Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Public Works 1985-07-18-re f PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE JULY 18, 1985 AGENDA 1, CEMETERY AGREEMENT - CONTINUANCE OF DISCUSSION FROM MAY 16, 1985 2, EPURA - SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - PARKING 3. LoNG'S PEAK SCOTTISH HIGHLAND FESTIVAL - REQUEST TO PLACE SEMI- TRAILER AT LANDFILL 4. FIRE DEPARTMENT TRAINING FACILITY - DISCUSSION 5. PROSPECT MOUNTAIN (NE) DRAINAGE STUDY - PROGRESS REPORT 6. RIVERFRONT PARK - REVIEW OF BIDS 7. STANLEY PARK FENCING - REVIEW OF BIDS 8, BOND PARK - REQUEST TO RENOVATE HACKY SACK AREA 9. RADIO MONITORS - REQUEST TO PURCHASE f REPORTS: 1. MEDICAL CENTER SIGN 2, PAY TELEPHONES 2- 71»Au , CL-~~ 7 f . 11 g Of» Art Aftr „-1fl JU,A 431 i 10 1 34.#LCL -. a- -..=216 IT I df*22*64:'+24 - tl5:- -V ---- 402«-_A~Cl*4, 3-j» 44.14' nuczzcs Agro 1.4,(041-7-~/~An-70«- 1-e--- ,. Clw:£ R 62, 0 -*- -- . Hrs rt•uy K •=7 W. 1 - --'- 4 . f.l 1,6 6, •s le' HAMMOND, CLARK AND VVHITE LAW OFFICES n,.f T's. FIRsT NATIONAL BANK BUILDING, SUITE 418 LovELAND, COLORADO 303-667-1023 LYNN A.HAMMOND MAILING AndRESS ROGER E.CLARK P. O. Box 701 GREGORY A.WHITE LOVELAND,Co. 80539 ALFRED P. DAVIS July 16, 1985 Dale G. Hill Town Administrator Town of Estes Park Post Office Box 1200 Estes Park, Co. 80517 Dear Dale: This opinion is written pursuant to your request that I review the questions surrounding the request by Estes Park Memorial Gardens, Inc. to purchase approximately six (6) acres of Town property for a cemetery. Section 31-15-713(1), C.R.S. 1973, provides if Town property has been used as a part of a public utility or been held for any governmental purpose, the sale of said property must be submitted to the electorate for approval. Since the property in question was purchased from the Public Service Company for the acquisition of the Town's hydro-electrical facility, it is my opinion that said property is part of a public utility. Therefore, the question of sale of the property and the terms of said sale must be submitted to the voters for approval. The agreement proposed by Estes Park Memorial Gardens, Inc. provides that the purchase price for the property will be $10.00. Article XI, Section 2 of the Colorado Constitution provides that the Town cannot give aid to a public or private corporation. The sale of the property to the cemetery corpora- tion for less than fair market value would be a violation of this Section. If the Town determines that it wishes to sell the property to the cemetery corporation, it is my opinion that prior to submitting the question of said sale to the voters, the cemetery corporation first obtain the necessary approval from the County for a cemetery. This would include rezoning of the property and approval of the necessary County health authorities for the location of a cemetery in the area proposed. I . . . Dale G. Hill July 16, 1985 Page Two If you have any questions, do not hesitate to give me a call. V,74.y truly yours, l r Full ~ Gr~gory A. White GAW:lb f O AGREEMENT Estes Valley Memorial Gardens, Inc., a non-profit cemetery corporation formed for the purpose of providing a burial facility or the Estes Valley area, for burial for both whole-body and cremated remains, and open to all persons, and to those of all faiths or beliefs, on an equal basis, party of the first part, and the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, party of the second part, have on this date of , 1985 agreed as follows: Whereas first party seeks, as a non-profit corporation, to perform a valuable service to the local area, and second party has a tract of real estate described as believed to be in all respects suitable for cemetery purposes of the type sought to be established and operated by first party. NOW THEREFORE, second party agrees to sell and convey to first party, and first party agrees to buy, the real property described above for all of the following considerations, namely: a. The sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) in cash payable immediately, b. The promiseof first party to maintain and operate said cemetery in perpetuity and without cost to the Town of Estes Park or the public, excepting only appropriate costs and charges to the users thereof, c. The prbmise of first party to pay second party the sum of Twenty-five ($25.00) for each burial in said cemetery at the time such burial occurs, d. The Covenant by first party to reconvey the land described above, together with all improvements