The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Community Development 2009-08-06r â‚¬4.4 Preparation date: 07/29/09 * Revision date: AGENDA TOWN OF ESTES PARK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE August 6,2009 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Town Hall 1) PUBLIC COMMENT 2) CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU a) RECOMMENDATIONS TO TOWN BOARD: i) Estes Park Heritage Festival Road Closure - Mgr. Winslow b) REPORTS: i) Marketing Committee - Dir. Marsh ii) Media Relations - Coordinator Blackhurst iii) Group Sales - Coordinator Nikolai 3) MUSEUM/SENIOR CENTER SERVICES DEPARTMENT a) REPORTS: i) Museum Monthly Report - Dir. Kilsdonk ii) Senior Center Monthly Report - Mgr. Mitchell 4) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT a) RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD: i) Ordinance # -09 : Board of Appeals Municipal Code Revision - Dir. Joseph b) REPORTS: i) Carbon Monoxide Detectors - Dir. Joseph ii) Sign Code Enforcement - Dir. Joseph iii) Community Development Financial Report - Dir. Joseph iv) Monthly Building Permit Summary - Dir. Joseph 5) ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT a) RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD: i) Community Development Organizational Assessment Contract - DTA Richardson b) DISCUSSION ITEM: i) Annexation - DTA Richardson NOTE: The Community Development Committee reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. f b Cynthia Deats From: EP Administration [ir3045@estes.org] Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 11:36 AM To: Cynthia Deats Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 1779 ST. TIME 08/03 11:31 PGS. 1 SEND DOCUMENT NAME TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 5869561 KEPL 5869532 Trail Gazette 5861691 Channel 8 6353677 Reporter Herald 5771590 EP News ERROR ----- 1 F . Estes Palk Convention & Visitors Bureau Memo To: Community Development Committee From: Bo Winslow - Fairgrounds, Events and Facilities Cc: Jacqueline Halburnt, Lowell Richardson, Tom Pickering Date: August 6,2009 Re: Road Closure BACKGROUND: The Estes Park Heritage Festival is an event that is in Bond Park each year. This event brings alive the history of our western heritage in a wonderful 2 day event. This event is sponsored by the Town of Estes Park and the Estes Valley Historic Society. The event uses both Bond Park and MacGregor Ave. from the bus pull out to Park Lane. Action: Approve the road closure of MacGregor Avenue from the bus pull out on Elkhom Avenue to Park Lane. BUDGET/COST: The town contributes $2000.00 to support the festival and will collect $20.00 per vendor that is at the festival. r . Estes Park Convention & Visitors Bureau Memo To: Community Development Committee - Trustees Eisenlauer, Levine, and Miller From: Peter Marsh CC: Tom Pickering, Jacquie Halburnt, Lowell Richardson Date: July 29,2009 Re: CVB Marketing Committee - July Reports: as of June 1. 2009 Visitors Guide Requests - Total volume of Requests is 51.4% over the same period last year. I have described probable causes in previous reports (shifting ads to more spring insertions, free insertions, Colorado.com performance). But, I expect this increase to stop soon. 2. Visitors Guide Downloads - Decreases in Visitors Guide downloads has been incorrectly stated in previous reports. The count for total downloads was being used rather than pure Visitors Guide downloads. The corrected volume is up by 22.2% compared to the same period last year. 3. National Media - Ad generated requests for Visitors Guides are running 75.5% over the same period in 2008. All the reasons total requests are up apply to ad generated requests as well. 4. Internet Advertising - Colorado.com continues to shine with a 1.57% Click Through Rate, Google and Yahoo keyword search campaigns are averaging cost per click rates of $0.86 to $1.21. Regional On-Line event advertising for Rooftop Rodeo generated click through rates of 0.04% to 0.18%. 5. Program Planning - Working with Scott Hannah on wrapping up the 2010 Marketing Plan for the LMD, 2009 budget updates and 2010 budget planning continue where appropriate. 6. Inserts - Copy and design for the August 30 newspaper insert is complete. 7. Other - Scotsfest newspaper advertising and radio spots are in development ACTION ITEM: None BUDGET/COST: None BACKGROUND: None RECOMMENDATION: None 1 Estes Park Convention & Visitors Bureau Memo To: Community Development Committee: Trustees Levine, Eisenlauer, Miller From: Suzy Blackhurst, Communications Officer CC: Jacqueline Halburnt, Lowell Richardson, Tom Pickering, Peter Marsh Date: June 24,2009 Re: Media Relations Report Colorado Print Coverage Statistics: Colorado Print Coverage Placements - Through June 30,2009 2008: 694 2009: 460 Colorado # of Inches - Through June 30,2009 2008: 2,970 2009: 2,575 National & Regional Web PR Program placements through July 24,2009 2008: 69 2009: 108 Web Blogs/Internet News through July 24,2009 Total Blog/Internet News Mentions: 331 Web Blog Tenor through June 24,2009 Excellent: 73 Positive: 117 Neutral: 10 Below Desirable 14 Disparaging 12 Familiarization Tours and Travel Writer Visits: July 20-23: Aaron Dalton: E-zine and traditional media writer Significant Press Coverage Received or Anticipated Encompass Magazine Chicago Tribune Special Requests Fulfilled since Januarv 1: 93 Travel Spike: Final statistical results from social media consultant experiment with Travel Spike has have been received: 20 Press Releases pitched PR (E-zines) : 3,845 Social Media Marketing Points: 16,276 Total number of Web 2.0 hits: 20,121 Number stories picked up: 54 E-zine stories pitched: 16 Number of E-zine stories run: 54 Approximate Value of each story run: $2,000 Total value all E-zine stories $108,000 f , Estes Park Convention & Visitors Bureau Memo To: Community Development Committee From: Julie Nikolai, Group Sales CC: Tom Pickering, Jacquie Halburnt, Lowell Richardson Date: August 3,2009 Re: Group Sales Report CVB Group Sales Group Sales lead and referral counts are completed for the second quarter of the year. The first quarter showed concerns that the economic downtown might affect groups. With second quarter numbers in, there is a little room for optimism. With May, the referral numbers began to turn and become more favorable, though not necessarily strong. Leads continue to lag behind the norm, which can be a definite sign that future group bookings may be slow for the next 6-12 months. June meeting leads and referrals are very encouraging and I'm hoping that the meetings market is starting to turn a little. Time will tell if this was a fluke or if groups are again making plans to meet. Though referrals remain consistent in the past two months, there are several factors that can affect leads. 1. People are now booking on shorter time frames than they were last year and want answers immediately. The CVB assistance level is very good so they often have as much detail as they need. Due to increased availability, they are finding their venue search easier than in the past. 2. Our visitors are still leery about giving out their email addresses and being added to spam lists. 3. If forced to play 'phone tag' with them initially, they have their location/venue determined by the time we reach them and now need help only with group services. This segment rarely converts to a lead if lodging is already reserved. Internships: I advertised for a college intern to work with Group Sales for the summer season and help with some ongoing projects. Chelsey was hired from CSU and is assisting with a computer design and database input project for the tour and meetings markets. She works 8-10 hours per week. Katie, attending Johnson and Wales, volunteered her time for the summer and also works eight hours per week. She is assisting with the reunion and wedding markets, assisting with day to day calls and information requests. Conference Center With the upcoming transition to the LMD, Tom has for the most part, taken over sales for the Conference Center. I continue to service groups that have been previously booked. Remaining groups that I will be working with this year are: International Code Council, Diety09, APWA Western Snow and Ice and American Planning Association. 1 Â¢ I 4 0Â© ~ 4,4 f' B I {12 4 4 10 0% 0 0 m 10 44 e.; W 00 th - A 05 0 00 40 81.- (5 M' - <" 0 6 6 - N - 50 0 81@ t M t . U '04, 0 - 1 89 a 1.- > Z "' 8 2 3 3 Â·Â·Â· 4*M e ~ UJ PI Off 04 * L - 7 1 0% C 00 00 B A O 0-MN- 1, . t 114*Zwur * 4 2 8 En U h hÂ©98 a 0 : 0 01 M cy .04 0 0 eatis Referrals Referrals .Leads e / Leads 127 10 183 46 540 /519 149 251 78 777/ 420 142 492 / 357 146 , 252 54 726/ 319 I/84Â£ 62 BLI 59 6002 CVB Group Sales 2005 - 2009 Leads/Referrals CVB Group Meetings eetings Reunion Wedding Tour ENT:ION & VISITOKEBUREAU f , gr 4 , 05 + I I l e r- i .0 43 0 0 00 M .0 12 - -1 2 - -1 ,Â¢4 1 4/. ..- ..+ .0/. 0 0 1 -1 10 5 4, 10 00 5 4 13 1 O 0 E-1 M Â© O 9 â€¢-4. er> ~- Â· 4~ MGON M r. 1 , 4} f Â¢ts Â· re 2 *-1 91Â· to M * M il 50 .E t 70 U N =4 - m 4 2 0 IMM * U* 4-4 00 1 * * . W, Â£ r ' M N M 0Â© N M od 8 ' -2 0 Â£ 1 1 M - 40 N.M Â¢ * 4 0Â© D 1 9. $48'#41 31 29 8 2 9 8 4 M M. 1 * 8 b * i,h .0 2 4 40 1 9 1+ Referrals . b Referrals Referrals Le Referrals L ads d LI / BLE Â· u 6LI gOT 59 ing Tour Group Sales ads/Referrals February 28 30 14 23 11 44 17 25 2009 Meetings January I. , 4 08 . t- N 33 0 ANÂ®\O- M- N - :N 9 1- . 'A 0 0 -N-1-MOW- F = , rE 1,)~0*W 7 9 N M * a n h R g Z S % 2 - M GO - = 2 179 U 3% 23 S o< 00 2 60 w 'Â© ah Â¢4, P' Â¢4 r~ 00 V H - MÂ© -1 - M Ch M N M M M M M too Â£ 1 0 r. * .Ch . Â® M fl . 9, N N' M th 1 M r- 0 X D 0Â© C M - 4 -1 -1 - - S b b 0 MAN .1- 0 1-1 - - 0 2 a 84 W H' - 0,2 & 8 1 cia Aol) 1 5. 3 Al 3 4 3 8. f & i% 41 Referrals Referrals ferrals Leads ReÂ£/ Leads sm.u.mIL REE I 53 663 6*I ~ 2008 Meetings s Reunion Wedding W Ttitals 126 1 67447 February 23 82t47 91/75 79/23 70/22 49/16 LI/68 2 811*, Â£1/Â£9 1178Â£ 6ZR1 SI/â‚¬* I I Group Sales ads/Referrals 21 January . Museum/Senior Center Services Memo To: Community Development Committee - Trustees Pinkham, Levine & Eisenlauer From: Betty Kilsdonk, Director, Museum/Senior Center Services Department CC: Jacquie Halbumt Lowell Richardson Date: August 6,2009 Re Estes Park Museum Monthly Report New Curator of Education Alicia Mittelman begins work as the Museum's curator of education on August 17. Alicia has a mastefs of teaching in museum education from the George Washington University. Last year she interned at Rocky Mountain National Park's Department of Education and Outreach. She has also worked at the International Spy Museum and the National Museum of Natural History, both in Washington, DC. August Programs August 7 First Fridays: Drawing from the Estes Park Museum Collection. August 7, September 4 and October 2,1 PM - 4 PM at the Estes Park Museum. Local artist Pat Greenberg instructs students in drawing, using objects from the Museum collection, such as an F.O. Stanley slide projector, Eleanor Hondius clothing, and Clatworthy camera. Sponsored by the Estes Park Museum and the Estes Park Senior Center. This class is currently filled. August 20, repeated August 27 Wa/king Tour of Historic Downtown Estes Park with Estes Park Historian Laureate Jim Picking, 9 AM - Noon. This tour is current/y fWed. August 22 F. O. Stanley presented by Kurtis Kelly. First-person reenactment in celebration of the centennial of the Stanley Hotel. Doors open at 1:30 PM for the 2 PM program. Sponsored by the Estes Park Museum and the Estes Park Public Library. August 22-23 Heritage Festival. Community-wide effort in Bond Park led by the Estes Valley Historical Society to celebrate local history. August 25 Annual Museum Volunteer Appreciation Potluck at the O'Connor Picnic Pavilion. August 29 Estes Park Museum Friends & Foundation Annual Membership Meeting 4 PM - 6 PM, Estes Park Museum. Wine, hors d'oeuvres, Elkhorn Lodge program. August 30 and 31 Elkhorn Lodge Pre-Tour Program and Tour. August 30 Program: History ofE/khom Lodge and Guest Ranch. 7 PM - 8:30 PM at the Estes Park Museum. Chairs reserved for all tour participants. Additional limited seating available to the public. Doors open at 6:30 PM. . August 31 Tour: E/khom Lodge and Guest Ranch. 9 AM - 11 AM. Guided by Historian Laureate Jim Pickering. Group size is limited to 40. Registration with payment is required and opens August 3; call 577-3762. Cost is $7 for members of the Estes Park Friends & Foundation; $12 non-members. Current Exhibits Altered Landscapes. The formation of the local landscape and its alteration by humans and natural processes. Through September 20,2009. Patchwork Storytellers. A selection of quilts from the Museum's collection. Through January 3, 2010. ACTION ITEMS: None BUDGET/COST: N/A RECOMMENDATIONS: None â€¢ Page 2 I , MI Estes Park Museum June, 2009 June 2009 Attendance Gallery Visitors 1049 Hydroplant Visitors 524 Programs and Tours 566 Group Meetings and Rentals 128 Total Attendance and Programs 2267 Totaljune Attendance Estes Park Museum and Hydroplant Programs and Tours Capacity 311 Programs and Tours Percentage Utilization 182 3000-I IFFil Museum Programs and Tours: 2500- .. ~2504~ 6-6 Outhouses Program 54.< 6-9 Big Thompson Historic Tour 13 2000- 6-11 Volunteer Appreciation Reception/Program 60 1754 +42 I I 6-13 RMNP Historic Places Book Signing/Program 58 1500- -~ 6-16 Steam Car Tour 60 6-16 F. O. Stanley Program 104 1000- . 1- 4// 6-27 YMCA Historic Tour 217 E- 500- i Meetings and Rentals - Museum: 6-1 Car Club 19 6-3 Fire Services 19 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 6-9 Sugar Valley Estates 3 6-17 Fire Services 19 6-18 Rooftop Rodeo 30 6-23 Senior Center Interviews 8 6-25 Friends Board 15 6-28 Postcard Club 15 Year-to-Date: 2008 7718 2009 7339 Hydroplant Season Totals: 2008 1679 2009 682 . 1 Estes Park Senior Center Meng To: Community Development Committee -Trustees Levine, Eisenlauer and Miller From: Lori Mitchell, Senior Center Director CC: Jacquie Halbumt Lowell Richardson, Betty Kilsdonk Date: August 4,2009 Re: ESTES PARK SENIOR CENTER - General Report United Wav - Senior Center meal quality survevs As part of the Senior Center's contractual agreement with the United Way of Larimer County (UW) staff conducts an annual meal quality survey. The UW provides funding for the meal programs at the Senior Center. Paper surveys were made available during a two week period in July 2009 to 176 individuals in the Senior Center dining room and also e-mailed to 410 individuals on the e-mail list. Surveys were also mailed to all Meals on Wheels customers. Customers are asked questions about the nutritional quality of the meals, whether or not the meals are healthy and delicious, whether or not the meal programs allow them to improve or maintain health and if their participation provides them with a social benefit and improved well-being. The target rate for overall satisfaction with the meal programs is 80%. The overall satisfaction rate from the 2009 survey is 99% for Meals on Wheels and dining room services combined. Last year, the overall satisfaction rate was 89%. Overall, we received 81 surveys back this year. The 2009 survey sample was smaller than 2008 but we still met our goal of surveying 8 to 10% of all meal customers. In the 2008-09 reporting period, the Senior Center meal programs served 844 individuals. Of that, 783 were served in the dining room and 62 were Meals on Wheels customers and 14 used both programs. Last year, we served 845 individuals in the meal programs. Clients are given the chance to provide suggestions and comments. In general, comments reflected positive experiences in the meal programs. Constructive suggestions for improvement are provided by staff to Catering for All Occasions, the food service provider at the Senior Center. Here is an abbreviated list of customer comments: â€¢ Excellent and appreciate the opportunity â€¢ We are fortunate to have our program â€¢ Delicious new menus â€¢ Meals are good at this price, low price is important â€¢ I come because of quality and socializing â€¢ Great place, well run, thank you â€¢ Too much food at one meal â€¢ This is a nice facility and convenient access â€¢ Add a salad bar â€¢ Offer a vegetarian option daily â€¢ Try more healthy desserts such as fruit and sherbet â€¢ Too much starch and carbohydrates â€¢ I eat at home and can the cost keeps me from coming â€¢ It takes too much time in the day to come in for meals 1 / 1 8.6.09 Community Development Committee - Senior Center report - continued August SENIOR CENTER PROGRAMS / EVENTS August 4 EPSCC, Inc. board meeting August 6 "Creative Writing" - by John Fridrich - class series begins August 7 "First Fridays" - by Pat Greenberg - drawing course series begins August 8 Breakfast Buffet fundraiser - community event August 10 "The Future ofthe Supreme Court" - by Eric Waples August 19 Medicare counseling - by appointment August 25 "Getting Started. H/hen the Diagnosis is Memory Loss" - by Dr. Paul Bell /Alzheimer' s Association August 28 "Dog days of summer-aprogramfor dog lovers" -by Terry lester, animalbehaviobst The Senior Center offers a wide variety of drop-in events such as mahjongg, art and craft studios, Tri Fit and Tai Chi fitness classes, bridge, pinochle, pool, a wellness blood pressure clinic and more. Note: Special"I'ransit postponed their August 25 tenth anniversary celebration in Estes Park to September 15, 2009 at the Senior Center. Dav trips: August 13 Rockies Vs. Pittsburgh baseball- Coors Field August 24 Mystery Trip: All-day fun in a historic location September 3 Rockies vs. Mets baseball- Coors Field September 21 Blackhawk/Central City Coming in September: September 25 "Low Vision Fair" - featuring services, programs for those with visual impairments September 22 "Healthy Hearts Club" - community health screening for adults Estes Park Senior Citizens Center Inc. (EPSCC, Inc.) The fundraising season is offto a good start for EPSCC, Inc. The first two of four summer breakfast buffets were held on June 13 and July 11 with 286 and 329 in attendance. This is the largest June and July attendance in the 12- year history of the event. There are two more buffets: August 8 and September 5,2009. All are encouraged to attend. The breakfast revenues support Senior Center projects. EPSCC, Inc. membership is 550 year-to-date, with 155 ofthose being new members. Last year, their total membership was 548. STATISTICS Year to date 6.30.09 Senior Center statistics attached ACTION ITEMS: None RECOMMENDATIONS: None BUDGET/COST: N/A 2 Estes Park Senior Center - Meal Programs Report 6.30.09 page 1 Meals on Wheels, Dining Room and Take-Out Meals Meals on Wheels Current Month June = 347 2005 Total = 4,876 2006 Total = 4,651 2007 Total = 4,056 2008 Total = 4,736 2009 YTD = 2,348 - 600 - 500 - 7-* 51' ,jILI~~~~~ 1 \: - 300 - 200 - 100 IIIIIIIIIIII0 JFMAMJJASOND - 2005 -1- 2009 --*- 2006 11 2007 - 2008 Dining Room Meals Previous Month May = 604 = 63% capacity Current Month = June = 787 = 78% capacity Includes take-out meals ( 0 ), member (779) and non-member meals( 8 ) - 1400 2005 Total = 9,854 2006 Total = 9,275 - 1200 2007 Total = 9,588 2008 Total = 8,265 2009 YTD = 3,729 - 1000 - 800 - 600 1 -400 - 200 111111111111 0 JFMAMJJASOND -â€¢-2005 --â€¢- 2009 -- 2006 YTD --â€¢- 2007 - 2008 Senior Center Meal Programs Report 6.30.09 page 2 Meals on Wheels, Dining Room and Take-Out Meals Combined Meal Programs - Monthly Comparisons 1800 1600 * +- 2009 1400 .6---t.