HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Joint Town Board Study Session 2019-05-15MOI WIONMINNIIIIIMMIIM11111
I ()V,7 _hi S
LARINIER
NlY
htlIMME 1111111111=11111M11
REMBIUMI OM,
TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES
BOARD OF LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
JOINT STUDY SESSION MEETING
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
5:30 p.m.
Town Hall Board Room
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. TDD available.
• Mayor Jirsa & Commissioner Donnelly to Open the meeting
• Introductions
• Meeting Objective — Consider the proposed Estes Valley Stormwater Management
Program and associated Stormwater Utility.
• Discussion of community input (surveys and meetings) and funding structure options
(Public Works Director Muhonen & County Engineer Mark Peterson)
• Public Input
• Joint Board Discussion & direction to staff regarding next steps
• 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.
*This meeting will be recorded and available live online.
MEMMMMOMMIIMIMMM
Report
111111111,11111
7N OF
PAR
111111111111""1"1"111mIllijill'111.1.11,[7"""""1.
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
00 11000VIV liviv11111!10
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 0.1% 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
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.
• 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.
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.
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 sum ary
Link to Survey 2 comments
Link to Meeting log comments
Floodplain Comparison Map
Project List
� ±a
}
(()
4.4
MASTER PLAN (Continued)
Table ES.4 Summary of Stormwater Drainage Improvement Priorities.
Operation and Maintenance
— 65
LIT a Er°
E
• "Le'' •t"
tA
o30 2 +e,
• c 00 *—
t .2
o .1-•
a
• °)
c 8 .E te;
rtea) `‘.,' -cs
CiS o o•ZI
0
t a, a
.c •-c
E -c
tei 4.°
C 8 5
E To°'
To- • `a 01 0 >
> Tr)
• E
4'.
4.) CL >
F. U w, • 9.
• 0 E
E 5
c ‘O' 4E'
=
.2 V 2
E 8 a 2
In general, O&M requirements should at a minimum consi
-0 '01 '
0
• ;47., rt,
0
iii >-• c
c
.— ro
76 -c
43 c t...)
0- 43..,
72 ,t' 4-'
,,(1 E
----
C '6
?:" .2
5
42 a, TO
c
>- to
110
Ta t,
c 0
0- o
,.... -E '
ilO
.0 ij r;
..c
to
-0 • iu"
c c
---..
• “"
tti c 79 fa" 3
O ...-s -9 Ca)
O „7, o tkl) 41
to
F.Ic a) I:i'rT
7-c E ta -0 E ...,.?-,
.`C "I'' 2 (`6 ._.-. ..c•
-,, -§. g- -g S'
E 0 . ,-. . t
b.. E 2!, Z, " ±„..
,.
`2 5 (Li w C ' t'
E ab' '6" r73 tco C
_Pi2 .O. .. t f, *g
4:; (u. f,. —.'' 45 `,,,, a
C T-i ..'E'' .f, t — 2-
'2 g `i,' 40 E g' 713
1 1 1 . ' $_,- . a,°, 1
v., a '`c- a 0 LI
_c. ...q ,. 4.1 co -E na
• •
-00
a
0
,f14
• C
CO
a, .0
U
‘11 0
• >
4= U..,
E'
c
▪ E
3 rib
4 9.