then located thereon, to second party for the total sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) in the event, if ever, that second party might elect to undertake to maintain and operate said cemetery. In such event first party would also transfer to second party all of its money and assets of every kind including sole control of the trust fund for the perpetual maintenance of the cemetery, and all on the following terms and conditions: 1. That first party proceeds in a timely manner to obtain the approval of said premises as a site for a cemetery from all public boards and agencies having authority in such cases, 2. That such Cemetery be perpetually available to persons of all faiths and beliefs and persuasions on an equal basis and for full-body burial and burial or storage of cremated remains, . I . . 3. That second party shall have, and hereby and in its deed of conveyance reserves, in perpetuity, the right to require a re-conveyance of the premises, and all improvements then located thereon, and also the transfer to second party of all of first party's money and assets of every kind and nature, all for a consideration in the total sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and in addition thereto upon the express condition that second party bind itself to the perpetual maintenance and operation of the same substantially along the lines of its at that time "past" operation thereof by first party, and 4. Second party shall have the option of requiring the unconditional reconveyance from first party if first party is unable to acquire the necessary permits and approval required to permit the use of said premises for ceme- tery purposes within year(s) from the date of second party's conveyance of such property to first party. Signed and entered into this day of , 1985. ESTES VALLEY MEMORIAL GARDENS, INC. By President Attest: TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By July 12, 1985 Mr. F.G. Winters General Delivery Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mr. Winters, As per our phone conversation of July 12, 1985. lili be glad to give you my thoughts on the matter we discussed. I am putting this on plain paper instead of the letterhead of the company for which I am employed. I haven't taken the time to contact my superiors, and I want to make clear the opinions expressed are mine, as an individual. First of all, I have no knowledge whatsoever of the people involved in proposing a new cemetery for Estes Park. Following are some of the items that should be considered: Population: I have just phoned the Estes Park Chamber of Commerce and was informed that the permanent population (other than tourists) is between 2,800 and 4,000. To give the promoters the benefit of the doubt, let's say 4,000. Would an average of 2 children per family be a good estimate? if so, that means 1,000 families. Before I make the next poinT let me say this, a new cemetery depends, financially on pre-need sales. Now, we have 1,000 families. I don't know the figure, but I would say that if 20% of a population purchases on a pre-need basis, that figure would be high. 20% of 1,000 families means 200 sales of 2 spaces per family. (parents do not purchase for children, except on very rare occasions.) I don't know what price the promoters are going to ask, but in areas similar to Estes Park, property sells anywhere from $50.00 to $200.00 per space. But lets stretch a point and say they ask $300.00 per space. Now we have 200 sales of 2 spaces each,(one for husband and one for wife). This would be 400 spaces @ $300.00 per space, for a total of $120,000.00. Trust fund: The state of Colorado requires that 15% of all property sales is to be placed in an irrevocable trust fund. That means $18,000.00 would be placed in trust, provided that 400 were sold. Intrest from Trust fund: What percentage of interest would a trust of this amount earn? At 10% this would mean $1,800.00 per year to maintain enough I :P developed and landscaped property for 200 families. This $1,800.00 would cover the salary for a caretaker for a month and a half or two months out of the year. Besides his salary, plus his full or part time staff, there is irr¢gation, mowing, maintaining flower beds, snow removal and numerous other items. If proposed cemetery does not come under Colorado perpetual care laws, a similar trust fund would have to be established. What plans have been made for this? Where is the water table? Far enough down to permit opening a grave to