\fuN - 2005 1200 1476 f- -A 1000 -- 2006 800 1488 - 2007 600 1277 400 - 2008 2OO 1140 Current Month 0 June = 1134 40#Â¢#44#44## Combined Meal Programs - Yearly Comparisons 16000 - 2003 11,356 14000 - 2004 13,937 12000 - 2005 14,730 10000 . 2929 8000 - 2007 13,644 - 2008 6000 13,001 - 2009 4000 2009 2000 YTD 0 6,077 Senior Center Programs / Activity Attendance Report 6.30.09 page 3 Attendance at Activities and Programs Current month June = 1,485 (in number of visits drop-in and planned programs combined) - 2000 2005 Total = 10,411 2006 Total = 12,411 - 1800 2007 Total = 14,089 - 1600 2008 Total = 14,441 2009 YTD = 7,077 - 1400 - 1200 - 1000 - 800 - 600 - 400 - 200 111111111111 0 JFMAMJJASOND -1- 2009 YTD -0- 2005 Total -â€¢- 2006 Total --- 2007 total -0- 2008 Previous month - Mav 2009 Planned Programs" Potential or Ideal Capacity 389 "Planned Programs /% Utilization .* 366 or 94% capacity *programs as a % of ideal capacity /actual "Drop-In" Programs utilization 862 Current month - June 2009 "Planned Programs" Potential or Ideal Capacity 426 "Planned Programs /% Utilization .* 482 or 113% capacity *programs as a % of ideal capacity /actual "Drop-In" Programs utilization 1,003 Senior Center / Facility Overall Attendance 6.30.09 page 4 2500 -+- 2009 YTD 8,206 2000 -0- 2005 Year Total 1500 17,857 -A- 2006 1000 \ Year Total 17,471 500 -i- 2007 Year Total 18,510 0 9, te *,9- ''4- *f, SS#,ts> *;P,f' oo &9 <F -0- 2008 44,0 Year total 17,562 2009 Senior Center Rentals 2009 Senior Center Non-Rental Users January (0) January TOEP meetings (5) February (0) Rider Advisory (7) March (0) NARFE (7) April (0) February CIA (25) May Ranch Meadows HOA meeting (35) Sister Cities (6) June Friehe party (70) NARFE (16) Criswell party (29) March CIA (50) NARFE (15) Sister Cities (5) TOEP (11) 2009 Year to date: 134 April TOEP (20) 2005 rental users = 393 NARFE (18) 2006 rental users = 426 Sister Cities (6) 2007 rental users = 721 May TOEP (28) 2008 rental users = 599 Sister Cities (11) Rider Advisory (10) NARFE (19) Parade of Years (77) June TOEP (13) Sister Cities (4) 2009 Year to date: 338 2005 non-rental users = 1295 2006 non-rental users = 286 2007non-rental users = 249 2008 non-rental users = 270 . D MEMORANDUM Community Development Toi Community Development Committee From: Bob Joseph Date: 8-3-()9 Subject: Municipal Code Amendment Section 14.04-020 Background Several years ago the Town appointed a Board of Appeals to hear administrative appeals underthe buildingcode. Recently it came to our attention that a section of the municipal code needed to be clarified to separate appeals underthe building code from appeals under other codes. Attached please find a proposed Ordinance amending Section 14.04-020 of the Municipal Code. It is my opinion that this Ordinance clarifies the current ambiguity in Section 14.04-020. Also, any reference to a fee has been deleted as all fees now are adopted as policy matters and not part of the codes. BudEet Impact : none Recommendation: recommend adoption by the Town Board . h ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO REGARDING APPEAL PROCEDURE FOR BUILDING CODES WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined it is necessary to amend Section 14.04.020 of the Municipal Code to clarify appeals to the Board of Appeals pursuant to the terms and conditions of the International Building Codes and to the Board of Trustees for other appeals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO. Section 1. Chapter 14.04.020 of the Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: 14.04.020 Appeal Procedure. a). All appeals relating to the interpretation and/or application of any code adopted in Title 14 of the Municipal Code shall be to the Board of Appeals specified in the adopted code. b). Any person who is denied a permit by the Building Official may file an appeal with the Board of Trustees on the basis that such refusal is not justified, is based on an unreasonable provision of the building code, or an undo hardship would be imposed upon the person by the strict compliance with the code. Said appeal must be in writing and filed with the Building Official within thirty (30) days of the denial of the permit. The Board of Trustees shall review the appeal and may uphold the decision of the Building Official or authorize the issuance of the permit with or without conditions. Section 2. The Ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days after its adoption and publication. . 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF ,2009. TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at the meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2009, and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of ,2009. Town Clerk .. MEMORAND1JM Community Development To: Community Development Committee From: Bob Joseph Date: 8-3-09 Sub.ject: New state law requiring CO detectors: HB 09-1091 Background The state legistlature passed a law requiring carbon monoxide detectors in all dwellings, including retroactive installation in existing dwellings. 1. Attorney White believes building departments are not required to enforce the CO detector requirements in HB 09-1091; but, are empowered to do so if the local elected officials decide to undertake that responsibility. 2. If the Town Board wants staff to enforce CO detector requirements, then a local amendment to the building code is required, clearly specifying the details. 3. Staff is requesting direction before proceeding. Please see the attached legal opinion from CIRSA on this subject. If directed, staff will follow this legally defensible process. W r ,=,El. I. f C f ('t-Al'Â·-) 1>.'aiKO)Vic]-INMI A CA REK >rilt:\C Â·.6: Â·uv -LIN-*- m .t LEG-AL LINES SPIC:lA! INSER-1 ~IRSAF 1 . 1 .4. - . , n .%'. ThA legial L illes afticle was Writteri In' StevelÂ· J. Dawes of tlie law firm Light Ha rington & Dawes, P.C, Mt, Dawes is a member of CIRSAL dE.Â· ..:n:e wur:,el panel and provides legal services to CIRSA,ind its iret:iber-5 m J widepatiety of claims. Mr. Dawes weknmer, any questions regarding this artide and will be happy to provide pertinent case studies upon request. He cart be rear ind at 303 298.1601. INTRODUCTION as smoke alarms and carbon monoxide or similar government official (absent a detectors. warrant) seeking to inspect a premises for New legislation has been adopted compliance with building code provisions. requiring carbon monoxide alarms. HB 09- THE FOURTH 1091, signed into law by Governor Ritter AMENDMENT A search generally implies looking on March 24,2009, requires installation "over or through for the purpose of of carbon monoxide alarms effective July The Foutth Amendment to the United finding something."'According to one 1,2009 upon the sale of single-family States Constitution states as follows: court, a search may occur even when a dwellings and multi-family dwellings government official is not intentionally and upon improvements to single-family The right of the people to be secure in looking for something, so long as "the dwellings, multi-family dwellings, and their persons, houses, papers, and effects, objective effect of his actions" infringed rental properties where a building permit against unreasonable searches and a reasonable expectation of privacy; A is required.' The statute does not limit seizures, shall not be violated, and no search, then, is defined in terms of a a municipality or county from adopting warrant shall issue, but upon probable person's "reasonable expectation of more stringent requirements for the cause, supported by oath or offirmation, privacy" and is analyzed under the installation and maintenance of carbon and particularly describing the place to be following two-part test from Katz v United monoxide alarms.2 searched, and the persons or things to be States:5 seized. Questions may arise as to when and 1. Has the individual manifested a under what circumstances a building The Fourth Amendment's protections do subjective expectation of privacy in the official can constitutionally inspect a not include a right not to be subject to a object of the challenged search? and residence for the presence of carbon search; rather, they include the right to be monoxide detectors and smoke alarms. free from an unreasonable search, so this 2. Is society willing to recognize that This article reviews the constitutionality of right hinges on the nature of the search. expectation as reasonable?G actions by government officials performing The question, then, is what constitutes building inspections of premises for a reasonable or unreasonable search The second prong of the Katz test compliance with code requirements such by a building official, building inspector, generally addresses two considerations: . M -1-he h:st c.o: sideiet,on :ocur -5 or, used :wi the purpose lor the mirusion. r; ar, bfo, ili a ,>1 cn tÂ·,tid mlo An 231-pe L./here Lhal -1 ,Dert,(,8 had an expeclotion LAw EÂ·illorc[ inent metho-h range an expectation of ptivacy 1, necesfalliy of privacy in, "fe :>.imple, a honie, flum 'ordinat i visual su Nolilanre" t; 1 reasenable.'; office, phone booth, or airplanr. this "29C|litolOgiCal OBÂ£1811001~10114. Of 011~'irid[~f inqlliry centers on "t,viiÂ·gther the human pe,coption" through deviles por in general CI.J P.'11 LAGE relationships that norn,allY e.;;st at the public use."Fxtraordinaty maasures place to be inspected me based on tequiring dn office, '10 ci'ane his neck, or "Cuttilage" is defined as the area intimacy, confidentiality, bust or solitude bend over, or squat" are generally more ii,intediately surrounding a home that and hence give riÂ·e to a 'reasonable' intrusive than those a "reasonably curious hdrbors the intimate activity associated expectation of pdvacy."fiA search of a neighbor" might undertake."Likewise, with the sanctity of a person's home and person's home, for example, is subject to those tactics littered with "dirty business" the privacies of life.'' In Ugited States v. particularly vigorous scrutiny. "[T]he Fourth such as trickely and illegal acts can Dunn, ~' in debaibing the contours of the Amendment has drawn a firm line at the accompany an unjustifiable government Fourth Amendment's protections in a entrance to the house" 50 that, "ialbsent intrusion."A trespass such as a breach curtilage, the Stipreme Court established exigent circumstances, that threshold of the curtilage (the enclosed area of four factors for determining whether an inay not reasonably be crossed without a land around a dwelling)'4 though not area is within a home's curtilage:'4 warrant.4 necessarily determinative, is also relevant to the degree of government intrusion. 1. The proximity of the area claimed to be (b) The second consideration examiries curtilage to the home, "what the person wanted to protect his Like the methods used, the purpose of the privacy from, for example, non-family interference bears upon the intrusiveness 2. Whether the area is included within an members, non-employees of a firm, or of government action. A criminal enclosure surrounding the borne, strangers passing by on the street or flying investigation is generally more intrusive overhead in airplanes. â€ž10 This inquiry, than an administrative or regulatory 3. The nature of the uses to which the 16 therefore, focuses on tlie government investigation. This reasoning boisters area is put, and intrusion at issue. the relaxed probable cause requirement for safety inspections of the interior of 4. The steps taken by the resident to I 7 Assessing the degree of intrusion residences and commercial structures. protect the area from observation by requires addressing both the methods people passing by. In applying Kotz% second prong, the ~ ' Supreme Court has drawn some bright The Supreme Court has concluded ~~ line rules concerning an open field, the that the Fourth Amendment does - I curtilage, and the home. not absolutely bar all government encroachment upon the curtilage: N ,..1. 1.4"f Â¥ i ~. OPEN FIELD i 1 2 That the area is within the curtiloge does =r,... .9 3 3 2 . "Open field" is a legal term of art and does not itself bar oll police observation. The 1 4 i I. not literally mean an open field. Rather, an Fourth Amendment protection of the -01 i'~ open field may include any unoccupied or home has never been extended to require 1 8 .. Â¥* undeveloped area outside of the curtilage. law enforcement officers to shield their - ~ No reasonable expectation of privacy eyes when passing by a home on public 1 10- . 19 - 44. 91 exists in "open fields." Moreover, thoroughfares. Nor does the mere fact . --Â· ~ "filn the case of open fields, the general that an individual has taken measures . ; --< 'Â·~ rights of property protected by the to restrict some views of his/her activities F, + .mi t...F f.:,4Â·2'~.,- ~,4$.' A common law of trespass havelittleorno preclude an officer's observations from >i â€¢ ....Â£4 '. 4 . 'r-4/ relevance to the applicability of the Fourth o public vantage point where he/she -i:F;~ ~123:.~-, Amendment~"2~The presence of "No has a right to be and which renders the 25 23 . Â· Â·1*Ill.Â· . Trespassing" signs, furthermore, does not activities clearly visible. 11,11,1341,7*111.114, Â·;~16.,;, ~4,1,~2~60&~Lk:, rl C) ME oilicials to it,sri'(.1 plf?pe; ty and IÂ·,lilrity,25 ot a ho:,-ie request.. al, inspe: Lic:,1 of the for building code arie' health code liooe fo; rÂ·ode comp!:arce the ovenei 15Â£ Founh Anieridment protects compliarice. h.3 Â·Â·oluntarily cor,sented to a :earch o: against invations of the 53[,clity of a the poition of the building subject to the pe,sonb ho,vi and the privacies of 1. Administrative inspections by building inspection; however, the inspecti,un can life trern unreasonable searches undef officials are seardies within klie ineaning not exceed the scope of the consent. indiscriminate general authority/6 The of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, So, for example, a building inspectot's Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm warrantless insoections of privcite inspection of a remodeling project for line at the ent,ance to a person's home. property by government officials without code compliance pursuant to a building Al,scÂ·lit exigent circumstances, that proper consent are presumptively permit can enc ompass an inspection threshold may not reasonably be crossed unconstitutional.6' Where observation for smoke and carbon monoxide alarms w,thout a warrant. 01 incriminat:ing evidence is from a within the area of inspection pursuant to constitutionally protected area, the the permit. On the other hand, the scope The Fourth Amendment protects people, inspection constitutes an unreasonable of consent does not allow a building not places.Peproperty interests do not searcli under the Fourth Amendment. In official to invade some other part of the control a Fourth Amendment analysis, other words, an inspection of the interiot premises unrelated to the area inspected and the protections provided by the of a home without a warrant and without pursuant to the permit to look for the Fourth Amendment are not measured the owner's consent is an unreasonable presence of carbon monoxide or smoke by the absence or presence of a physical search in violation of the Fourth alarms. intrusion into any given enclosure. Rather, Amendment. Therefore, under the Fourth the question is whether a person's right Amendment a building inspector cannot 3. Where an observation is made froin an to be protected against unreasonable inspect a residence for the presence open field or public land, the observation 29 searches was infringed. of carbon monoxi:de or smoke alarms does not constitute an unreasonable without either the homeowner's consetit search.33,\n observation of the interior of CONSENT or an administrative warrant supported by a protected structure through a window, probable cause. even when enhanced by flashlight, Under the Fourth Amendment, a search does not constitute a search when the is reasonable where consent is voluntarily 2. In the absence of a search warrant, observation is made from an open field or 3 (I obtained. If a building inspector has a lawful search of the premises may a public place.34 entered into a home at the invitation be conducted with voluntary consent of the home:owner for purposes of the from the individual whose property is 4. A visit by a building inspector, even inspection pursuant to a building permit, searched.'2Therefore, when the owner though he or she enters the house or the then the citizen has voluntarily consented LA" to the presence of the building inspector . in his/her home, and an inspection is Â· p:resumptively reasonable; however, the inspection cati not exceed the scope of the ~i ~:t .