• E
• C
('LE"
77:
E'
E
E
VI
g
a
O •0
▪ c
St
• C
a a,
O 5
0
FR-004-01 Fall River Lane Bridge $1,630,000
BT-008-01 BTR Improvements: Upstream U.S.36/St.Vrain Ave. to Downstream
Riverside $11,900,000
BT-007-02 BTR Improvements: Riverside Bridge Replacement $5,240,000
FR-006-08 Fall River Improvements: Confluence to West End Parking Lot $1,420,000
FR-006-07
Fall River Improvements: W. End Parking Lot to Downstream of
$1,440,000
Moraine
FR-006-06 Fall River Improvements: Upstream Moraine to Upstream Wiest $4,000,000
FR-006-05 Fall River Improvements: Upstream Wiest to Upstream Elkhorn $8,530,000
FR-006-04 Fall River Improvements: Upstream Elkhorn to Upstream Spruce $3,300,000
FC-005-01 Brook Drive Stormsewer $121,000
BT-007-02 BTR Improvements: Rockwell Bridge Replacement $4,090,000
Additional Local Drainage & Site/Property Specific Improvements $2,500,000 50 Assumed at $50,000
each
BC-001-01 Town Hall Improvements: MacGregor to Elkhorn $3,250,000
FC-007-01 High School: Outfall Channel Improvements $40,000
FC-007-02 Matthew Circle: Outfall Improvements $62,000
FR-005-01 Old Ranger Road: Channel & Stormsewer $1,030,000
Estimated. Improvement
BT-010-01 Prospect Road: Drainage Improvements $100,000 and cost sheets not
prepared.
BT-007-02 Crags Drive Bridge Replacement $4,500,000
FR-006-03 Fall River Improvements: Upstream Spruce to Downstream Murphy's $2,790,000
Fall River Improvements: Downstream Murphy's to Downstream
FR-006-02 $1,350,000
Filby
FR-006-01 Fall River Improvements: Downstream Filby to Upstream Elkhorn $5,140,000
100 Assumed at $50,000
Additional Local Drainage & Site/Property Specific Improvements $5,000,000
each
PRIORITY 2 SUBTOTAL = I $23,262,000
200 Assumed at $50,000
each
0 ,
0
$44,171,000 I
000`000'OT$
000"089"T$
0
.9s
`f-:-
$79,063,000
Description
PRIORITY 1 SUBTOTAL
Fish Hatchery Road Bridge (Downstream One)
Additional Local Drainage & Site/Property Specific Improvements
PRIORITY 3 SUBTOTAL =
TOTALS =
,
09'
EF7
A # tliA4
E ON Al.111015d
February 15, 2018
Storm water plan
Anita Prinzmetal <endaphnz@kgmaiicom> Thu, May 2.2O1Qot1O:O7AM
To: town clerk@estes, org
We've had one storm that was not man-made in the 30 years that I've lived in Town. |don't
think this plan ienecessary, AND |doNOT want topay for it. Let the businesses downtown
pay ifthey want it!
AnitaPhrzmeta|
1181 Rockwood Lane
May 15 Joint Work Session of Estes Park Town Board and K a'00er
County Commissioners ~from Johanna Darden
Bill J.Darden <bdar nn@uuhicago.edu^ Sat, May 4.201Qad2:O8P[N
To: Todd Jirma<tjiroa@esteaorg>, Cody Walker <owa|ker@oetea.org>. "obange@estea.org"
<cbango@eatea.urg>. "moenao@ooteeorg"<moenac@esee.org>. PetriukMartohink
<pmahuhink@eoteo.org>. "rnorria@eatea.org"<rnorrie@eateaorg>. "kzorneo@esteo.org"
<kzorneo@eobeoorg>.'YdnnneUy@|ahmororg"<tdonneUy@|arimor.org>."sjohnuon@|urimerorg"
<sjohnoon@|arimer.org>. ']kefa|aa@|arimorurg" `4kofa|aa@|arimer.org>
Cc: "BCC@|arimor.org"<BCC@|arimer.org>. "bowno|ark@eetoe.org"xbownc|erk@esteo.org>
To: yNoyorJinaa. Mayor Pro -Tenn Walker and Trustees Banga, Cenao, W18rtchink. Nnnia'
andZo[Dea; County Commissioners Donnelly, Johnson, and Kefa
From: Johanna Darden, 5{M_Mac G
Charles Hillerson's comments to you regarding the Stormwater Utility 2 survey expressed
my conclusions. Survey questions are stated inaway that require respondents tochoose
from answers that donot allow reasoned answers. Percentages arrived atare not
reliable. | don't see how you can conclude anything from them. Water from
e rare severe storm that caused rivers to overflow ie note reason to form 8 atornnvvater
utility. We have drought problems and some spring runoff issues that can be dealt with
without forming outility. | also learned otacommunity meeting that the Town owned
barriers that could have been erected which would have prevented the businesses on East
Elkhorn along the Flivenwa|kfrom being flooded iOSeptember 2013.