the proper depth? Any rocks in the area? Or better yet, is there any location in the area with- out rocks? I grew up in Evergreen, Colorado, an area very similar to Estes Park. Many times, as a boy, I witnessed the difficulty of opening graves in mountain cemeteries. In addition to the above items, here are some more things to consider. How many deaths per year in Estes Park? bow many of these would be buried in Estes Park and how many shi pped back to their original homes? In addition to pre-need sales, the at-need sales would be the only revenue. These are just some of the reasons why there are no new cemeteries being started anywhere unless there is a city population of 50,000 to 100,000 with a trade area drawing 150,000to 200,000. There are smaller cemeteries all over the country for sale all the time, because promoters went into areas and milked what little population there was and when pre-need sales reached a saturation point, they were and are in real trouble. I hope the city fathers of Estes Park realize that even though things look good for 6 months to a year, the honeymoon could end, and the taxpayers might end up owning a problem that they didn't want in the first place. Also, check thoroughly the background and experience of the people involved in the promotion of the cemetery. In closing, let me tell you of an experience I had involving some people who wanted to start a cemetery in Estes Park back in the mid sixties. I was with my present company at the time, at Sunset Memorial Gardens in Greeley. A man by the name of Harry Taylor came to me and told me he had financial backing to start a cemetery in Estes Park. He asked me if I would be interested in managing it and promoting sales. I hadn't known Mr. Taylor very long, so I asked him the name of his backer. He told me(I cannot remember his name. He was a retired foot doctor from somewhere back east. A real nice fellow.) I checked Mr. Taylor out, and found out that he was interested only in getting his hands on some money, selling what we could, and leaving the investor with a cemetery on his hands. I promptly told Mr. Taylor what he could do with his offer to me. I had met the doctor only one time. I phoned the doctor and told him that I was out of the deal, and I told him why. He thanked me for letting him know, and he sent Mr. Taylor on his way. I don't mean to insinuate, by any means that the promoters involved in your present plan are trying to put anythin over on anyone. As I said before, I don't even know who they are. I have been in cemetery sales and management for 34 years. The company I represent has a cemetery in Loveland, where I am presently employed. There is no comflict of interest involved in this letter because we have very few people from Estes Park who use our services. In fact, I can't even remember the last one. Those who come to Loveland usually use the Loveland City Cemetery. I understand that others go to Longmont, Denver, and Boulder. I hope this is what you wanted. If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, 1 4 4 1 ~ A © / l /1 -,r, RRD ·~-' LJ~ -4 1 / 71- U., 4»,·u r I Haltobd>/v. Farrenkopt I ~1 2218 Cameo Ave. Loveland, CO 80537 (303) 667-8029 cc: Steven Francis, atty. .1 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR PARKING Introduction Parking in the Estes Park downtown business area has been seen as a problem for many years. The EPURA Plan addresses parking in the downtown area, recommending structured parking combined with outlying parking and a transportation system. However, at this time, structured parking cannot be recommended because of cost, and, a transportation system is not practical. Therefore, EPURA's efforts were directed to evaluating close-in parking. Approximately twenty potential locations in the immediate area, both surface and structured parking, were considered. The criteria used for final selection were: location, size, cost and balance of distribution within the District. One basic assumption made was that pedestrians will indeed walk, with 70% of people willing to walk 500 feet. In fact, the average American commuter walks over 800 feet from car to work. Project Description Based on criteria of selection, three primary locations are recommended as potential parking sites. These are the Birch-Bikle property, the "Old Lumberyard" and the "Coal Company". The Birch-Bikle property is located to the north of the Municipal Building and consists of approximately six (6) acres. Black Canyon Creek flows