~ ~~lit~ N ./ 4/ f) 42.1 consent / District GENERAL PRINCIPLES 0 GOVERNING THE ~BUILDING PER~MIT INSPECTION OF -dal ~~ ,,'** Thts cardmust be kept posted in a consplcuous place on site of construction PREMISES FOR CODE ../~893 Ty'Mi.L REQUIREMENTS . '.#:/*~1.g//pi-I The following general principles are - 0.1-'ili'~i'~1"'iwillililiwili-4 .4- ' &1194197<M,4.fi:VIT,h.,& derived from appellate court decisions . .a .. .. involving attempts by government . 4 curtilage without the ow,Â·ier's consent, necessarily reasotiable 37 leave despite plotestations flom the oune:. does not violate the Fourth Amendmeni when the inspectork entry k minimal such 7. Fourth Amendment protections generally CONCLUSION 35 as only into an entryway. do not extend to the inspection of a building that is not used as a borne and As niumicipalities begin the process ' 5. A Fourth Amendment violation does not occupied.30 of implementing H.B. 09-1091, it is ~ not occur when co:,sent is given By a third important to keep the foregoing principles party; such asa contractor, who has actual 8. A building official may be found in mind. Because many building code- authority or apparent althority to consent individually liable for damages for violation related activities implicate the Fourth to the search. 36 . of a property owner's Fourth Amendment Amendment, failur* to understand and rights if the building official enters the observe thâ‚¬se principles can create i 6. The presence of "No Trespassing" signs property with the intent of conduding individual liability for building officials. does not transform an open field into an a warrantless administrative search for t area where an expectation of privacy is building code violations and refuses to l(Zodified at C.R.S. Â§5 38-45 101, etsaq led 1154 1151 11 1 (D.C ar. 1969) and to Wayne K Lafave. 207,213 (19861 2 CAS.Â§38Â·45-105. 1 Seorch ond Seizure: A Tretile on the Fou,th An'iendment Â§ 26~te,dea Md. Aniter,MNy,4 Hoyden, 387 U.S, 294,301 (1967) ~ 310*en v. Mo#e Grove 70Â»Â¥Is/* 429 Od 575,580 (601 Cir. 23(g) (4th ed. 2004). (qiloting Roydv. Urited States, 116 U.S. 616,630 (1886)) 20051 citilig Ky#ov. United States, 533 US. 27,33 n. 1 (2001), 13/d. citing 0/mstead K UnitedS*, 277 U.S. 438,470 (1928) 2~Sikrarnan v United Stotes, 365 Ul 505,511 (1961). 1 (quoting Noah Webster An Ameticon Dictionory 0/#44 Engh'sh (Holmes, J:dissenting). 28souder v. Kâ‚¬Nz, 389 U.S. 347,351 (1967). ~ *9(*age 66 (6lh ed. 1989) 0828)), " k the ~area immedately surrounding a home that 2%@onoev#/e Y /08{41 Counlyl.2007 WL,474376 *11 ON.D. Vmsh. 14#Curmage 31 Widgrer, supic, at 580, citing UnkedStates M Maple, 348 Fld 'hattors the'intimate' adivity associated with the'sanctityof a 2007) (not reported). 1 260,263 (D.Car.2003) (quoting Bond v. Un/ted States, 529 U.S. mant borne and the ptivacies ol life.' Wi*en, supm, at 582, 30UnitedS-* Oroyton, 536 US. 194,207 (20021 334,338 n 2 GbOO)). citing UnitedSrates k Dunn, 480 US. 294,300 (1987) (quoting Mo,1107;e K LevUS, 87 Fld 900, 902 Oth Cir. 19961 5389 U.S. 347 (1967): OM,er, sterc, 466 US. at 180). 32United Saltes v. CM, 498 ad 11 15,11'24 (10#, Cir. 20071 614419,4 294 at 578, ating CaNomb v duof}, 476 Ul 207, 15See OAer K (mited Stofes, 466 US 170.183 (1984): 33Mfd,r4 supto, at 580, citing Unifed States K DÂ¢#14 3Up,a, 211 (1986). Fugbitht K Unke#States, 392 Fid 432, 434 (loth Cir. 1968). 480 U.S. 294 (19871 7M#Â®,m St#'mâ€¢ at 578, dting Dow Chem20/ Ca v. United 1609*ens!910,81583,(*lgnÂ»e RLAFae 5 Seadi ond 34H. Bates, 749 Fld 307,312 (6th O.1984) a#d, 476 U.S. 227 Sebnre:A Rer,acon #le/eur#, Amendment Â§ 10.1(b) 0th ed. 35SeeA,te5-Roy M Ot>/ ofA5pen, 31 Od 958 (10th Cir. 1994) (1986) (emphasis in original). 0/Aer v. United States, 466 US. 2004). and 144* m v Mople Grove TownsÂ®, 429 ad 575 (6111 Cir. 170,178 (1984) (noting 'our sodetal understanding that certain 17pwagren, supm, at584, citing Comoro v.Mun Couttofthe 2005). areas deserve the mostsÂ¢rupulous protection from govdmment City& Count>ofSon Frunchco, 387 US. 523 (1967) (adopting 364. See cho Mon:Whe i. Lewis sigro. invasiorO; United States v. 14#112,401 U.S. 745,786,0971 ) a relaxed probable cause requirement for entry into homes fof 37&14*e4 suPM' at 580, citing 058 v United States, 466 U.S. 1 (Harla,0, dissenting) (assessinglheindividualk semeof administrative safety inspectiolis) and See v. 0,?y of Swm% 387 170 (1984), securityÂ»): and to Wayne R. Lafavt 1 Secirh omiSekile: A US. 541 (1967). 385eeUS v. BaraklsÂ·A.,/as, 377 Eld 1040 (9th Cii 2004) (a 18*gm# SHWO, at 579, citing 06,4 at 180 ~11. warranties polkesearch of an unoccupied travel trailer in which Recige on the fbum, Amendment Â§ 2.1 (d) (lth ed. 2004) Bt,w*en Stpro, at 578, citing Dowaemb/Co. 749 Fld at 1~tÂ¢*elimf, at 579, ciling O/Aer, at 177. illegal drugs were manufactured did not folate the owners 312. 209&*24 2426, at 5751 ating Olher, at 183-84. Fprth Amendment Nhts because the trailer was not a l,omer 9nÂ¥*24 544'0, at 579. dting A,en â€¢New *wA; 445 US. 573, 21Seeid and thus the dealing around it was not -airtilage.3: see 080 590 0 9801 225ee note 12, inha 80#ne,Te v Kbop Chinty, 2007 Wl 474376 (W.D. Wash 2007) 100.{emphasis in originaD.: 23united StoteS v Dunn, 480 US. 294 (198i) (not selected for publication). 11Â»1*84 SWN, at 583, dting /4Â« 533 U.S. at 31,33,40. 24I44*214 5;lÂ¥rO, at 582* citing Duna sup,00 at 301. 3%#M/CS /ne K 77,e Wbge ofAngel FRe, 394 18d 836 (1001 , 12*41*4 +0 at 583, citinglomes w (kikedmotes, 418 Â£'0*dgre,4 s:*),0, at582,dting Ca#/bmic M Goo#0,476 US Circuit 2005> 3665 CHERRY CREEK NORTH DRIVE Â· DENVER, CO 80209 303.757.5475 Â· 800.228.7136 Â· FAX 303.757.8950 Â· www.cirsa.org A.J~~*b178 -~444k*SAL:#t..9.< F. .2.....4 tin#<: .4Â·-:'Â»Â·2:44**â‚¬#flitÂ·Â·.*8&cdÂ£:i,IuuÂ£6;i?u -91.2012ik)*.Lij RiZILE*3 4*2~ I *%. -* *A,92*4.1.14..*k ... 1~-'~;*%4.4.,~ Â¥Â·Li~~,;6# .. -et,Â»6Â· 0 . MEMORANDUM Cominunity Development To: Community Development Committee From: Bob Joseph Date: 8-3-09 Subject: Si.gn Code Enforcement Report Staff has concluded the process of reviewing the sign code with the citizens / stake holder task force and a complete summary of the recommendations will be presented to the CDC at the September meeting. The task force touched on the related issue of sign code enforcement. The majority of the group felt that the existing enforcement efforts are inadequate. The group recommends more effective, consistent and pervasive enforcement, including the possibility of implementing a procedure for punitive fines that would be issued on the spot when clear violations occur. This would then be subject to appeal before the municipal court if the offending party so chooses. L - .. U $ bE 82 0 6 01 7 3 9 Z = 0 0000 O 0000 9 0 0 0 g Z] 2 N 0 g 5% 9 0 9 0000 0 4 . P -O j ' rr, E i /50 0 8 44% 1 0 0295 rr, o 0% n - 0- oM n 0 O tr) W') CO O her. Cho Ri 2 ~9 ~ a & 1 9 i% O 00 O I Â£ &84 S Z , 1 . O 07 3. 0 :24 0 Ill JUNE VAR VAR ratios ~ Â© ofy~:~ Intergovernmental (County) 2,130 59% 44,517 106% for Services (inside) 10,33 22,210 (4.030) 29% 22.210 89% s for Services (outside) 2,500 (1,120) 10% 7,800 78% MONTH TO DATE YEAR TO DATE BUDGET vs. YTD % of yr> (287) 1 849 Total Revenues 12,860 8,360 78,683 75,37 79,500 75,376 95% 23,747 (821) 135,789 138,485 (2,696) 8 317,255 138.485 I IL'DE 850'EL 1 99â‚¬f IIL'tâ‚¬ 8L8'8Â£ ( 8*) 986'+ Â£05'+ JOIRII@lmEIN pina 96I'ELI EIE'06Â£ OI ILFI 96I'ELI L99'fLI (gor I) Â£Â£L'8Z 8Zt'LE @suodxa joueummew poe uoumdo r COZILO) (Â£18'0 IE) (9Â£8'1) COZB'Z,6) (t'86'56) 550'L (ELB'!-1) (8Z6'ZE) somjrpuadxj 2008 2009 2008 2009 Â·Ju@K qoe, Jo arenb is I m pOA!2021 /huno O TRIA Juemosmqungi VDI I sao; ose@Ial ooluumnS '001 IOJSUBII }Fuued SPIEI Aunoo lourgrI 'soi~Ip snoaueIPOSIW g DEVELOPMENT (101-1600) OW COMPARISON Op ration and Maintenance Expense IVAO SOnUOAOJ Jo Kou@!OJOP/SSPOXEI 2009 vs. 2008 Revenues I .-. I O 4-1 0 e. 0 5. 9% 3.1 13< 0 0 < 5 2 itu W GU 1-#24 0 CS 0 0.0 00 58Â° 2~ 01 4-Â· 04 CP, 04 01 B 0 4 Â·4 â‚¬r, ul 0 W -0 M el --4 Amot m 8-8 9* R 0 el 01 M 62 * 6% 0 8 0 560=8 Rog S A 5 0 R EK= Â¤1 CD 01 T 10 M 0 3% B @% 0 E E MON 000 4 A- g W .0 9 .- m .21@ 9 *2 0 9 ta,OUE- 2 8 0 E .20 04 i 04 ,2 E *8% % s QÂ·a U h 8 210 M E- mo MONTH TO DATE YEAR TO DATE YEAR TO DATE VIS'LLI *I 8'LLI *6Â£'69I (81 L' 1) 965'8Z osuadxa murumuleFI pue UOIWOdo (965'Â£6) (Lt*Â§61) (965'Â£6) (6Â£Â£'El) (â‚¬69'8) (9Â£6'8 [) (Ftâ‚¬'01) samlipuadxo VAR VAR ratios Licenses and Permits 15,957 (6.2 IO) 1 4,073 83,220 (70.853) 99% 16,~358 9 (6.675) 1 6, ~5 84,218 (71.837) (056'Z) L06'Â£fI (6*8) 806'EE (898) 85/9 @OUEU@luIEW pUB (465) 8 PROTECTIVE INSPECTIONS (101-2300) FLOW ARISON asuadXEI @OUBUO U JOAO SPnUOAOI Jo /[000!0!Jap/SSJOXEi Xel @Sn - @nU@AQI 00; JOpUJAI I ./ 0 CP 5 32 a a > 9 32 y 8 0 2 Le 86 men 2 9 (D 2 9 00 C -11 EE OO H N & % 6 32 a.> \ <D E @ 32 0 0 0 -C >L 2 0 % Change ~~~~~ Valuation revious Total Valuation ~revious Total Valuation revious Total Valuation Premvious Januarb, $4,450,815 377% $2,030,683 -54% . $3,487,495 $1,858,095 -47% $936,504 -50% February $2,782,210 367% $3,458,209 24% $1,471,444 $2,585,466 $3,026,716 1756 %88- *99'899'8$ %*L 89â‚¬'Ezf'98 $ %92- 088'980' 18$ L99'802'2*$ %EL *6*'928'68$ %Change %Change 2009 EZ'L63'17$ % * LE'299'*$ %98 L 298'09*'8$ % L L- Â£69'99VLS Wn'5nv %89 Lze'290'8$ 56*E 8*9'Eze' [$ 0/.99- *1*,# 19' L $ 89*'EL#'17$ leqUIeldes %82 826'â‚¬86'Â£$ 0/0822 96 K'ZOE'ES %88- 89*'Â£09$ %LE **9'096'89 jeqoloo %*9- t69'860' 1$ 99*'96Â£'2$ 560*- 961'9902$ %ZOL 0 |0'2Â·Â»'8$ Jequ.leAON %89- ot609 CMB 998'963' 1$ 5692- 998'992'3$ %ZE 990' L LO'â‚¬$ lequleoea Monthly Building Permit Summary 2005 - 2009 TOWN OF ESTES PARK 6002 01*1!Wied Bu!Pling\60-Â£002 SlbIOdEbl\918Od38 31Â¥0-01-HÂ¥3*\SlyOdabl\83\5u!Pling\Aep-I.UU.loo\Blames\\ from 0 0 March $3,439,128 -28% $2,995,104 -13% $3,045,601 $1,440,763 -53% $1,633,694 13% April $3,399,901 62% $7,080,592 108% $1,529,733 -78% $6,030,855 294% $626,124 May $2,100,174 26% $1,457,427 -31% $3,196,672 119% $1,890,680 -41% $739,589 June $6,372,224 397% $2,720,052 -57% $3,146,507 $1,335,442 -58% $1,215,173 f98'*89$ %ILL 906'LES'Â£$ 6*9'EZZ'2$ 56â‚¬98 892'8*9'ELE %EL- 288'LEE' LS *Inr CO C) O 0 W me0020 qi gl 00000: - on ER =i .M el E p 23 -2 Piden e 1 J 8 1% Â£1 m * N c~ CO $9 CO O M 0 0 0 01 0 dh U) E 2 0 2 8 0 -I 0> N * N 0-0- CO UD 00 05 0 -80 9 249 0 00 4 2 Â£ .8 2 2 N 0 -- 69 2 22 f <s 2 M 8 '0 0 h 0 9 0 N - =g 0 0 co CD 0 0 N* 1 r h a. -. C =3 i,RE; 2*geEL 9 A o g # O 0 1. r- 0 0 *0),38 con>Fir.3 EEâ‚¬Ic INCO .9 200 E 9. 32 ~~ 91~ ~=2*E O -= .8 > O (16 0 (13 &} 8 2 -'5 0=morn*29000.- 8 -6 2- E-* *H S o Ego o o 00 10 CO C\1 e 26 cv E 9- u) 3 0 4. 0 C\1 O N g N al ~ C. tin g 2 2 01 CO 5% 5~ C\1 - 0 CO r. tolD -8 MS. 4, * 0 CO 6 4 ; 0 2 u 6 4 . r e> . - m 0 0 im 0 2 E CO c 2 0 0 0. g g 1-0 F 0 .-O- 2 8 0- 2 1 m vialu- 8 9 9 2 .2 cO CD l tlESâ‚¬ U. 2 0 E r. C a) a) =- 2 0 CD 0 0 LL afigi /1 (10 flo 13 - I B= cogam ..2 0 5 0 ~ ~ -8 ~~TO~ SE -a = LL 0 C 19 CIO -12 22.9,0 9 0(0 B * 0 = A ~#- < O 0 0*02 1 LLÂ·Â¤ z ez Zz Bzg Ez) 7%@s '1 +2* LL v z orm (0 0(22 22 2 02 EF 22% ff; 2 2- 5.EMEÂ·%34% OCOLD<r *E Q '239**306 gh 2722= R E 1- -1 2090-DN Er hht< R E 1- -1 2 -1 8-1 0-10 33331 81 *% MitiliFF %9 43 as 61 35# 816 21%421@%3* 8882@ 2 2 2 % 8 m 13 %M iw id s~ 21 2 2 2 % 5 % o > U.>: 1->P =3*0005((929<50 Ulk _1<Z O<U 05=08001** January February March April May June July August September October Noveinber December TOTALS LL-Â£99'298'8$ 09Â£98.1799$ ZEELL'SLE'LÂ¢ 06'8 '929$ 017'*69'Â£89'1$ LO-9 LZ'920'Â£$ 91!ut.tad os!Ul 'SlepOLUet 'SUO!1!Ppe = AUOD/UWPPV :e,ON 1 :fjuPI L :eulq.Inl Pu!M 6002 10340 JUGA\60-2.002 SlWOd3l 1\SlUOdBU 31~/0-0-1-BV3*\91HO,138\ED\Gu!PlinalAap-wil,100yl:Ala. 4, 2009 BUILDING PERMIT SUMMARY 15,130 7,401 91 $817, .74 $ 1,552,510.79 , ,114.40 $534,072.90 $681, ,1 ,729.32 $674,103.50 1,972 1,553 3,827 3,654 1,492 6,983 1,481 000'OMB 00-009'2$ 00-000'01$ 00'000'17$ odel: 7 LL Mol;Mong/qul L :Joldoo.lawl p 1 2 :Buip!S/MOpUIM . 1-t' :sl:utiod 33!LAI ,einiel.Ut (31* 86 :si!ut.ted JSUN leitue!)!sau le3O.1 00-000'179Â£' Lit 00'09Z'O L$ ./ 9 899'89$ 00490'26$ '*9Â£$ 28'902'0149 00'ZEZ'001$ RESIDENTIAL PERMITS (101) New Single Family Detached Town Administration Memo TO: Chairman Chuck Levine and Community Development Committee Board Members From: Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator CC: Jacqueline Halburnt, Town Administrator Date: 7/21/2009 Re: Community Development Organizational Assessment Contract Background As part of Town Administration's overall strategy to improve organizational efficiencies within each Town Department, the Community Development Department, was selected as the first department to participate in an operational/organizational review. An outside subject matter expert (consultant) was selected through an RFP process. Eight companies submitted proposals for the work. A selection committee comprised of the Town Administrator, Deputy Town Administrator, Public Works Director, and the Finance Director selected the company to complete the work. The companies and their bid amounts are listed in the chart below: location . Bid Hourly rates , Reimbursable Expenses Based on . i.e. Travel etc... Consultants or Subject Matter h Experts Fee Billingsley * Boulder $18,800 $120/$120/$120/ Estimated amotmt not Consultant Colorado $50 pro,Aded KRW Colorado ~ $12,soo $130/$130/$110 Included within Associates . Springs propomdiee Mejorando 1~ ' p $50,000 $200/$185 $10,000 Group Arizona Â· MGTof ' Sacramento $39,410 $245/$225/$180 .Included within America California proposed fee Springsted Saint Paul $21,500 $2157$185/$150/ $4,500 $140/$60 North Denver $110,290 $175/$170/$140 $870 Highland Colorado Plan/Landy Loveland $0,000 $125 $1250 Professional Colorado Development Resources Zucker San Diego ,9 4 $19,800 $185/$150 Included within Systems ~ California 4 proposed fee The scope of work to be completed is: 1) Analyze current and future staffing levels. 2) Analyze current management practice consistencies in applying building code standards, development code standards and planning review processes. 3) Review current customer service practices provided for both internal 1 .. and external customers. 4) Assess current staff qualifications from entry level positions to the department head position. 5) Assess the working relationship among the Community Development staff, Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission and Town Board of Trustees and the impacts of their decisions regarding land use development within the Estes Valley. Based on their background, level of professional experiences with Community Development, and their overall approach to the project Zucker Systems out of San Diego, California was selected by the committee. If approved, Zucker Systems is required to provide their work plan within 14 days of contract approval. The contract has been reviewed and accepted by our Town Attorney White and Zucker Systems. Budget/Costs The bid amount is $19,800. This is a non-budgeted item. Funds will be appropriated from the general fund during the 2009 Budget Revisions and allocated to account #101-1300-413-22-98. Recommendation Staff is requesting approval to award Zucker Systems the consultant contract for the Community Development Department with a not to exceed price of $20,000. â€¢ Page 2 i Town of Estes Park Town Administration Offices AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (this "Agreement") is made and entered into this 12th day of August 2009, by and between the Town of Estes Park, County of Larimer, State of Colorado (the "Town") and Zucker Systems an independent contractor ("Consultant"). WHEREAS, the Town requires professional management and organizational services related to; conducting an Operational/Organizational Review of the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, Consultant has held itself out to the Town as having the requisite expertise and experience to perform the required management consulting services; NOW, THEREFORE, for the consideration hereinafter set forth, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES A. Consultant shall furnish all labor and materials required for the complete and prompt execution and performance of its duties, obligations, and responsibilities . (the "Work") which are described or reasonably implied in the Consultant's proposal dated July 2,2009, which is provided as Exhibit A (and the original Town Administration "Request for Proposal, June 9, 2009'1 both attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. B. No material change to the Scope of Services, including any additional compensation, shall be effective or paid unless authorized by written amendment executed by the Town. If Consultant proceeds without such written authorization, then Consultant shall be deemed to have waived any claim for additional compensation, including a claim based on the theory of unjust enrichment, quantum merit or implied contract. Except as expressly provided herein, no agent, employee, or representative of the Town is authorized to modify any term of this Agreement, either directly or implied by a course of action. 