
to co-own high-end homes, similar to timeshares. As quoted on the company's website
a "true property ownership of a spectacular second home with a small group of co-
owners. It's the modern way to buy and own a second home." Pacaso creates a limited
liability company (LLC) for each home it buys, and then sells one-eighth shares of
ownership in that home. Once it has sold all the shares, Pacaso transitions to a
property-manager role, and handles scheduling the use of the home amongst the
owners. Pacaso argues that it is different from timeshares based on this ownership
model as well as by targeting "residences" rather than larger resorts.
The company has homes currently in communities such as Steamboat Springs, Vail,
Aspen, Breckenridge, Telluride etc. that have well over a million-dollar home values. It
has also been noted on the website that owners of the fractional shares are not allowed
to rent the homes out as short-term rentals. It does not specify that the owner of the
fractional share is the only user allowed. It is currently understood that each owner may
be allowed to have other family or friends and perhaps others to use their share so long
as they are not advertising the share and accepting money for the use.
Proposal:
During discussions with other communities, it was noted the fractional ownership
properties have generated neighborhood complaints due to traffic, noise, unknown
visitors/guests, trash, etc., complaints with the ownership model, and the buying up of
Page 17
segments of the community for this purpose. These are some of the issues the Town's
vacation home regulations address in response to complaints generated over the years.
Staff from the communities also noted interest in either regulating or eliminating the use.
Durango has addressed fractional ownership through its land use code, treating it as a
conditional or limited use and restricting it to upper floors within buildings in specific
zoning districts.
At this time the town does not have many of the high-end multimillion-dollar homes to
be purchased for this type of use; however, developers could build additional units to fit
this model rather than building other types of housing. Additionally, the model could
evolve and include more modest dwelling units, affordable timeshare, to fulfill another
segment of the timeshare market. This would allow individuals that want to own a piece
of Estes Park but cannot afford to purchase a second home. It also presents an
alternative to owning and operating a short-term rental property, thereby eliminating the
impact of the current residential cap on vacation homes.
Given how quickly the model has spread nationally and in Colorado, staff proposes
addressing it before it becomes established in Estes Park within the residential zoning
districts. More information can be viewed by visiting their website -
https://www.pacaso.corn/
Staff offers up as an option treating fractionally owned homes and timeshares in
residential dwelling units as vacation homes, and requiring them to get a vacation home
license accordingly. Given the frequency at which occupancy of these homes will turn
over from user to user, we expect that the homes' impacts on the community and the
neighborhood would be similar to those of short-term rentals. This determination could
be adopted as an amendment to the Municipal Code.
Advantages:
• Addressing the ownership before it is established allows the Town to develop
regulations to address potential negative impacts, especially to residential zoning
districts.
Disadvantages:
• Regulation would limit an option for partial ownership of a second home.
Finance/Resource Impact:
This item would require staff time to research and develop an ordinance. Additional
cost would be incurred if the Board amended the code. However, these edits could be
included in other upcoming updates to the vacation home ordinance.
Level of Public Interest
Low at this time.
Attachments
None.
Page 18
1 1/9/2022
'.....*Arii
Fractional Ownership .
of
, -
• ....,*4:.:*" .;"... ,' . . . ,w
Wir, _ 3
tiictte. ,(1.•
. •0- -..,.. ...a., ,. ,it; -,,-, \ , _ .......r .v.• . ,_.
....tgri , '...4
ko. , ''''ti.„ .1.--'•
...
_....,----='; i ; • 4% - •
.... . ---2^1,. 7.----_:;...............•
• ••••••• ....'..."..'";••... .......,....- -.....,'.--- -.7 - '.4... 2.-,,'''' - ., 1 -
_ -
/.
III . .. __ . -- . •
. . „... ... , , . . • . • • .
_ - • _, , .. .i. - 44115c
. .... .. - ,
. .., _. _:.... _
r ,„. e .
op ,
--.........._ , Es.—
.._ __..__ . --
— —...--'4,...oh .--m.....................4
..,___ ............_ _
1.II
• Outline Fractional Ownership
- - .-.--4.-L.---..r. ,•,--zi._ ..-4,- .,-.44, Ar ..--- „...y •
-- . ...::...--.4.:,.
4, „.:,..- -3.,‘_} , - ....' - Al.6". '1,.', 7•W'Ailt IV-
.' - Review Residential Impacts
!, .-__„..., - ___ , ,..ile , -- , ., ......, - ,..•
-
• -74--40, ;-.. . .- - )41._
- Discuss Options to Regulate
.., -
47W4111".- '
4.: Fractional Ownership
• --t- -,....,„„„ ...-_,,.,„,,..