through the property and will be preserved as greenspace. This lot will be connected to downtown by a pedestrian plaza at the southwest corner of the lot and a similar plaza at the northeast corner of Bond Park. Lighting of Park Lane will encourage nighttime usage of this lot. This will also encourage redevelopment of the commercial buildings on Park Lane. A total of 170 spaces can be built on this location. The Old Lumberyard property is located to the immediate west of the Spruce House on West Elkhorn. The Town already owns a portion of this proposed site. This lot can be tied-to the downtown through the Riverfront Park and by itself, will offer visitors a riverwalk experience. A total of 95 spaces can be built on this site. Present retail space will remain. The Coal Company lot is located at the west end of Cleave Street and is adjacent to an existing lot. This acquisition will allow better utilization of the existing lot, allow the existing lot to conform to new zoning requirements for parking lots and, it will remove an Urban Renewal Plan identified blight. Its location, across the river from Riverfront Park and the pedestrian bridge accesses, will link this lot to the downtown area. An additional 22 spaces can be added to this location. These three lots will provide approximately 287 new spaces. All lots are within close walking distance of the downtown area. Project Cost The estimated total project cost ranges from $1.5 to $1.7 million, depending upon the variables of land acquisition and construction costs. Assessments are based on a $1.5 million bond issue. Assumption 1) The SID boundary will coincide with the CD District boundary. 2) Vacant land will not be assessed. 3) A fee for new demand caused by redevelopment will continue to be included in zoning (legally required). 4) Existing building square footage was obtained from the County Assessor's Office. METHODOLOGY Option 1 This assessment methodology is built upon the adopted C-D zoning and related parking demand. Since building square footage is the proposed assessment basis, a method of creating a system of credits for provided parking plus a system of adjusting square footage areas based on zoning standards for parking demand had to be developed. According to the zoning ordinance (17.40.010): Other offices, service establishments, and retail businesses: parking space per 200 square feet gross floor area but not fewer than three spaces per separate enterprise. Restaurant: one parking space per 2-1/2 persons seating capacity. Dwellings: Two parking spaces for each dwelling unit therein, except one parking space for each dwelling unit having fewer than two bedrooms. Places of public assembly: one parking space for each three persons capacity based on the Uniform Building Code. Hotels, motels, other commercial accommodations: one parking space for each guest unit, plus one parking space for each eight units or fraction thereof. The basic measurement unit for retail space demand in the zoning is 200 square feet (one space per 200 square feet). However, for a restaurant, the parking requirement is one space per 2-1/2 persons seating capacity, which is a much greater parking demand than the -2- one space per 200 square feet. To adjust for this, the following method was used: The number of seats in a restaurant was divided by 2.5 to give the number of parking spaces required for that use. The space demand was multiplied by 200 square feet to produce the equivalent adjusted square footage of that restaurant (i.e., the square footage that would create a parking demand equal to the restaurant parking demand). The same methodology was used to determine the demand for theatres which fall under the places of public assembly demand or one space per three people. The same process was used as above to arrive at an adjusted building square footage. Option 2 In this case, a flat assessment is levied across the entire C-D area, regardless of current use. This means all retail and residential will pay the same assessment per square foot of gross floor area. This option will require a re-write of the parking section of the zoning for the C-D area to ensure that future development/change of use is not unfairly penalized by having to pay double. Option 3 This could be a combination of the best of both options which could legally stand the test. We would have to have our SID bond attorney verify any scheme proposed. Parking Credit Provided on-property parking is credited, based on each space being