11. REPORTS. DATA, AND WORK PRODUCT A. The Town shall provide Consultant with reports and other such data as may be available to the Town and reasonably required by Consultant to perform the Scope of Services. All documents provided by the Town to Consultant shall be returned to the Town. Consultant is authorized by the Town to retain copies of such data and materials at Consultant's expense. B. Other than sharing information with designated third parties as previously directed by the Town, no project information shall be disclosed by Consultant to third parties without prior written consent of the Town or pursuant to a lawful court order directing such disclosure. Consultant Contract 1 of 8 1, , . 4 C. The Town acknowledges that the documents created by Consultant for the Project, including but not limited to drawings, designs, specifications, reports, and incidental work or materials (the "Work Product"), are instruments of professional service. Nevertheless, copies of the Work Product shall be provided to the Town and other contractors and subcontractors shall be authorized to use and reproduce applicable portions of the Work Product that are appropriate to use in the execution of their work related to the Project. The Work Product shall become the property of the Town upon completion of the Work. Consultant, however, shall retain its rights in its standard drawing details, designs, specifications, databases, computer software and any other proprietary property and all rights to any intellectual property developed, utilized, or modified in the performance of the Work. D. Consultant shall provide to the Town electronic versions of the Work Product in the format directed by the Town's RFP. 111. COMPENSATION AND FINAL SETTLEMENT A. In consideration for the completion of the Work by Consultant, the Town shall pay Consultant an amount equal to the firm-fixed price extended in Exhibit A, which is nineteen thousand eight hundred dollars. The amount specified herein shall include the fees and expenses anticipated to be incurred by Consultant in performing all services hereunder, as described in Exhibit A. B. If, on the basis of the Town's observation of the Work and the Town's review of the final invoice and accompanying documentation as required by this Agreement, the Town is satisfied that the Work has been completed and Consultant's other obligations under this Agreement have been fulfilled, the Town will, within forty-five (45) days after receipt of the final invoice pay the amount due. Otherwise, the Town will return the invoice to Consultant, indicating in writing the reasons for refusing to schedule final settlement, in which case Consultant shall make the necessary corrections and resubmit the invoice. IV. COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION OF WORK Within seven days of receipt of a Notice to Proceed, Consultant shall commence work as set forth in the Scope of Services or that portion of such work as is specified in said Notice. Except as may be changed in writing by the Town, the Scope of Services shall be complete and Consultant shall furnish the Town the specified deliverables as provided in Exhibit A. V. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY A. Consultant hereby warrants that it is qualified to perform the Work, holds all professional licenses required by law to perform the Work, and has all requisite corporate authority to enter into this Agreement. B. The Work shall be performed by Consultant in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and the level of competency presently maintained by other practicing professional firms performing the same or similar type of work in the Denver metro area. The Work shall be done in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. C. Consultant shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, timely completion, and the coordination of all designs, drawings, specifications, reports, and other services furnished by Consultant Contract 2 of 8 . I 0 . Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant shall, without additional compensation, correct or resolve any errors or deficiencies in its designs, drawings, specifications, reports, and other services, which fall below the standard of professional practice, and reimburse the Town for construction costs caused by errors and omissions which fall below the standard of professional practice. D. Approval by the Town of drawings, designs, specifications, reports, and incidental work or materials furnished hereunder shall not in any way relieve Consultant of responsibility for technical adequacy of the work. Neither the Town's review, approval, or acceptance of, nor payment for, any of the Work shall be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out of the performance of this Agreement. E. Consultant hereby agrees that Consultant, including but not limited to, any employee, principal, shareholder, or affiliate of Consultant shall not have a financial relationship with or an ownership interest in any person and/or entity which entity and/or person shall be the recipient of any contract or work for the project designed by Consultant pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Consultant understands and agrees that the purpose of this provision is to prevent any information created as a result of Consultant's services herein being used by any person and/or entity in the preparation of any bid or performance of any work for the project. Consultant also understands and agrees that part of the services to be provided pursuant to the terms of this Agreement are management consultant services which require independent judgment of Consultant in the representation of the Town with regard to completion of the project. Consultant understands and agrees that the Town is relying upon the independent judgment of Consultant with regard to the services provided herein. F. Because the Town has hired Consultant for its professional expertise, Consultant agrees not to employ subcontractors to perform more than twenty percent (20 %) of the work required under the Scope of Services. Upon execution of this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish to the Town a list of proposed subcontractors, and Consultant shall not employ a subcontractor to whose employment the Town reasonably objects. All contracts between Consultant and subcontractors shall conform to this Agreement including, but not limited to, Section XI, L. VI. INSURANCE A. Consultant agrees to procure and maintain, at its own cost, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. Such insurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by law. B. Consultant shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of Consultant to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such coverages shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurers acceptable to the Town. In the case of any claims-made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage. 1. Worker's compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by applicable law for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this Agreement, and Employer's Liability insurance with minimum limits of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) each accident, five hundred thousand Consultant Contract 3 of 8 R . . dollars ($500,000) disease - policy limit, and five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) disease - each employee. Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be substituted for the worker's compensation requirements of this paragraph. 2. Commercial general liability insurance with minimum combined single limits of one million dollars ($1,000,000) each occurrence and two million dollars ($2,000,000) general aggregate.- The policy shall be applicable to all premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage (including completed operations), personal injury (including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and completed operations. The policy shall contain a severability of interest provision, and shall be endorsed to include the Town and the Town's officers, and employees as additionally insured. No additional insured endorsement shall contain anyÂ·exclusion' for bodily injury or property damage arising from completed operations. 3. Professional liability insurance with minimum limits of one million dollars ($1,000,000) each claim and one million dollars ($1,000,000) general aggregate. C. Any insurance carried by the Town, its officers, its employees, shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided by Consultant. Consultant shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses under any policy. D. Consultant shall provide to the Town a certificate of insurance, completed by Consultant's insurance agent, as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits are in full force and effect. The certificate shall identify this Agreement and shall provide that the coverages afforded under the policies shall not be cancelled, terminated, or materially changed until at least thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the Town. The Town reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any endorsement thereto. E. Failure on the part of Consultant to procure or maintain the insurance required herein shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement upon which the Town may immediately terminate this Agreement, or at its discretion, the Town may procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by the Town shall be repaid by Consultant to the Town upon demand, or the Town may offset the cost of the premiums against any monies due to Consultant from the Town. VII. INDEMNIFICATION Consultant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Town and its officers, insurers, volunteers, representatives, agents, employees and assigns from and against all claims, liability, damages, losses, expenses and demands, including attorney's fees, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including, without limitation, claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, which arise out of the negligent act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other negligent fault of Consultant, any subcontractor of Consultant, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of Consultant or of any subcontractor of Consultant, or which arise out of any workmen's compensation claim of any employee of Consultant or of any employee of any subcontractor of Consultant. In any and all claims against Town or any of its officers, insurers, volunteers, representatives, Consultant Contract 4 of 8 . J 0 . agents, employees or assigns, by any employee of Consultant, any subcontractor of Consultant, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or anyone for whose act any of them may be liable, the indemnification obligation under this Section VII shall not be limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages, compensation or benefits payable by or for Consultant or any subcontractor under worker's compensation actions, disability benefit acts or other employee benefit acts. In the event it becomes necessary for the Town to bring any action to enforce any provision of this Agreement or to recover any damages the Town may incur as a result of the breach of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, defective work, and the Town prevails in such litigation, Consultant shall pay the Town its reasonable attorneys' fees as determined by the court. VI11. TERMINATION This Agreement shall terminate at such time as the Work is completed and the requirements of this Agreement are satisfied, or upon the Town's providing Consultant with seven (7) days advance written notice, whichever occurs first. If the Agreement is terminated by the Town's issuance of written notice of intent to terminate, the Town shall pay Consultant the reasonable value of all work previously authorized and completed prior to the date of termination. If, however, Consultant has substantially or materially breached this Agreement, the Town shall have any remedy or right of set-off available at law and equity. If the Agreement is terminated for any reason other than cause prior to completion of the Work, any use of documents by the Town thereafter shall be at the Town's sole risk, unless otherwise consented to by Consultant. Nothing herein shall constitute a multiple fiscal year obligation pursuant to Colorado Constitution, Article X, Section 20. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the Town's obligations under this Agreement are subject to annual appropriation by the Town Board of the Town. Any failure of the Town Board annually to appropriate adequate monies to finance the Town's obligations under this Agreement shall terminate this Agreement at such time as such then-existing appropriations are to be depleted. Notice shall be given promptly to Consultant of any failure to appropriate such adequate monies. IX. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The Consultant shall disclose any personal or private interest related to property or business within the Town. Upon disclosure of any such interest, the Town shall determine if the interest constitutes a conflict of interest, including Section V-E. If the Town determines that a conflict of interest exists, the Town may treat such conflict of interest as a default and terminate this Agreement. X. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR Consultant is an independent contractor. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, all personnel assigned by Consultant to perform work under the terms of this Agreement shall be, and remain at all times, employees or agents of Consultant for all purposes. Consultant shall make no representation that it is a Town employee for any purposes. XI. MISCELLANEOUS Consultant Contract 5 of 8 A. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado, and any legal action concerning the provisions hereof shall be brought in Larimer County, Colorado. B. No Waiver. Delays in enforcement or the waiver of any one or more defaults or breaches of this Agreement by the Town shall not constitute a waiver of any of the other terms or obligation of this Agreement. C. Integration. This Agreement and any attached exhibits constitute the entire Agreement between Consultant and the Town, superseding all prior oral or written communications. D. Third Parties. There are no intended third-party beneficiaries to this Agreement. E. Notice. Any notice under this Agreement shall be in writing, and shall be deemed sufficient when directly presented or sent pre-paid, first class United States Mail, addressed as follows: The Town: Town of Estes Park Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3707 Consultant: Consultant: Zucker Systems Contact name: Paul Zucker Address: 1545 Hotel Circle South, Suite 300 City: San Diego, CA. 92108 Phone number: (619) 260-2680 F. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful or unenforceable for any reason, the remaining provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. G. Modification. This Agreement may only be modified upon written agreement of the parties. H. Assignment. Neither this Agreement nor any of the rights or obligations of the parties hereto, shall be assigned by either party without the written consent of the other. 1. Governmental Immunity. The Town, its officers, and its employees, are relying on, and do not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this Agreement, the monetary limitations (presently one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) per person and six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. Â§ 24-10-101, et seq., as amended, or otherwise available to the Town and its officers or employees. J. Rights and Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Town under this Agreement are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law. The expiration of this Agreement shall in no way limit Consultant Contract 6 of 8 . 