Page 19
11/9/2022
What is Fractional ownership is a method of
Fractional property purchase involving several
Ownerships buyers, typically 6-12. Each owner holds
an equal part of the title.
The purchasers have a stake in an
asset without having to pay for the entire
property, maintenance expenses, and
taxes.
• Property types tend to be larger homes with
3 to 5 bedrooms. Fractional Ownership
• Most fractional properties have a better
location within a community.
• Fractional buyers pay more to purchase.
• Fractional owners can usually exchange
their vacation time to a new destination,
easily and cheaply, on sites such as Third — ;; r •
t
Home. !4,
• r*
• Sales of fractional ownership are similar to -
deeded ownership of one's primary home.
• Statistics show that fractional ownership
property resales rival sales of whole
ownership vacation real estate in the same -
location. In some instances, fractional resale
values have even exceeded those of whole
ownership properties.
Page 20
11/9/2022
Fractional vs Timeshare
Fractional Timeshare Comments
Number of owners .ner. us rr y ;,ners,26 owners i-ract 6rct o;;ner has a higher
for some projects financial commitment and are
willing to pay higher costs
Time for owner use 4-8 weeks depending on the One to two week per year Fractional has less wear and
number of owners tear with fewer occupants
Equity Owners have a share of the No property equity Timeshare ownership is
title,based on the number of usually a vacation purchase
owners.Appreciation that eliminates hotel
potential expenses.Fractional
ownership in an investment
Management Owners have good control Project developer or hotel Fractional owner isiwilling to
over property management operator maintains pay higher management
management control expenses
Resale Value Resale value tends to Resale is difficult even at Intense competition for
appreciate reduced prices timeshare resales from other
units and new development
Fractional Ownership - Impacts
- Neighborhood Complaints
Noise, Unknown Visitors/Guests, Trash, etc.
Ownership Model
o Additional Vacation Homes in Residential Areas
Buying up Segments of the Community
Construction of Additional Units vs Building Workforce Housing Units
Increase to Housing Costs
Page 21
11/9/2022
Should Fractional If "Yes":
Ownership be The Municipal Code may be revised to
Regulated? include fractional ownership and
timeshares as vacation homes
Regulate compliance through third party
vendor
Questions
Board
Page 22
A
IP
TOWN OF ESTES P
MEMO TOWN CLERK OFFICE
To: Mayor Koenig
Town Board of Trustees
Through: Travis Machalek, Town Administrator
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: November 8, 2022
RE: Zoom Public Participation Option
Purpose of Study Session Item:
To review with use of Zoom Webinar for remote public participation during Town Board
meetings.
Town Board Direction Requested:
Staff requests direction from the Board on the future use of Zoom Webinar during Town
Board meetings in 2023.
Present Situation:
The Town Board of Trustees held their first fully remote meeting on March 24, 2020 due
to the Declaration of Local Emergency signed by Town Administrator Machalek on
March 19, 2020 related to COVID-19. The adoption of Ordinance 04-20 on March 18,
2020 outlined holding emergency meetings and virtual participation by the Board.
The Town Board continued to hold virtual meetings throughout COVID-19 and accepted
public comment virtually through Zoom. Once the Town Board returned to in person
meetings in July 2021 (with a short period in 2022 as virtual due to an increase in
COVID-19 cases) Zoom has remained an option for the public to participate remotely.
The Town upgraded the Zoom Webinar platform early during the emergency to expand
the number of individuals that could participate at a meeting to 300, ten sub-accounts
assigned to department admins to hold other Board and Committee meetings, and
added a toll-free number to remove financial barriers to ensure public participation
during meetings. The annual cost, including the upgrades to the platform, is
approximately $4,200.
Over the past 2 plus years, the Town has seen little use of the platform by the public to
provide public comment. Virtual attendance by the public over the last 17 meetings
averaged 13 participants. Further, it is important to note the majority of the attendees
through Zoom are staff, consultants or other entity employees such as Visit Estes Park,
Economic Development Corporation, Estes Park Nonprofit Resource Center, etc. A
number of the meetings have had no public attendance through Zoom.
During the same period of time the Town Board received public comment from eight (8)
individuals with three (3) during the STR meeting in March 2022. The toll-free number
Page 23
usage is broken down by month with eight (8) toll-free call-ins since March 2022 (one
from a local number). A majority of the public view meetings through the Town's
YouTube channel. The last 17 meetings averaged 76 views through YouTube. This is
the number of views during and since the meeting was broadcasted.