There was extensive discussion about otornovvater utility at the oonnnounib/ meeting this
year with Trustees Bangs, K8ortchink. and Zornes. Frank Lancaster was present. At this
meeting in Town Hall it became apparent to me that FEMA does not have accurate
information onwhich tobase their Onodp|aiDconclusions. | don't think FEMAshould waste
time and money using inaccurate information to conclude where flood plains lie in the Estes
Valley. Frank expressed a concern that Estes Park may not get FEMA money in future if we
alert them toinaccuracies intheir facts. Would they appreciate itifvveknew ofthis
problem and did not alert them? | hope that you will discuss this atyour meeting onMay
15. Floodwaters will take the easiest path without concern for whatever exists on land in
their path. The flood iO2O13proved that. Discussion about whether tnhave a8tormVveter
Utility took up almost the entire meeting time and citizens with engineering and
water backgrounds spoke out in opposition. I don't want to be unfairly charged for a
Stormwater Utility which I don't think is necessary. I should not have to pay a fee for
something that is not a problem at my property. We chose to live in this home to avoid
flooding from rivers and creeks.
Comments on Stormwater Master Plan (SMP) Questionnaires
The following comments are for the May 15 Joint Work Session of the Town Board and the
Larimer County Commissioners (BCC). The stated purpose of this Work Session, taken from
the Joint Work Session of February 19, 2019, is to "discuss draft IGA and citizen comments
received on proposed stormwater user fees." This purpose suggests the SMP is a "done deal."
May 2 we received an email from the Town Public Information Office regarding the May 15
meeting. The email states "...at a future date, the boards will determine if this program will
proceed and how it will be funded." This implies the SMP is not a "done deal."
Moreover, the most important question was NOT asked directly in either questionnaire; that is,
should we change the current stormwater drainage system. The Town should have summarized
and presented, as part of the questionnaire, the stormwater events of the recent past that have
caused problems, and then asked the questions.
Questionnaire #2 primarily addressed methods of funding. Many of the respondents may have
been led to believe that the SMP is moving forward. Therefore, the summary of the responses
(published at the Town's website on April 30) from these surveys should be disregarded or
extremely discounted.
Question #2 — Do you agree that stormwater drainage problems exist in the Estes Valley?
The April 30 update reports, "63% agree stormwater drainage problems exist."
The range of responses was anywhere from "some water in the post office parking lot" to the
"500-year flood of 2013." A "YES' answer does not mean support of the proposed SMP; it
does not mean proceed. The comments show many different variations of what a "YES"
response meant to individual respondents.
In addition, the summary posted on April 30 and in the email of May 2 misrepresents the
responses to Question #6:
Question #6 - "If a Stormwater Utility is created, would you prefer to:"
Implement Fees in 2019. Vote on Sales Tax in 2024. (Staff Recommendation) — 30%
Delay fees and sales tax until 2024 — 16%
No Fees - Vote on sales tax in 2024 — 23%
100% User Fess — 2%
Other - See Comments - 29%
The summary of responses to Question #6 (cited in the April 30 update of the SMP and the
Town's email of May 2) is:
"71 % favor funding some type of stormwater utility. Of those, 30% say get started now and 29%
say to take a different approach (most prefer we not move forward) "
The only observation you can make from the responses to Question #6 is that 71% gave their
opinion as to how a stormwater utility should be funded, IF a stormwater utility is created.
The responses do not signify support for this SMP.