4 the Town's legal or equitable remedies, or the period in which such remedies may be asserted, for work negligently or defectively performed. K. Binding Effect. The Town and Consultant each bind itself, its successors and assigns to the other party to this Agreement with respect to all rights and obligations under this Agreement. Neither the Town nor Consultant shall assign or transfer its interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. L. Work By Illegal Aliens Prohibited. a. Consultant hereby certifies that, as of the date of this Agreement, it does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien and that Consultant has participated or attempted to participate in the basic pilot employment verification program as defined in C.R.S. Â§ 8-17.5-101(1) ("Program") in order to verify that it does not employ illegal aliens. b. Consultant shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform works under this Agreement or enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to certify to Consultant that the subcontractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Agreement. c. Consultant hereby certifies that it has verified or attempted to verify through participation in the Program that Consultant does not employ any illegal aliens and, if Consultant is not accepted into the Program prior to entering into this Agreement, that Consultant shall apply to participate in the Program every three (3) months until Consultant is accepted or this Agreement has been completed, whichever is earlier. d. Consultant is prohibited from using Program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening ofjob applicants while this Agreement is being performed. e. If Consultant obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under this Agreement knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien, Consultant shall be required to: (i) notify the subcontractor and Department within three (3) days that Consultant has actual knowledge that the subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal alien; and (ii) terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three (3) days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this subparagraph the subcontractor does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien; except that Consultant shall not terminate the contract with the subcontractor if during such three (3) days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. f. Consultant shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment ("Department") made in the course of an investigation that the Department is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in C.R.S. Article 17.5. Consultant Contract 7 of 8 ' 1 g. If Consultant violates this paragraph, District may terminate this Agreement for breach of contract. If this Agreement is so terminated, Consultant shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the District. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date first set forth above. OWNER: CONSULTANT: TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: By: Mayor Title: Principal Address: ATTEST: ATTEST: By: By: Town Clerk (SEAL) . (SEAL) Other Partners: Consultant Contract 8 of 8 4 , . 4 , . 1 . ..) Community Development Department : I 1 (. ) , Operational/Organizational Review O Estes Park, Colorado By r - j Zucker Systems 0 V A Paul Zucker, President 1545 Hotel Circle South, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 260-2680 www.zuckersystems.com paul@zuckersystems.com July 2,2009 , \ J 0 fE) LE E- E 0 90 CE'F C3 ni JUL 6 2009 L _1 U L-. By 1 I July 2,2009 A Lowell Richardson Deputy Town Administrator < Â·) ZUCKER Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Avenue 5Y5TEM5 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Dear Mr. Richardson: (3 I am pleased to submit five (5) copies of our proposal for an Operational/Organizational t J Review of the Estes Park Community Development/Planning/Building Department. You 1 C. can see a variety of studies we have completed and additional Zucker Systems background on our website, www.zuckersvstems.com. I believe you should select our proposal because: C 3 ~ We are the only organizational and management consulting practice in the United States (3 that solely focuses on the development process. We teach best practices throughout the country. A checklist is shown in Appendix C. planning . I will personally conduct this study along with input from a Colorado consultant, located Cameron Gloss, AICP with the Fort Collins office of EDAW. environment m I have managed the functions being analyzed as a planning and building department l .) head in several communities. rh development u I have a strong track record for providing similar clients with excellent consensus building studies (100 cities, 38 counties and 20 non-profits in 29 states, the Cayman management Islands and Washington D.C. m I will provide a totally independent and objective study. Â¢ 3 housing m My Scope of Services creatively and imaginatively focuses on your concerns within a reasonable time frame and budget mI am noted for providing clients with considerably more detail than most program ~ PAUL C. ZUCKER reviews. < My background, approach and references are detailed in the attached proposal. I look j president forward to discussing our proposal in detail. Sjneerely;2~ h 2 0 1545 hotel circle sout'\ 1-0.--------1 --0,-~-- suite 300 ----- < -3 san diego, ca Paul Zueer, 03 92108-3415 (619) 260-2680 800-870-6306 (/-D (-- j fax: (619) 260-1138 ih www. zuckersystems.com C j Fh - r-3 f-3 -,0 } 0 Table of Contents 2. PROJECT TEAM INFORMATION Â·Â· 1 PAUL ZUCKER, FAICP, PRESIDENT. ..1 CAMERON GLOSS, AICP ? 3. APPROACH ..3 4. EXPERIENCE REFERENCES 11 5. SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT 17 6. RATES 17 0.3 <1 Appendix A Best Practices T,imt 18 0 List of Tables Table 1 Examples of Previous Work 1 9 List of Figures ( 1 Figure 1 Methodology Overview ...4 0 6-) 0 (--3 0 j C.j 2. I 1 .. 4 / 2. PROJECT TEAM INFORMATION A majority of the work will be conducted by Zucker Systems President, Paul Zucker, FAICP. He will be assisted by Cameron Gloss. He is a Senior Planner for EDAW AECOM and has an office located in Fort Collins. Mr. Zucker and Gloss worked together in a successful study of the Fort Collins development processes. Mr. Gloss will provide up to date Colorado experience to supplement the team. Resumes are included below. PAUL ZUCKER, FAICP, PRESIDENT 2 Mr. Zucker has 30 years of experience in public and private management and planning. He has managed both the building and planning functions. As President of Zucker Systems since 1982, Mr. Zucker has completed numerous management consulting projects throughout the United States and Canada. He has consulted with more than 156 cities and counties in 29 states. His 86 non-government clients have included such diverse groups as private land developers, Holiday Inn, the Minneapolis Public School System, the American Planning < 1 Association, the California State Coastal Commission, and private developers. He is a Fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners. 1, .2 His management contracts have included comprehensive management and organizational (,3 studies, customer service training, process and systems analysis, work flow analysis, management training, retreat facilitation, and focus groups. He has served as personal c ) management advisor to department heads and has managed entire departments on a contract basis. Three of his studies have received national attention-a business climate study of the City of San Jose, an organizational and management review of the San Diego Housing Commission (described by the City Manager as the best organizational study ever received by the City), and the groundbreaking analysis of the City of Los Angeles Planning C Department. (,1.) Mr. Zucker also developed a unique approach to peer review, which he has conducted for Austin, Texas; Los Angeles, California; San Diego, California; Hillsborough City, Florida; and Louisville, Kentucky. 0 Prior to forming Zucker Systems, he was a department head for three major public agencies in Brookline, Massachusetts; Marin County, California; and Tucson, Arizona. He was also an Assistant County Administrative Officer for the County of San Diego. As President of a private non-profit development company, Mr. Zucker headed a multi- discipline team with a focus on industrial and commercial development for low-income and minority residents. In this capacity, he created and managed five manufacturing plants. He also created a variety of non-profit social service corporations including a health clinic, legal ) aid office, and credit union. 1. 11 . Mr. Zucker served as a visiting lecturer at the Universities of California at Irvine and / 1 Berkeley, California State Universities at Fresno and San Diego, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has also taught planning commissioner practice and management ) skills for the American Institute of Certified Planners. He is author of 77:e Management Idea j Book, The ABZ's of Planning Management, and What Your Planning Professors Forgot To Tell You, has articles published in numerous national publications, and is lecturing - throughout the country on management. Mr. Zucker has taught a comprehensive 30-hour management course to over 700 top ) managers in 15 cities and counties, and has taught management short courses to over 6,000 executives throughout the United States and Canada. h Mr. Zucker was educated in architecture at the University of Nebraska where his thesis was 1 chosen for the National Institute of Architectural Education competition. He received his iÂ· -h Master's degree in Urban and Regional Planning at the University of California, Berkeley, where he was a Sears Fellow. He has completed post-graduate work in management at the Main Event Management Institute in Houston, Texas and at the University of Phoenix. C ) Mr. Zucker will manage the Estes Park project and be involved in all aspects ofthe work. CAMERON GLOSS, AICP l ) Cameron Gloss, AICP, has extensive public and private sector experience as a land use and 7 63 development planner. Prior to his arrival at EDAW, he spent 18 years working for the City /- h ofFort Collins and City ofBoulder Planning Departments, which has given him the hands-on C J experience needed to understand the Northern Colorado political landscape. While Director of the City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department from 2000-2008, Gloss implemented almost 50 changes to the development review process, which cut the <j average review time in halÂ£ One such initiative, an on-line Development Review Guide, received a 2008 APA Colorado chapter award. In 2005, he was awarded the designation as C ) one of Fort Collins '" 5 Top People that Make a Difference", for his successful transformation of the City's review process. Cameron's expertise in analysis, coordination, planning, and design of residential, commercial, and public projects has also yielded him high regard in the Fort Collins development community and within Northern Colorado. l Mr. Gloss teamed with Mr. Zucker at the 2009 National APA Conference, providing the < i well-attended session "Development Review Processes Made Easier". The session explored recent successful community efforts to incorporate meaningful improvements into the development review process. Topics discussed included design and layout of"one-stop" (--) permit centers, staffing and management, development comment databases, electronic plan submittals, customer service, and rules for improved communication. 0 :,2 Mr. Gloss will provide local liaison for the project and as an advisor to Mr. Zucker. Estes Park, Colorado 2 Zucker Systems f 1 i.) 3. APPROACH 1 3 Overall Methodology c j Zucker Systems uses a well-tested, integrated methodology, as shown in Figure 2. We bring ,) our extensive experience to the study, work closely with Town staff, and solicit substantial input and observations from customers and policy makers. The methodology is built on inter- relating records, observations, and interviews. Each is necessary for valid studies. National research has shown that each one of these three-if relied upon exclusively-can be subject 3 to substantial error. For example, record systems are often found to either be as high as 50% C-) in error or the wrong things are measured. We use observations and interviews to verify records; records and interviews are used to verify observations; and records and observations to verify interviews. LJ /.: C.) Each group of people, shown in Figure 1, is an important part of the process. As consultants O specializing in building and planning departments, we have an unusually high degree of (-3 familiarity with the functions to be examined. Because staff will implement many of the recommendations and also will have ideas for improvement, we always work closely with staff. In Estes Park, this will include meeting Â¢ 3 with all relevant staff in an orientation meeting, having staff complete two confidential surveys, and working with and interviewing many staffone-on-one or in groups. C I) Customer satisfaction is always foremost in our studies. We will obtain feedback and C ) suggestions from applicant customers, special interest groups and citizens through focus groups and mail surveys. We have had excellent results from these techniques in our many studies. 0 l- 3 Policy makers are also important customers to the processes. It may be important to O interview the Estes Park Town Board, Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment. We are not interested in simply producing reports. We produce recommendations that get implemented and change organizations. We will follow the Town's desires as related to the approach and needs in this area. 0 As consultants, we also play an important part in helping the Town implement policy and satisfy customers. Our staff is different than many analysis firms. All of our staff that will work in Estes Park have actually conducted much of the work being analyzed as Department Heads and have managed similar organizations. We do not use junior level staff. Additionally, since we have analyzed so many development processes, we bring a national C ) perspective to our work. Paul Zucker has written extensively on the development process and Â¢-3 also teaches best practices. 9-.1 0 3 Estes Park, Colorado 3 Zucker Systems 0 /h f ) Figure 1 Methodology Overview Consulting . -... :-__. Town Staff Experience NI~ 44 I, 4$41~/ ~3~ % Observations '' .J -- ' ts -2 421#roft, Operational G Recommendation Analysis . Â·144*; and Action Plan Records -7-7 Interviews. ily . ...4 :ttf i Customers * .'.- Policy Makers l J The work program consists of eight (8) tasks and thirty five (35) subtasks. Task 1.0 - Project Initiation and Project Management Task 2.0 - Interviews and Meetings Task 3.0 - Focus Groups Task 4.0 - Customer Surveys Task 5.0 - Staff Meetings and Questionnaires Task 6.0 - Organizational Issues Task 7.0 - Development Processing Activities. Task 8.0 - Recommendations Task 1.0 - Project Initiation and Project Management < Objectives: Develop a refined work program and scope of services, establish a schedule of meetings, identify coordinating procedures, and begin managing the project. Product: We have combined the initial task of starting the project with the ongoing task of monitoring, controlling, and administering the project. Subtask 1.1 - Review Goals and Objectives of Proposed Study: Discussions will be held with the project manager to assure that the study direction adequately represents the desires of the Town. Subtask 1.2 - Refine Work Program: The consultant will incorporate necessary refinements into the work program. The changes will be reflected in the contract. Subtask 1.3 - Collect Preliminary Data: Preliminary data will be collected to further define C ; the scope of services and work plan. Existing data to be furnished by the Town will include, but not be limited to, relevant documents from the Coinmunity Development/Planning/Building Department as well as other related functions. Estes Park, Colorado 4 Zucker Systems Data should include budgets, job descriptions, flow charts, fees schedules and fee reports, I ) operating procedures, relevant policies of the Mayor and Town Trustees, Planning ) Commission, Board of Adjustment, workload data over five years, Comprehensive Plan, Development Code, design manuals, organization charts, staffing schedules, performance goals, handouts, flowcharts, process maps, plan check checklists, sample reports, sample minutes, customer satisfaction surveys if any, and other existing similar data. When possible, the Town should supply these documents by email. If any of this information is already on the Town web site, we will collect the information from that source. Subtask 1.4 - Contract Management: This task will consist of monitoring the engagement program and files, quality controls, completion of tasks, submittal of deliverables, work L.) papers, and billing. Paul Zucker will serve as Zucker Systems' key contact person and project nnanager. ) Task 2.0 - Interviews and Meetings 3 Objective: Elicit perceptions about the Community Development Department. Product: Input into the technical analysis and isolation of areas requiring more detailed study. C ) Interviews will be confidential and summarized in the draft report. Subtask 2.1 - Select Interviewees: The consultant and the Town will develop a list of recommended interviewees. At a minimum, this list will include key department heads, division heads or managers. We will also interview members of the Town Board, Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment. Subtask 2.2 - Schedule Interviews: Interviews will be scheduled with the assistance of Town staff. C.j Subtask 2.3 - Conduct Interviews: Town staff will be responsible for providing appropriate interview rooms. Interviewees will be assured confidentiality of information. Responses will be grouped to assure confidentiality before they are shared with the Town. j Subtask 2.4 - Summary of Interviews: The interviews will be summarized in the draft report. Task 3.0 - Focus Groups ( ) Objective: Elicit customer perceptions about the Community Development Department. â‚¬ i i Product: Input into the technical analysis and isolation of areas requiring more detailed study procedures. The product will include a listing of the best practices as suggested by stakeholders. Subtask 3.0 - Overview: We propose conducting two focus groups. Zucker Systems has conducted 100's of focus groups and knows what works and what doesn't work. Once we 0 1 Estes Park, Colorado 5 Zucker Systems i understand the needs and desires of each stakeholder, we are in a position to both satisfy the stakeholder and resolve conflicts between