Proposal:
The staff has outlined three options for the Board to consider regarding the use of Zoom
Webinar moving forward:
Option 1 — Continue with Zoom Webinar to allow for remote public participation and
comment during Town Board meetings. This would also allow for remote participation
by staff and consultants.
Option 2 — Use Zoom Webinar on an as needed basis for remote public participation for
high public interest agenda items, i.e. STRs, land development, etc.
Option 3 — Discontinue the use of remote public participation. Staff and consultants
could still participate in Town Board meetings remotely through the use of Google Meet
if needed and scheduled in advance.
Advantages:
• Maintaining the current Zoom platform, Option 1, allows citizens to participate
remotely and provide public comment without constraints.
• Option 2 allows for participation during high interest items both in person and
remotely.
• Discontinuing remote participation by the public, Option 3, would streamline Town
Board meetings, simplify the agenda with the removal of Zoom instructions, and
reduce staff time to prepare, set up, manage, and monitor Zoom participation during
Town Board meetings.
• Options 2 and 3 allow the Board to easily transition to virtual meetings during
emergency situations by reactivating the Zoom platform as needed, without the toll-
free number.
Disadvantages:
• Discontinuing remote participation limits live public comment to those able to attend
the meeting in person. Written public comment would continue to be accepted for all
Town Board items.
• Option 1 would continue to require the additional staff time as stated previously.
Finance/Resource Impact:
The Town Board costs would be reduced with Option 2 or Option 3. The reduction in
Option 2 is dependent on the number of meetings held by Zoom annually.
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Attachments
1. Zoom, YouTube and Toll-Free Reports.
Page 24
Attachment 1
Town Board Meeting Zoom & YouTube Usage
Unique **Max
Date Topic Webinar ID Attendees Concurrent Zoom Public Comment YouTube Views
11-Oct-22 Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park 982 1690 2040 0 0 0 50
25-Oct-22 Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park 982 1690 2040 8 7 1 86
29-Sep-22 Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park 982 1690 2040 8 10 N/A 42
27-Sep-22 Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park 982 1690 2040 5 5 N/A 66
13-Sep-22 Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park 982 1690 2040 9 7 N/A 92
23-Aug-22 Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park 982 1690 2040 15 13 80
1 comment non-agenda item
9-Aug-22 Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park 982 1690 2040 6 4 N/A 57
26-Jul-22 Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park 982 1690 2040 6 3 N/A 66
12-Jul-22 Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park 982 1690 2040 5 5 N/A 52
28-Jun-22 Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park 982 1690 2040 7 7 N/A 83
14-Jun-22 Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park 982 1690 2040 3 2 N/A 75
24-May-22 Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park 982 1690 2040 3 2 N/A 37
10-May-22 Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park 982 1690 2040 8 7 1 57
26-Apr-22 Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park 982 1690 2040 9 6 N/A 70
12-Apr-22 Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park 982 1690 2040 3 3 1 73
22-Mar-22 Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park 982 1690 2040 107 55 3(STR) 196
8-Mar-22 Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park 982 1690 2040 4 4 1 86
Average 13.625 Total=8 Average 76
*Average 6.6
*The average not including the March 22nd attendance and no attendance on October 11th.
**This value shows the maximum number of online viewers at the same time during the webinar.
Page 25
Attachment 2
Town Board Meeting Toll Free Number Use
Month #of People Breakdown of Times
•
2 Joined Study Session, 4 Joined Regular
Mar-22 6 Meeting: 1= 1 min 1=9 min
Apr-22 1 35 minutes
May-22 N/A
Jun-22 N/A
Jul-22 N/A
Aug-22 2 1=1 min, 1=62 minutes
Sep-22 2 1=32 min, 1=149 minutes (from local #)
Oct-22 0 1 attempt at 4pm on 2022-10-04
Page 26
A
EP
TOWN oi ESTES PARK
Future Town Board Study Session Agenda Ite
November 08, 2022
November 22, 2022 Items Approved — Unscheduled:
• Housing Needs Assessment and • 1A Renewal
Strategic Plan Check-in • Governing Policies Updates
• Trailblazer Annual Update • Stanley Park Master Plan
• Rooftop Rodeo Operations Overview Implementation
• Downtown Loop Updates as Necessary
December 13, 2022
• Annual Parking Management and Transit Items for Town Board Consideration:
Update None
January 10, 2023
None
January 24, 2023
• Building Codes
Page 27
F