equal to 200 square feet of building. Since the parking to be provided by the District is built to the new zoning standards and is non-restrictive in nature (except for handicapped parking), the present paved spaces are credited at 50% and unpaved at 25%. This can be best illustrated by the following example: A 2,000 square foot building has four paved parking places. The four spaces times 200 square feet equals 800 square feet. A 50% credit reduces that to 400 square feet. This is subtracted from the 2,000 square foot building so that only 1,600 square feet of building will be assessed. Parking space credit was based on actual counts of spaces and observations and field measurements by Staff. Stacked parking (one car permanently parked behind another without exit space) is credited as only one space, except at drive-in windows at banks, where drivers remain in their cars. Assessments The assessment is calculated by totaling the total square footage within the C-D under Option 1. The total would include the adjusted -3- square footage figure. Under Option 2, all residential would be included. To determine the assessment per property, the building square footage (or adjusted square footage) would be divided by total adjusted square footage, within the C-D, which would be multiplied by the size of the bond issue ($1.5 million) to give the assessment. Conclusion The concept of funding the building of new parking by use of a Special Improvement District is valid and proper. The parking areas selected provide, in the opinion of EPURA Commissioners and Staff, the best parking locations for the dollar investment. We encourage the Public Works Committee to evaluate the funding options. The great unknown in this process is the cost of the project; however, if costs rise above projected figures, the project size can be suitably scaled back to meet the budget. EPURA requests approval of this project. 7/17/85 -4- PROCEDURES FOR FORMING A SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT St-eR Action 1 Town Board adopts a resolution of intent to create the district and construct improvements. The resolution describes the project and identifies a cost estimate which will not be exceeded. The resolution will set a date for a hearing on creating the District. 2 Town Clerk will give notice of the hearing to create the District by: (1) mailing the notice by 1st elass mail to each property owner, and (2) publishing the notice in the local paper at least 15 days prior to the hearing. 3 Town Board conducts a public hearing on creating the District at which time all affected parties are heard. 4 After closing the hearing, the Town adopts a resolution creating the District. 5 Persons opposing the District have 30 days in which they ean legally challenge the District' creation. 6 At the end of the 30 day challenge period Bonds are sold to finance the project. 7 The Town adopts a Bond Ordinance 8 The Bond issue is closed providing money to construct the project. . TIMETABLE OF EVENTS Activity Responsibility Projected Date July 18 (1) Staff meets with Public Works Committee to explain costs and benefits of the project. EPURA Staff (2) Committee recommends approval, denial or modification of proposal P.W. Cmte. July 23 (1) Committee recommendation is made to the Town Board P.W. Cmte. (2) Town Board accepts, modifies, or rejects Committee recommendation. If approved, process of creating district begins Town Board July 29-Aug. 2 Staff conducts public information meeting EPURA Staff to explain cost and benefits of the project and to media, property owners and public KM & Co. Aug. 5-7 Bond attorney prepares resolution of Intent Lamm to create district Edstrom August 13 Town Board adopts resolution of intent to Town Board create district and directs the Clerk to give notice of hearing August 16 (1) Notice of Hearing appears in the Gazette Clerk (2) Notices are mailed to property owners Clerk September 10 (1) Hearing on creation of district is held Town Board (2) Resolution creating the district is Town Board adopted as prepared by Bond Counsel October 10 30 day challenge period ends October 14 Bondsare sold KM & Co. October 22 Bond ordinance is adopted Town Board October 28 Bond issue is closed; funds provided KM & Co. for construction $1,500,000 ' ESTES PARK, COLORADO 0 · SPECIAL ASSESSMENT IMPROVMENT DISTRICT LEVEL DEBT FIFTEEN YEAR MATURITY SCHEDULE AS OF OCTOBER 1,1985 DATE PRINCIPAL COUPON INTEREST TOTAL ANNUAL 4/01/1986 72218.75 72218.75 10/01/1986 50000 7.000 