stakeholders. Subtask 3.1 - Select Focus Group Members: Focus group members will be selected from a broad list of persons and groups interested in the Community Development Department. We will work with Town staff to select the makeup of each group. Normally we suggest one group be made up ofapplicants and one of special interest groups and citizens. Subtask 3.2 - Conduct Focus Group: We envision the groups consisting of eight (8) people each. Each focus group can take two hours. Town staff will handle the logistics for the focus groups. The focus groups should be held in a comfortable, offsite, private room with refreshments to be furnished by the Town. The groups will be assured total confidentiality. i 3 There will be no tape recording and Paul Zucker will be the only non-focus group persons l) present. The confidential nature ofthe groups is absolutely essential. Subtask 3.3 - Focus Group Report: Focus group comments will be kept confidential at the individual level, but will be summarized in the study report. Task 4.0 - Customer Surveys f....3 Objective: Elicit customer perceptions about the Community Development Department. Product: Input into the technical analysis and isolation of areas requiring more detailed i ) study procedures. A summary report ofthe findings will be prepared. Subtask 4.0 - Overview: We propose using one or more survey instruments to survey Stakeholders about the Community Development Department and the development 4 1 processes. Since we have conducted similar surveys for so many Community Development 4 7 Departments, we are in a position to compare survey results and analyze the true meaning of Ch the results. There will always be some negative results from such a survey so it is essential to be able to determine what is reasonable. ) Subtask 4.1 - Determine Areas to Survey: The topics to be surveyed will include those 03 suggested by the Town staff and those suggested by the consultant. We will set the number C-) Of surveys in consultation with the Town. Subtask 4.2 - Design Surveys: The consultant will design the survey to determine customer 0 expectations, service levels and suggestions for improvement. Subtask 4.3 - Survey Distribution: If the Town can furnish email addresses, we will f } conduct the survey over the Internet using Survey Monkey. We have successfully used this system for other surveys including a recent survey of the nation's 50 largest cities. If email r \ addresses are not readily available, we will use a mail survey. The Town will handle the costs Â¢) and logistics of listing addresses and mailing the surveys. The surveys will be sent directly to Zucker Systems to assure confidentiality. Estes Park, Colorado 6 Zucker Systems f ..., ..,. & I Subtask 4.4 - Tally and Analysis: Zucker Systems will tally and analyze the surveys for input into other tasks. Zucker Systems uses a computerized database program for survey c ) analysis and cross-tabulation. The results will be described in the study report. Because we c 4 have used similar surveys in so many communities we are in a position to calibrate the data and put responses in perspective. 3 Task 5.0 - Staff Meetings and Questionnaires ih Objective: Elicit staff opinions and perceptions of the mission, goals, objectives, workload, _ information, supervision, training, policies, procedures, resources, etc. Products: k j Memorandum summarizing meetings and questionnaires. Input into study plan. Subtask 5.1 - Develop Staff Questionnaires: Two questionnaires to be completed by the eight staff will be developed for use in the study. The questionnaires will be specifically 0 tailored to elicit information applicable to our scope of services. The consultant has <- ) developed numerous questionnaires for use in our studies and knows what does and does not work. C ) Subtask 5.2 - Management Orientation Meeting: The consultant will meet with the 0, Community Development Department Director in an initial orientation meeting. This meeting will discuss the current perspectives of the manager, explain the study approach, f 1 7 < j address any concerns and cover any other needed topics. Subtask 53 - Staff Orientation Meeting: The consultant will meet with the seven staff < ) during a 90-minute session to explain the study, discuss staff roles, share philosophies, and (-3 build support for active participation in the questionnaires and the entire study. Staff will complete a short, confidential, anonymous questionnaire during this meeting. ;43 The consultant has strong feelings about the role of the staff in this study. When properly <,3 done, the staff will provide valuable ideas and will support and implement the report's recommendations. The consultant has built a reputation for this approach in past studies. C 3 Subtask 5.4 - Staff Questionnaires: A longer, confidential (but not anonymous) 1 rh questionnaire will be developed by Zucker Systems and completed by employees within one week of the staff orientation meeting. We may follow-up with interviews in order to interpret answers accurately, thus the questionnaires can't be anonymous. An option will be provided 0 to staff to access the questionnaire directly on Zucker Systems website instead of mailing. Subtask 5.5 - Review of Questionnaires: The consultant will analyze the questionnaires. All material received will be kept confidential as it relates to specific individuals. . C: \ Subtask 5.6 - Memorandum: The consultant will complete a memorandum summarizing ~ ~i the staff meetings and questionnaire findings. C J Estes Park, Colorado 7 Zucker Systems f '1' 1 Task 6.0 - Organizational Issues Objective: Evaluate organizational structure, management oversight and staffing in relation to appropriateness and efficiency. Product: Written recommendations for improvement and removal of obstacles to improvement. ) Subtask 6.1 - Management Effectiveness: The management and supervisory structure will be analyzed in relation to contemporary management theory. Issues to address will include strategic and operational planning, monitoring of policies and procedures, budgeting, workload design, meeting deadlines, decision making, reporting lines, control, delegation, contract management, and other personnel and employee issues. Subtask 6.2 - Organizational Structure: This task will include a review of functional I . groupings, reporting relations, lines of authority, spans of control and management to 1 employee ratios. Current theory aimed at creating flatter, less hierarchical organizations will be employed. Special attention will be given to the interaction between functions. i j Subtask 6.3 - Training: Past and current training programs will be reviewed and recommendations for training programs will be developed. Topics will include orientation, on-the-job training, specific external coursework, job rotation, required and desired certification, and computer training. We will also focus on any possible management or supervisor training needs as well as training for new employees. Subtask 6.4 - Communications: The communication methods and effectiveness will be reviewed. Communication issues will be reviewed internal to the functions as well as other 1 7 departments and customer communications. Written communication materials will be reviewed, including brochures, applications, staff reports, and minutes. Communication aspects ofthe Web and television will also be reviewed. Subtask 6.5 - Technology: Existing and potential technology and equipment to support the functions such as telephone systems, faxes, filing systems, optical scanning, digital cameras 1 J and copiers, copy equipment, permitting system, GIS, databases, software, website, and field l j computers will be reviewed. Subtask 6.6 - Customer Service: All of Zucker Systems work is focused on improving customer service. Issues to be addressed will include use of the Internet and the Town's website, customer feedback systems, staff training, customer philosophy, office layout, handouts, relation to industry and citizen groups, and similar activities. C I Subtask 6.7 - Staffing: We will examine the appropriate staffing levels and qualifications to properly carry out the work of the Community Development Department. l Task 7.0 - Development Processing Activities Objective: Efficient and effective development processes. Product: Recommendations for development process changes, improvement and removal of any obstacles to improvement. Subtask 7.1 - Policy Issues/Regulatory Requirements: This study does not include a review of the Town's plans, policies and regulatory requirements. However, we always â‚¬-9-> Estes Park, Colorado 8 Zucker Systems 1 ) , I , 't, 1.- . 7 conduct a brief review to see how these plans and policies impact the development process. These impacts will be highlighted for the Town for possible future Town analysis. Subtask 7.2 - Process Documentation and Process Flow: Relevant handouts, forms, and guidelines will be reviewed. The processes will be documented, charted and time-measured. Typical processes would include: â€¢ Pre-application contact and review. â€¢ Applications, adequacy and timelines of submissions. â€¢ Discretionary reviews and development o f raw land reviews. â€¢ Public hearings, roles of staff and appointed regulatory bodies. â€¢ Building reviews including field observations of inspection services i /1 â€¢ Code enforcement j Subtask 7.3 - Process Control Systems: Successful processes require plans for control and monitoring. This task will analyze existing control systems and make recommendations for any improvements including financial controls. The task will include permitting standards (-) and the consistency or reliability of the review processes. Customer input from Task 3 and 4 'Ch will be essential for this effort. Subtask 7.4 - Process Evaluation: Specific topics will include, but not be limited to the C 1 following: 1) Staff assignments and responsibilities, 2) Submittal standards and quality of submittals, ) 3) Content of reviews, 4) Process flows, 5) Coordination or review by others, 6) Elapsed time by type of permit or action, 7) Application forms and handouts, 8) Assignment, scheduling and monitoring systems, 9) File organization and content, 10) Checklists, 11) 03 Policy or ordinance constraints, complexity o f regulations, 12) Utilization of technical and t.\ clerical personnel, 13) Use of consultants and third party review, 14) Automation, 15) Fast track processes, 16) Triaging of projects (large vs. small projects and short time vs. long time), 17) Use of e-government applications. Subtask 7.5 - Recommendations: Recommendations will be made for workflow, distribution, timing, control, and policy. Recommendations will include any appropriate 3 transition plans or needs. Task 8.0 - Recommendation Objective: Preparation of recommendations to be implemented. Product: Draft and final reports. The process of report preparation and recommendations is an important one. Implicit in this process is the need for a sound understanding of how our review was conducted, what issues were identified, why our recommendations were made, and how implementation should be accomplished. The consultant's reputation has been built on providing useful reports to ( 1 Estes Park, Colorado 9 Zucker Systems r l ' .1 4 clients. A large percentage of the consultant's reports have been implemented, resulting in organizational renewal and change. Subtask 8.1 - Prepare Draft Study Report: We will prepare a draft report documenting the f. -) results of our work and providing detailed recommendations to improve the Community Development Department and its processes. C ) For each recommendation, we indicate both a priority and timeline for implementation. Each recommendation is also summarized on a table that is cross referenced to all the backup research that justifies the recommendation. Subtask 8.2 - Final Report: Based on the results of the Town's review process we will 1 - prepare a revised final report. Reports will be available in both printed and electronic versions. Zucker Systems prides itself on preparing reports that are both easy to read and to implement. The report will include detailed implementation schedules, projected cost impacts and ways to communicate the proposed changes to staff and stakeholders. The components of C ) the report will include: â€¢ Executive Summary. â€¢ Purpose and Background Statement. â€¢ Methodology Description. â€¢ Existing Conditions - both commentary and descriptive tables including profiles of all c 1 ) the relevant functions. â€¢ Prioritized Recommendations for improvements ofthe development processes. â€¢ Improvements to achieve a higher level of customer service within the programs. â€¢ Each recommendation will be given a priority of 1, 2 or 3 and a timetable for i Â·) implementation including short-term to 12 months and after 12 months. t-h LJ Expectations of Town Staff To ensure that the Study is successfully completed and implemented, staff will have to take < an active role in the study process, including: ( 3 1) Designating a project manager to manage the project. 2) Providing existing reports ( -j and data as specified. 3) Providing computer print outs as requested from existing ) data systems. 4) Reviewing consultants work papers and draft reports on a timely basis. 5) As needed, providing workspace, access to telephones and reproduction services while we are onsite. 6) Arranging the interview schedules, Task 2.0.7) r/-3 Handling the noticing and logistics for the focus groups, Task 3.0. Selection of members will be the responsibility of the Town with advice from the consultant. 8) Handling the logistics and any mailing costs for the stakeholder surveys, Task 4.0.9) k , Handling the logistics for all staff meetings. 10) Arranging consultants on site -- interview schedules. 11) Completing surveys. r- C j Estes Park, Colorado 10 Zucker Systems '.. 4. EXPERIENCE REFERENCES ) Zucker Systems was created by its President, Paul Zucker in 1982. To our knowledge, it is the only national organization and management firm that specializes in the development & processes. We have worked with 116 cities, 40 counties, and 20 non-profits in 29 states and the Cayman Islands. .) pre differ from other consulting firms that do this work in that our senior staff members have also managed these functions as governmental employees and contract staff. Thus, we have in-depth knowledge about the functions we are analyzing. ) ' In addition to our "best practices" experience through our contracts, we have conducted C ) national research on best practices, performance measures, and permitting and organizational c ) methodology. We interact with Community Development departments throughout the U.S. fi and Canada via an interactive website. Paul Zucker is known nationally as the "Management Doctor." His book, The ABZ, ofPlanning Management, Second Edition is being used by a number of universities as a text. His new book, Mis-Management is currently at the printers (-3 and will be released soon. He was also a contributor on the topic of management and C: 3 leadership on ICMA's recently released book, Local Planning, Contemporary Principles and Practice. t We believe that there is a difference between normal and maximum productivity in an organization. The need for major change in both public and private organizations is essential. 1 We are beyond the days of moving from one management fad to another. What is required today is a fundamental shift based on a changing environment and the new information and (- ) technology age. Our extensive studies and national contacts are a great assistance in relating to the development process. 03 We believe each organization is unique and we tailor our recommendations for each j community. Decades of experience has provided us with a thorough understanding of the best practices for the development processes. However, all best practice features are not appropriate for each community and timing can be an important ingredient for ) implementation. This is particularly true as processes move toward the long anticipated r3 paperless office. C 3 Because our studies produce results, a number of clients are repeat customers such as Cayman Islands; Richmond, California; Pierce County, Washington; Queen Creek, Arizona; Fort Worth, Texas; Scottsdale, Arizona; Columbus, Indiana; San Jose, California; Chula C :, Vista, California; Merced County, California; and Los Angeles, California. As can be seen in Table 1, we have completed or have underway multi-function studies for 58 cities or counties. We have also complete studies for eight separate building departments, 37 separate planning departments, and 10 fee studies. We have completed work in 29 states, 1.} the Cayman Islands, and the District of Columbia. Estes Park, Colorado 11 Zucker Systems i ) . Table 1 Examples of Previous Work 74 4 - ..I- : -7. - -- Plan n i n g/B uild-i n~g?Ehgind e rifig D e-4ifrthigint Studies .-f -' f- E l - 0.-- 1 - 4 , - - 1.-5.