The comments should be reviewed in light of the fact many were confused with the implication
of the SMP is moving forward.
Thank you,
Chuck and Carol Elillerson
Estes Park, Colorado
May 2, 2019
Continents on the Proposed Town of Estes Park Stormwater Master Plan and Proposed Fee
We live in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Boundary (Carriage Hills outside Town
limits). The County Commissioners (BCC) are our elected representatives for this proposed plan
and proposed fee; however, we address the following comments and questions to the BCC as
well as to the Estes Park Town Board.
Any further effort on the proposed Stormwater Master Plan (SMP) should be discontinued.
1. We find no clear economic justification for this SMP.
The argument for moving forward with this SMP is based on intangible factors and
inclusion of enough people to pay for it. The intangible factors include health and
safety, business access during extreme runoff events, etc. These intangibles can also be
used to describe other design levels such as the 50-year, the 500-year, 1000-year, or even
a 10,000-year, as well as the 100-year SMP. Moving forward with this SMP should not
be based on these factors; they do not indicate economic justification.
2. Who dictated that the plan should be a 100-year flood design (from the Town of Estes
Park website)?
The existing drainage system (status quo) has served Estes Park for many years and for
six years since the flood of 2013.
An incremental analysis of design floods and stormwater components was not done or is
not presented in this SMP. Provide a comparison of the status quo to the proposed SMP
and other design levels (e.g., 50-year) to determine the economic justification for
changing the existing stormwater drainage system. These further studies have a cost but
may show the proposed SMP could be abandoned or modified, thus, saving millions of
dollars.
3. Where is the documentation for this statement found in the SMP FAQ section: "Research
shows that every dollar spent on these projects saves between $4.00 and $8.00 on future
flood response and recovery"? This implies the proposed SMP would return between
$608 million and $1.2 billion in benefits. The research analysis does not appear in the
SMP nor does it appear this research has been scrutinized by economists. (If it sounds
too good to be true, it ...)
4. Why approve a SMP prior to receipt of the new flood insurance risk maps (FIRM) from
FEMA (2020)?
The Town Board reports they are "reasonably assured" this plan would remove
approximately 80 businesses and structures from the 100-year flood plain. These
businesses and structures would then be exempt from "extremely high" flood insurance
premiums. No dollar figures were given but it is obvious the primary beneficiary of any
SMP would be downtown Estes Park, when, in fact, not all structures in the downtown
flood plain were physically damaged in 2013.
5. The current SMP process should stop. If, at the May 15 meeting, the decision is made to
move forward, identify the best SMP through a fully disclosed economic analysis.
6. Most county residents' property does not contribute to drainage into downtown Estes
Park (i.e. Fish Creek and Dry Gulch drainage areas). County residents of the EVDC
Boundary do not elect the Town Board nor approve Estes Park sales tax. Rather than a
stormwater district, our elected representatives (BCC) champion the creation of a
stormwater utility of the Town. County residents would be required to pay for this utility
but would have little, if any, input or choice.
7. To date our only ability to "vote" has been through the online surveys, which we
completed. It was extremely disappointing that survey #2 was very obviously slanted to
make residents believe this SMP was going to be implemented; the survey primarily
addressed methods of funding. Therefore, the statistics (published at the Town's website
on April 30) derived from these surveys should be disregarded or extremely discounted.
These tactics should be challenged.
This SMP presents only one way to move forward. Doing less or doing nothing may be the
reasonable plan and preclude wastefulness. Before you (the BCC and the Town Board) approve
and commit to spending millions of private, state, and federal dollars on this Stormwater Master
Plan, the existing stormwater drainage system (the "do nothing" plan) and alternatives should be
analyzed to determine the best economically justified plan and present this plan to all residents of
the EVDC.
We will request a copy of these comments be included in your packet for the May 15`f' meeting
at Town Hall.
Thank you for your service and for your consideration.
Chuck and Carol Hillerson
Estes Park, Colorado
April 30, 2019