72218.75 122218.75 194437.50 4/01/1987 70468.75 70468.75 10/01/1987 55000 7.500 70468.75 125468.75 195937.50 4/01/1988 68406.25 68406.25 10/01/1988 60000 8.000 68406.25 128406.25 196812.50 4/01/1989 66006.25 66006.25 10/01/1989 65000 8.500 66006.25 131006.25 197012.50 4/01/1990 63243.75 63243.75 10/01/1990 70000 8.750 63243.75 133243.75 196487.50 4/01/1.991 60181.25 60181.25 10/01/1991 75000 9.000 60181.25 135181.25 195362.50 4/01/1992 56806.25 56806.25 10/01/1992 80000 9.250 56806.25 136806.25 193612.50 4/01/1993 53106.25 53106.25 10/01/1993 90000 9.500 53106.25 143106.25 196212.50 4/01/1994 48831.25 48831.25 10/01/1994 100000 9.750 48831.25 148831.25 197662.50 4/01/1995 43956.25 43956.25 10/01/1995 110000 10.000 43956.25 153956.25 197912.50 4/01/1996 38456.25 38456.25 10/01/1996 120000 10.000 38456.25 158456.25 196912.50 4/01/1997 32456.25 32456.25 10/01/1997 135000 10.250 32456.25 167456.25 199912.50 4/01/1998 25537.50 25537.50 10/01/1998 150000 10:250 25537.50 175537.50 201075.00 4/01/1999 17850.00 17850.00 10/01/1999 165000 10.500 17850.00 182850.00 200700.00 4/01/2000 9187.50 9187.50 10/01/2000 175000 10.500 9187.50 184187.50 193375.00 TOTALS 1453425.00 2953425.00 2953425.00 1500000 ACC INT: :00 RATE: BOND YES: 14505.00 AVE LIFE: 9.6700 0£*- 4 01¥5' I 2/ lit fi \I 11 4644 li IL 11 11*>ex = 6-112* \ f. 1..1 7 L jiw.72 *13-6 L sco Clin 6. H,-yt £ 6 -f 61.--ta»-1 +c,-oj>·-Ct-f, (£1- -y«- r-2-·•4+ *re- VAA-*-'- 4 1 6-r L ¢ 2 ' 6£ 02 £14--1 trJL- I ta- &1-£-d- c -+ 6> t u- f./.4 - f 4 6. 61 44- L -l.-,-- 3 6--f-€ -crz- Ed -lk L.-~ FuL , 46--2 21 * RECEIVED J' L I 1985 lown of Estes Park Tom Admaa##RE Box 1820 Estes Park. Colorado 80517 'Lorvici.44 ' I ESTES PARK FIRE DEPARTMENT (Volunteer) Estes Park, Colorado 80517 DATE: June 27, 1985 TO: Public Safety Committee Town of Estes Park SUBJECT: Fire Department Training Facility -PROPOSAL- It is the concensus of the members of the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department, that having a facility where potential fire and rescue situations can be staged would be of great benefit to the community. Such a facility would allow "hands on" practice to augment classroom instruction and would add to the readiness, efficiency, and safety of the Department in handling actual emergencies. The lack of such a facility has been cited in past inspections of fire protection in our community. The following is an outline of facilities which would be required, together with site facilities; FIRE TRAINING BUILDING: A one-story concrete building, 20 to 30 feet square, in which various fire situations could be simulated. Actual fires would be started and extinguished. TRAINING TOWER: Approximately 40 feet high, 12 to 15 feet square, with several platforms to simulate floors of a structure. To be used for ladder drills and practice of rescue from structures. FLAMMABLE LIQUID PIT: A shallow sand-filled pit, 10 to 12 ADEl-- in diameter in which fires would be started and extinguished to simulate spilled flammable liquid situations FLAMMABLE LIQUID TANK TRUCKS: An old tank truck on and around which fires would be started and extinguished. LIQUID PROPANE GAS TANK TRUCKS: Same use as stated above for Flammable Liquid Tank Trucks. LIQUID PROPANE GAS STORAGE TANKS: Same as stated above. -PROPOSAL- Page 2 LIQUID PROPANE GAS FIRE TREE: An apparatus of piping approximately 6 feet high and 6 feet wide with which open Liquid Propane gas fires are simulated. AUTOMOBILES: One or two vehicles which fire fighting and rescue can be practiced. In considering necessary space for the above facilities, room must be allowed around each to manuever equipment and men. -SITE CONSIDERATIONS- WATER SUPPLY: A reasonalbe distance from hydrant. ACCESSABILITY: In any weather. DISTANCE FROM FIRE STATION: In case of a fire call, equipment left at the station can be activated in a reasonable amount of time. NEIGHBORS: Consider the impact of smoke, noise, danger, distraction, etc. STREAM CONTAMINATION: Can drainage of water used be controlled. From observation of training facilities of other departments, we feel that three or four acres would be adequate, although a larger area would be more desireable, considering future needs are difficult to identify. The cost of the physical items and improvements could be held to a minimum by using donated labor and materials. In closing, we urge your serious consideration to this matter. Sincerely, Jack Rumley Fire Chief Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department JR/tjr