--7-4----t y-- - -<7 9 Columbus, Ohio, Underway Denton, Texas, 2003 Kem County, California, 2009 Bellevue, Washington, 2003 District of Columbia, 2008 Boulder County, Colorado, 2002 3 Fremont, California, 2008 Redding, California, 2002 , Sheridan, Wyoming, 2008 Culver City, California, 2001 Troy, Michigan, 2007 Clackamas County, Oregon, 2001 Cayman Islands, 2006,2007 Corpus Christi, Texas, 2002 Bridgeport, Connecticut, 2007 Sonoma County, California, 2001 C San Antonio, Texas, 2007 Kent, Washington, 2000 Huntington Beach, California, 2006 Santa Clara, California, 2000 Richmond, California, 2006,2007,2008, Underway Ventura, California, 2000 Fort Worth, Texas, 2006 Juneau, Alaska, 1999 McAllen, Texas, 2006 Clearwater, Florida, 1999 Inglewood, California, 2006 Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, 1999 f J New Canaan, Connecticut, 2006 Fresno County, California, 1999 College Station, Texas, 2006 Kettering, Ohio, 1999 Downey, California, 2005 Naperville, Illinois, 1999 Fairfield, California, 2005 Avon, Colorado, 1998 Queen Creek, Arizona, 2005 Danbury, Connecticut, 1997 Pierce County, Washington, 2004 to 2007 Hillsborough County, Florida, 1997 i j Henry County, Georgia, 2005 Columbus/Bartholemew County, Indiana, 1997 - Benicia, California, 2005 Springfield, Missouri, 1996 Lake County, Illinois, 2004 Hilton Head, South Carolina, 1996 Eugene, Oregon, 2004 Riverside County, California, 1996 Fort Collins, Colorado, 2004 Louisville, Kentucky, 1995 Scottsdale, Arizona, 2002 and 2004 El Dorado County, California, 1992 Monterey County, California, 2003 Orange County, California, 1989 t. San Jose, California, 2003 Corona, California, 1988 (- 'j Peoria, Arizona, 2003 Austin, Texas, 1988 --1 --2 4.1 - ~ 2----14*.;-ch.#0451,-i_AeÂ·2 -Â·I . - n-= -- ----- 1=-1--tE~f- =U-,-i~J+YE~-Y-2 - <-, j IBuilding. 64-a-Amaht Stlidibs-- - 1- 1 t-- El Cerrito, California, 2008 City of Commerce, California, 2002 ( Lake Forest, Illinois, 2006 Chula Vista, California, 1998 f 3 San Carlos, California, 2003 Bellevue, Washington, 1998 Douglas County, Arizona, 2002 Costa Mesa, California, 1996 Estes Park, Colorado 12 Zucker Systems 4.-t~:~~11- , 44*&> ~39. fi-.,.r~.-,I'..:: ~:::.2Â·7:-: *2:~i;~*4442..~1:1448.{44{3443.00*'.i.fleâ‚¬.94 Plannid@ t)*drtmen<Manhoonie-htiniforganization;-Sf[Rfied ft~,~.': irQ::2 %?03%4%f-?444: Winston/Salem, North Carolina, 2008 Grand Junction, Colorado, 1999 Los Angeles, California, 2005 Palo Alto, California, 1998 Maui County, Hawaii, 2005 Bloomington, Indiana, 1998 Ashland, Oregon, 2005 Aspen, Colorado, 1998 Lincoln, Nebraska, 2005 Solano County, California, 1998 Jackson Hole/Teton County, Wyoming, 2005 Logan, Utah, 1997 Merced County, California, 2001 & 2004 Warren County, Kentucky 1996 Columbus, Indiana, 2004 Columbus, Indiana, 1996 Chula Vista, California, 2003 Hillsborough County, Florida 1996 L ) Los Angeles County, California, 1987 & 2002 Washoe County, Nevada, 1994 : i Henderson, Nevada, 2001 Sacramento, California: 1993 i' j Merced County, California, 2001 Chino Hills, California, 1992 Burbank, California, 2001 Los Angeles, California, 1983 & 1991 C 3 Santa Monica, California, 2001 Imperial Beach, California, 1990 Mariposa County, California, 2000 Santa Cruz County, California, 1989 Douglas County, Colorado, 2000 Napa County, California, 1987 Victoria, Texas, 2000 Gainesville, Florida, 1985 C ~ Marina, California, 2000 Los Angeles, California 1983 C h Santa Cruz, California, 1999 . 41.151.1?41>,IttlÂ¥*4.gl-r'.;,~l. ' Â·i,~:f~,1 l) 0* ; ; f.'c,~* - FL**4 96 94* #* fÂ·:3 J <1 i ~it 4 3-ji'*j~q~B?4-EAL '* *im-Â· --v - -. Fee. Studies,. ......:r.â€¢59,14.:.':1Â·2 1,42= 'k '.L,Â·Â·.Â·,-~.. , â€žâ€ž ., ..- ....,.-Â·-aÂ·Whâ‚¬:Ogâ€ž-AAh,Â«,fv =.5: *,fpv 4 Tulare County, California, 2005 & 2008 | Fort Worth, Texas, 2007 | Stormwater Management Fees, Lake County, IL, 2005 | 'W -\. 1 ) Building Fees, Pleasanton, California, 2004 Building, Engineering, Planning Fees & Citywide Cost of Services, Palm Desert, CA, 2003 Fire Fees, Orange County Fire Authority, California, 2002 & 2005 1 ) Planning, Engineering, Fire Fees, Santa Monica, California, 2002 ( 1 Building, Planning, Engineering Fees, Sierra Vista, Arizona, 2001 Building Permit Fees, Santa Monica, California, 2001 Building Permit Fees, Visalia, California, 2000 C J References Fort Collins, Colorado Gregory Byrne Former City of Fort Collins Community Planning & Environmental Services Director Community Development Director C ~ h City of Albany /1 Estes Park, Colorado 13 Zucker Systems 7.-3 ;. .1 '41 333 Broadalbin St. SW Albany, Oregon 97321 541-917-7555 We completed a Quality Improvement Plans for the Development Review Process study for 19 ': b Fort Collins. The study included 54 recommendations including major changes to the , development process that were implemented. The study also included extensive work with elected officials and various business and development customers. Richmond, California i ) Richard Mitchell, Director Community Development Department 1401 Marina Way South Richmond, California 94804 510-307-8159 1 1 We completed a comprehensive analysis of Richmond's Community Development C ) Department and half or the recommendations have already been implemented. The City then C ) hired us to assist them in selection and installation of a permitting system which is now operational. Additionally, the City has hired us to monitor report implementation and prepare quarterly reports related to a Chevron billion dollar plant expansion. Sheridan County, Wyoming 1 3 Nic Bateson County Engineer, Contract Administrator 55 Grinnell Plaza Sheridan, Wyoming 82801 307-674-6483 x 248 03 This contact included a review of the building, engineering, and planning functions. The work was completed between April and June 2008 and resulted in 96 recommendations. i ) Implementation is underway. C i Columbus, Ohio Tracie Davies, Assistant Director, Contract Administrator Development Department 757 Carolyn Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43224 614-645-2076 This work is underway and is designed to build a new development process department for Columbus by 2010. Estes Park, Colorado 14 Zucker Systems k<, 1 Fort Worth, Texas ' 3 Susan Alanis, Planning and Development Director, Contract Administrator Fort Worth Development Department 1000 Throckmorton Fort Worth, TX 76102-6311 817-392-8180 This work included two studies. The first study included the entire development process including building, engineering, fire, health, planning, transportation and water. It was f j completed from December 2005 to January 2007. The work included 165 recommendations that are being implemented. A key recommendation merging the Planning Department and Development Department has been completed as well as remodeling of City Hall for the development functions. 1( ) c 1 City of Los Angeles, California Gail Goldberg, Planning Director 200 N. Spring Street C 3 Los Angeles, CA 90012-4801 213-978-1271, Fax 213-978-1275 Email: gail.goldberg@lacity.org Since 1991, Zucker Systems has been providing consulting services to the City of Los Angeles Planning Department. In 1991, we completed one of the most comprehensive r h studies the City had ever seen with 298 recommendations. These recommendations were ) partially implemented and resulted in substantial improvements to technology and the eventual creation of multiple sub-city based Planning Commissions. The study remained a key resource for the Department and the City over the next 10 years and was often used as a l ) reference for improvement activities. (f) In 2005, the City Controller decided to conduct a performance audit of the-department's case r j processing functions. Based on the 1991 work the Controller hired Zucker Systems on a sole rh source basis to carry out the technical aspects of that work. The 29 key major , recommendations from this report are well underway in being implemented. The new C ' Planning Director has re-organized the department on a geographic basis, changed r- supervision and management responsibilities, added staff where necessary, and moved to a case management approach; all recommendations of the study. Paul Zucker has been working as a personal advisor to the Director to advise on changes underway. r : Pierce County, Washington C , Rick Talbert or Matt Temmel, County Audit Staff 955 Tacoma Ave S, Suite 302A Tacoma, WA 98402 r-1 : ' Estes Park, Colorado 15 Zucker Systems . 253-798-2172, Fax 253-798-4906 Email: rtalber@co.pierce.wa.us Pierce County has an integrated, one-stop permit center with a staff of 120 that includes Building, Engineering, Environment, Fire, Health, and Planning. Zucker Systems was hired by the County's Performance Audit Department to review these functions in 2004. At the time, there was a huge backlog of over 1,000 applications. Counter wait times were averaging over an hour with some times as long as six hours. The study included 190 ; I) recommendations which the County proceeded to implement. The backlog was entirely z ) eliminated and counter wait times were substantially reduced. The recommended new performance standards were adopted and implemented. In 2005, the County hired Zucker Systems to monitor implementation and we were hired again in 2007 to continue to work on the counter wait time issues. C) ('..1 lj (3 C3 0 3 3 0, (-3 0 0 C.-0 0 /. 7.\ C . J Estes Park, Colorado 16 Zucker Systems 63 -1 -/ wÂ»/ 4/ L., 4,2/ tul, 1. 1 ./. 1. ) 5. SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT i We will develop a detailed project schedule during contract negotiations. We are prepared to 1 i .) begin work immediately upon the signing of the contract and will complete a draft report within 90 days or sooner from the contract start date. 6. RATES i - This is a fixed fee proposal for $19,800 inclusive of all travel and related cost to complete an OperationaUOrganizational Review of the Estes Park Community C Development/Planning/Building Department. Paul Zucker's billing rate is $185/hour and ( Cameron Gloss's billing rate is $150/hour. 1 (-3 10 /-h it J 1Â¢ ) la 0 0 (-) 0 0 0 0 63 /4-h Estes Park, Colorado 17 Zucker Systems /1 / 1 0 U.' U Â«U U 0 0 % 6. . Appendix A j Best Practices List (-3 : 7 i.2 l ) (-43 h 3 3 .... C3 O Estes Park, Colorado 18 Zucker Systems 03 ,-) ri -3.-: /73 '- '-3 -' 1 0,4 1 Zucker Systems' Best Practices for Development Review 1. Co-location ofall development related functions 2. Manager or coordinator of one-stop f ) 3. Attractive and functional witing area and counter area 4. Good plans, policies, handouts and checklists, all up to date i Highly qualified front counter staff 6. Set and monitor counter wait times, 10, 15 or 20 minutes depending on community ) 7. Electronic pennitting system with good ties to GIS 8. Issue small permits over the Internet 9. Pre-application alternatives (3 10. Electronic applications and plan submittal via Internet Ch 11. Early notice to Stakeholders 12. Check plans for completeness at intake 13. Use of credit cards 14. Easy to understand fees based on actual costs (.1 15. Full cost recover and enterprise type fund 16. Electronic permitting system 17. Through, fast andfair process O 18. Electronic plan check and files 19. Inter-department review committee with decision power 20. Project managers who handle "cradle to grave" process with decision power - from pre- application to Co f O 21. Performance standards for processing and plan check with weekly reports 22. Expedited review alternatives C , 23. Cut performance standards in half for each cycle of review 24. Meet performance standards 95% o f the time 25. Track both government and applicant times 26. Comprehensive checks for the first review cycle 27. Consultants for overflow plans when performance standards cannot be met 28. Three strikes and you are out or increased fees after three cycles Estes Park, Colorado 19 Zucker Systems 2-h n /2-3 r.-3 .Â·-h 'Ch, Â·Fl ) 29. Comprehensive Email lists of all Stakeholders in the community 30. Good web site, handouts, forms, staff listings, organization charts all plans, policies and ordinances (see comprehensive check list) 31. On-line permit tracking 32. Electronic files at close out - records management 33. Interactive Voice Response and Internet inspection request systems 34. Next day inspections 35. Consultants when next day inspections cannot be met 36. Combination inspectors for residential and small TI's :f 37. Field computers and printers for inspectors 38. Developers advisory committee 39. Customer feedback and evaluation systems 40. Certified planners, engineers, plan checkers and inspectors 41. Stakeholder education sessions t, 2 42. Post construction field review ofprojects re quality issues 03 03 (-1 0-3 I. / 43 0 C) C. } 0 6 Estes Park, Colorado 20 Zucker Systems C3 Ch v u' '-3 1-0 u., + 1 -,4 rw nÂ·6Â·,yr' 11 Scossibn Presentation to Board of Trustees Phase I is critical as I have outlined it because it would give us the opportunity to work together on something that should have been done years ago - but it is not too late. Appoint two trustees to work with ARD as a standing committee to investigate the details of this action. Phase II in the meantime will be initiated thru a series of H.O.A. meetings in the Hondius room of the library. An advertisement plus phone calls will initiate a sizable response from a listing of some 80 plus associations in the valley. We want this effort to represent everyone from Glen Haven to Allenspark and from Drake to Rocky Mountain National Park. This is not only the scope of our valley, but the people who need representation on this board of trustees. Yes, it expands your area of responsibilities, but also your opportunities to serve people and your tax base to ensure future revenues in excess ofpresent sources. H.O.A.s will become more aware of what government by the people really means and so will trustees!! This unification will reduce the impact ofproblem situations and give government a better perspective on what will actually work with a larger population. There are about 7,000 people that live in the county plus about 5,000 in Estes Park - a total of 12,000 people with potentially a huge economic impact on the total community beyond what is now being enjoyed. If we admit that tourism is truly our only business then we will better understand what "marketing" to visitors and this 12,000 population can really do in a financial sense to the total community. 04/06/09 PHASE I To ARD Members: I have twice approached our leaders to engage in a discussion aimed at uniting the population of the Estes Valley (Town and County residents) under one government with representation for all parties in such a government. The following is an outline of how this can be accomplished and why it should be done as soon as possible. 1) A committee of two people should examine the laws under which Estes Park. operates to see if such action is specifically prohibited. Also, to see if it is permitted under certain conditions. 2) Home owner associations should be approached to participate in the above actions and in order to give them an early opportunity to voice agreement or disagreement. 3) The attitude of the county commissioners should be determined when, but not before; we deem that such actions can be successful. 4) The usual objections by a public entity center around the need to provide infrastructure (water and sewage) services to the affected parties or other services usually provided by public entities. I for example do not expect that expensive lift stations will be put in place to reach my property just because I live 500 feet above the elevation of Estes Park. The primary impact would be in the area of governmental representation - a larger board of trustees with taxing authority on residents in the total Estes Valley. The benefit of this is that such issues as fire protection districts would be the same for everyone with expanded facilities, equipment and number of personnel. Secondly, with expanded representation in a public entity the Estes Valley would be united thus increasing the economic strength of the population in a time when this is badly needed. Thus there would naturally follow an improvement in our tourism trade, lodging market and commercial activities. IM , It would also thrust us into the 21St century in a dynamic way. People in the area (front range) etc. would soon know that we are a dynamic community with broad and effective programs for growth in keeping with our natural beauty and relationship to Rocky Mountain National Park. We would be in a much better position to speak to the state and the country with a united force that cannot be deterred. It would free us from relationships which are not in our best interest - primarily the county - which has taxed us in the past for projects of which we receive few if any benefits. We can then petition the state to turn around tax monies at a faster rate thus releasing an unneeded financial bump at critical times. It is time that we govern ourselves in a new century if we are to capitalize on our regional strengths and minimize our weaknesses ! Terry D. Parenti 2145 McGraw Ranch Road Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 586-8712 4 4 Town of Estes Park, Colorado Annexation Discussion Report Community Development Committee By: Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Town of Estes Park Annexation Report July 28,2009 ~9 Community Development Committee 114 , Overview Over the past two years some Estes Valley residents have posed the question. Why can't the Town of Estes Park annex the whole Estes Valley? This report intends to address that question by providing a brief overview of the processes and costs associated with taking on such an endeavor. It should be noted the annexation process is regulated by statutory law meaning these processes are predetermined and are only part of the annexation process. Other considerations must be given to what happens after an annexation i.e., roads, utilities and basic government services. Other questions to answer include what if a section or all of the areas to be annexed are not up to the Town's code requirements? Who pays for improvements if needed? Who pays for additional employees? Who pays for infrastructure improvements if needed? Who pays for additional equipment if needed? It is these and other questions the report intends to review. Annexations C.R.S. 31-12-101 through 123 (Elliot, Donald L., 2004) Colorado annexation laws established three primary methods for Colorado municipalities to annex unincorporated areas. 1) Through a landowner petition. 2) Through an annexation election. 3) Through a unilateral annexation of an enclave or municipal owned land. As always there are exceptions to the three primary rules but these exceptions are limited in scope and rare in most straight forward annexations. The controlling legal standard to be met before any annexation is the Poundstone 11 standard. Essentially it states one of the following three must exist before annexation is allowed under Colorado law: a) The question of annexation has gone to a vote of the landowners and registered electors of the area to be annexed and the majority voted for annexation; or b) The annexing municipality receives a petition for annexation from more than 50% of the landowners who own more than 50% of the land; or 4 The area is entirely surrounded by or owned by the annexing municipality. Eligibility for Annexation Unincorporated areas eligible for annexation are found by the annexing municipality at a public hearing that: a. Not less than 1/6~h of land to be annexed is contiguous with the annexing municipality. b. Interest exists between municipality and community area to be annexed. c. The area to be annexed is urban or will be urbanized in the near future unless the annexing municipality finds two of the following: Town of Estes Park Annexation Report July 28,2009 Ill Community Development Committee . 0 i. Less than 50% use for municipal recreation, civic, social, religious, industrial or commercial facilities, or less than 25% of these adult residents are employed within the municipality. ii. At least one half of the land is agriculture and landowners under oath profess use of the land for agricultural purposes for at least five years from proposed annexation date. iii. It is impractical to extend to the proposed areas urban services that the municipality provides to its residents. Limitations C.R.S. 31-12-105 Within the statute several limitations exist, however for the purposes of this report "preconditions under section f." are applicable to understand the requirements of annexation: Three Mile Plan - this is a requirement of the annexing municipality to provide a report describing location, character, extent of streets and other transportation ways, public area, public utilities and transportation facilities. The statute requires this part of the master planning process to address: a) Subways, bridges; b) Waterways, waterfronts; c) Parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks; d) Aviation fields; e) Other public ways, grounds, and open spaces; f) Public utilities; g) Terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation and power to be provided by the municipality; and h) Land uses Annexation Agreements C.R.S. 31-12-112 and 121 Though not required as a matter of law, annexation agreements are commonly designed as part of an agreement between the landowner(s) and the annexing municipality. Typically annexation agreements are a contract where the landowner agrees to petition for annexation and the municipality agrees to annex under certain mutually acceptable terms and conditions. (Elliot 2004) In most annexation agreements it is the annexor who agrees to dedicate/improve roads, install water and sewer lines, pay fees for water transmission, make storm drainage improvements, participate in bridge costs, donate land to the municipality, and construct necessary improvements. In exchange the municipality agrees to provide water and sewer and zone the land for the agreed upon uses. Town of Estes Park Annexation Report July 28,2009 111 Community Development Committee <, Costs The Town of Estes Park under the conditions of state statute for annexation can annex what has been termed the "Estes Valley". However, there are several factors to consider to include designing the Annexation agreement, getting at least more than 50% of the landowners and registered voters to approve the annexation through an election or acquiring a petition from the landowners within designated area for annexation. Based on review of the annexation statutes it is safe to assume there will be special annexation considerations involved in this process. A final consideration for annexation of the Estes Valley is what costs to the Town of Estes Park would be incurred to effect such annexation. What benefits to the Town of Estes Park would exist if annexation was initiated: 1) Sales tax dollars collection from businesses within defined area. 2) Resolve the issue of service to Estes Valley residents vs. Town of Estes Park residents. What negative issues would the Town incur for annexation of the Estes Valley: 1) Increase staffing levels for police, fire, public works, parks, building inspection, and planning; 2) Increased road maintenance; 3) Infrastructure improvements i.e., roads, storm drainage, bridges, etc... The two primary services provided from General Fund Departments is Police and Public Works provide an estimate of those costs as an example: Police services - start up costs are estimated at $1.7 million with ongoing expenses estimated at $800,000 (please see attachment). Not included is the expense of expanding or constructing a new . building estimated at $3.5 million to $4.5 million. Public Works - Public Works estimates the following impacts. These assumptions are that the county areas would be maintained as is and at a current level of service that the county provides. These estimates do not account for improved infrastructure such as paving unpaved areas. '1. Capital equipment (additional equipment initial expenditure) 2. Capital buildings (additional fleet building and offices) Subtotal estimated at $4 million 1) Annual budget impact (Existing budget x 2.25) includes personnel, STIP and storm drainage $3.5 million. Town of Estes Park Annexation Report July 28,2009 til Community Development Committee '4 1 Estimated Totals The estimated start up totals for police and public works would be $13 million and the ongoing cost increases would be estimated at $4.3 million annually. It should be noted this is not a comprehensive assessment of all costs associated with annexing the Estes Valley but a general overview for consideration. Works Cited Elliot, Donald L. (2004). Colorado Land Planning and development Law. Denver: Bradford Publishing. Town of Estes Park Annexation Report July 28,2009 111 Community Development Committee * 1 Town of Estes Park, Colorado Request for Proposals Community Development/Planning/Building Department Operational/Organizational Review Town of Estes Park ~~~~ Community Development Department Operational/Organizational Review June 9,2009 1 I , I Introduction The Town of Estes Park is a year-round mountain resort community located 70 miles northwest of Denver, Colorado. Known as an international destination community, Estes Park serves a fulltime resident base of just over 6,000 people and a seasonal base of 3 million visitors each year. The Town of Estes Park and Larimer County paved new ground when they adopted the "Unified Estes Valley Development Code", which became effective February, 2000. The incorporated areas of Estes Park and unincorporated areas of the Larimer County are together known as the Estes Valley and served by the unified development code. The joint code is intended to coordinate harmonious development in the Estes Valley. Through an intergovernmental agreement, all development projects in the Estes Valley are reviewed by the Town of Estes Park Planning staff or a joint Planning Commission made up of Town and County residents, as applicable. However, building permits are issued by the applicable jurisdiction: In-town projects are issued by the Town and county projects are issued by the county. There also exists a joint Board of Adjustment made up of Town and County residents to review all variances. As in all communities, development issues challenge the Community Development Department's ability to balance the needs and wants of the residential, business, and development communities while applying the development code consistently and fairly. The Community Development Department is comprised of the planning division and the building division. A department head, two planners, two building inspectors, two technicians and one administrative assistant represent the staff of the Community Development Department. The Town of Estes Park is seeking to conduct a thorough review of the Community Development Department. The assessment will include; management practices, planning review process, permitting processes, building inspection process, code enforcement practices, staffing levels and other organizational operations relevant to Community Development services. A critical secondary component to the review is an assessment of the customer service relationship existing between Community Development Department staff and the business development community. Town of Estes Park Operational/Organizational Review June 9,2009 Community Development Department 2 A. Scope of Services - Organizational and Operational Review 1. Analyze, assess and provide recommendations regarding staffing levels based on current and future projected workloads. 2. Analyze, assess and provide recommendations regarding the consistency of management practices in the application of building code standards, development code standards, and planning review process. 3. Review and provide recommendations regarding internal and external customer service practices within the Community Development Department specifically related to customer relationships with the building, design and development community and the residents/general public. 4. Assess current Community Development staff qualifications from entry level through department head and identify individual competencies for each position. 5. Assess the relationship of the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment with the Community Development staff and the Estes Park Town Board; assess the overall impact of their decisions regarding land use and development within the Estes Valley. B. Outcome 1. Provide an assessment of work quality and efficiencies delivered by the Community Development Department. 2. Identify opportunities to improve service levels, organizational structure, management practices, workloads and records management practices. 3. Identify potential inefficiencies within the Community Development Department affecting workflow and process. 4. Identify any cause and effect issues exist between the Community Development Department and the design, contractor and development community. C. Contract Deliverables 1. If selected provide a detailed work plan to the project manager within 14 days of receiving the contract. The plan must include, at a minimum; tasks to be Town of Estes Park ~ Operational/Organizational Review June 9,2009 ~J~ Community Development Department 3 â€¢ r, 0 completed, a timeline, data requirements, any staff assignments, and other details deemed necessary by the consultant. 2. Provide onsite services that include interviews with relevant Town staff members, Town Board members, Planning Commission members, Board of Adjustment members, and development, design and contractor community members/general public. 3. Provide a draft report 90 days from the contract start date to the Town Administrator and project manager. 4. Provide the final report in written and electronic format. D. Proposal Content The proposal shall contain the following: 1. Letter of Introduction 2. Proiect Team Information: Provide a list of the proposed project team members, the work they will perform, and the resumes of each proposed team member. Include their experience relevant to both municipal government work and Community Development work (i.e. planning, development and building inspections). 3. Approach: Provide an outline of your firm's approach to the scope of work described in the RFP. Outline what information your firm will require from the Town staff to complete the project. 4. Experience/References: Provide relevant experience of your firm in conducting organizational assessments, management reviews, building code reviews, development code reviews, or municipal ordinance reviews, and Community Development assessments. Also, provide a client contact list with phone numbers. 5. Schedule for Completion of the Proiect: Provide a schedule for completion of the project. 6. Rates: Provide a not-to-exceed contract amount for the project. Provide all out of pocket expenses, i.e. travel, meals, lodging and hourly project rates. 7. Other Information: Provide any other relevant information you believe qualifies your firm for this project. Town of Estes Park Operational/Organizational Review June 9,2009 110 Community Development Department 4 E. Submission of Proposals and Deadline Each firm must submit five copies of their proposal in a sealed envelope. Please include the firm's name, address and the project name on the outside of the envelope. The proposals can be mailed or submitted in person at the following: Mailings: Town of Estes Park Attn: Deputy Town Administrator Lowell Richardson RFP: Community Development Organization Review P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Personal Submittals: Town of Estes Park Attn: Deputy Town Administrator Lowell Richardson RFP: Community Development Department Organizational Review 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, Colorado 80517 All proposals must be received no later than July 6,2009 by 5:00 PM. Contact Information: Town of Estes Park Lowell Richardson Deputy Town Administrator P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 970-577-3707 or Irichardson@estes.org F. Basis for the Award 1. A review team selected by the Town Administrator shall evaluate each proposal based on the following criteria: Town of Estes Park Operational/Organizational Review June 9,2009 til Community Development Department 5 i. The firm's experience and accomplishments relevant to the scope of the project. ii. Qualifications and experience of the project team. iii. Approach to completing the project. iv. Ability to complete the project within the presented timeline. v. References. vi. Proposed interviews. vii. Provide a not to exceed amount within the proposal costs. G. Award The Town of Estes Park reserves the right to accept or reject any proposal. The Town of Estes Park reserves the right to hold the proposals for up to 90 days before rendering a decision. The Town of Estes Park is not under any obligation to accept the lowest proposed bid. H. Public Record All proposals and information submitted are public record and subject to disclosure pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act. Town of Estes Park Operational/Organizational Review June 9,2009 ~111 Community Development Department 6 JA r There has been a newly formed committee called the Community Development Committee and they have a meeting on August 6,2009 at 8:00 am in the Town of Estes Park Board Room. The committee is made up of Town Trustees; Richard Homeier, Chuck Levine, Jerry Miller, and Dorla Eisenlauer; Town Administrator, Jacqueline Halburnt; and Terry Parenti. The purpose of this committee is to unify the Estes Valley and appropriate adjacent areas. The purpose of this meeting is to provide the people affected from Glen Haven to Allenspark and from Drake to Rocky Mountain National Park, an understanding of the "plus" and "minus" factors to the extent that a legal 2/3 vote in favor of the project must be accomplished. Plus Factors 1. Consolidates the interest of the public under a unified form of government - all areas of the valley must be represented on the Board of Trustees. 2. Gives areas like Tahosa Valley, Allenspark, and Glen Haven a representative vote on valley decisions. 3. Puts H.O.A.'s in a subordinate position, but does not remove their ability to act and react to trustee decisions. 4. Official trustee meetings can be held in community facilities in various areas rather than only Estes Park, thus it will get trustees closer to the public on all issues. This should apply to county commissioners as well on a regular basis. 5. A united and consolidated community will require trustees and staff to be oriented to serve the total community on a 100% legal basis in a professional manner. Minus Factors 1. May subordinate some local interests for the greater good of the larger population. 2. Requires all eligible voters to give a 2/3 majority in final election. 3. Will cost 1/2 of 1% increase in property taxes to flow into separate town account as a basis for future infrastructure development in affected areas. 4. Trustee elections must be held frequently on a rotating basis to maintain a representative government thus making us a "big community" with status and greater economic impact. 5. Businesses, entrepreneurs, etc. must think and plan on a larger scale to serve the larger community properly and efficiently. Things to be done bv Town 1. Town Board issue a statement supporting the Community Development Committee, the concept of unification signed by the mayor and each board member. 2. Issue a special invitation to all home owners association leaders to attend a special board meeting to discuss the plus and minus aspects of this concept. Please call Terry Parenti with your ideas and conclusions at 586-8712 and plan to attend the meeting on August 6th.