Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 1999-02-23Prepared 2/18/99 The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to plan and provide reliable, high-value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community by being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, February 23, 1999 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT: TOWN BOARD COMMENTS: 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Town Board Minutes dated February 9, 1999. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Light & Power, February 11, 1999 - Approval of: 1. Prospect Mountain Lease Agreement (Radio Equipment). B. Public Works, February 18, 1999 - Approval of Budget Expenditures: 1. Confluence Park/Riverside Dr. Retaining Wall Design & Construction Management Scope of Services. 2. Western Bypass Feasibility Study Scope of Services. 3. 1999 Water Main Replacement Project Design & Construction Management Scope of Services. 4. Gate Replacement (2)/Town Shop Facilities. 5. Municipal Building Telephone System Y2K Upgrade. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Presentation of Upper Front Range Transportation Plan - Larimer County Commissioner Jim Disney and Bob Felsberg. 2. Presentation of proposed RMNP Wilderness Designation - Tim Divine/RMNP. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: A Presentation of 1999 Organizational Chart. B. Sales Tax Report. Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 9, 1999 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the gth day of February 1999. Meeting called to order by Mayor Robert L. Dekker. Present: Robert L. Dekker, Mayor Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Trustees Jeff Barker John Baudek George J. Hix Lori Jeffrey Also Present: Rich Widmer, Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: William J. Marshall, Trustee Mayor Dekker opened the meeting at 7:00p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS: Trustee Baudek noted that during the 2/4/99 Public Safety Committee Meeting, Judge Brown presented the Municipal Court's Annual Report and advised that Maryella Pearson has served as the Municipal Court Clerk for 29 years, 9 months, and, in that time period, she has not missed one court appearance. The Board congratulated Ms. Pearson on this achievement. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Town Board Minutes dated January 26, 1999. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, January 28, 1999 - Approval of: 1. Standard Contracts/Agreements a) Colorado Arabian Horse Club, 6/30-7/4/99 b) 1999 Christmas Parade with Connie Boschen c) EVRPD In-Line Skating in Barn W 2. Stanley Park Multi-Use Field - Survey work, design & bid. Board of Trustees - February 9, 1999 - Page 2 B. Public Safety, February 4, 1999 - Approval of: 1. Two Patrol Vehicles from Rains Motor Co. for total price of $32,618.00. 2. Wildland Fire Truck Leasing Program w/State Forest Service, $200/yr. (Fire. Dept.). 4. Planning Commission Minutes, January 19, 1999 (acknowledgment only). 5. Amended Plat of the Crags Subdivision, Lots 1 and 2 of the Replat of Lots 14 and 15, Thomas and Terri Barry/Applicants - Continue to March 9,1999. 6. Resolution #5-99 - Setting the public hearing date of March 9, 1999 for a New Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License Application filed by F & I, Inc., dba GONZO'S MEXICAN FOOD, 401 S. St. Vrain Ave. It was moved and seconded (HiWDoylen) the consent calendar be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. EPURA Action Plan - Presentation bv Chairman Putnev and EPURA Executive Director Anderson. Chairman Putney reviewed EPURA's history, beginning with the July 15, 1982 Flood. When the Estes Park Downtown Redevelopment Program was adopted May 24, 1983, the following three purposes were identified: * Through new commercial development-redevelopment, new opportunities will be provided to strengthen Estes Park's economic base and allow for the full economic development potential of the redevelopment area. * To effectively develop and enhance the natural beauty of the streams and rivers flowing through the downtown Estes Park area, while at the same time, providing for more effective flood protection measures. * To eliminate the existing conditions of both economic and physical blight which occur in various forms throughout the project area... These conditions aggravate existing traffic problems and in many instances, impair the improvement of traffic circulation and facilities. (emphasis added) At this time, the Urban Renewal Authority is presenting, for the Town Board's endorsement, a Plan of Action for the next nine years; the remaining life of the Authority. This Plan continues the work successfully pursued in the past. The Plan's components share three over-riding characteristics. Each component addresses the challenge of traffic volume, flow, and parking; the further enhancement of sales tax revenues, and the continued beautification of the area. All of the Plan's Board of Trustees - February 9, 1999 - Page 3 components are complementary, and promise a synergy that will benefit both residents and visitors. This program represents a strong commitment to continuing the work successfully completed in the past. It is not a departure from past endeavors of the Authority, and components share an over-riding characteristic, that is, addressing the challenge of accommodating the safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians while enhancing the Town's economy. Estes Park realizes improved services, attractive and enjoyable physical attributes such as landscaping and parks, and a very favorable property tax structure are attributable to a strong sales tax revenue stream. Failure to maintain and enhance sales tax revenues has obvious implications in the form of either reduced services and a diminished quality of life, or higher property taxes. The Action Plan of the Urban Renewal Authority enhances and improves the sales tax economic base, while working to diminish the impact of traffic on the community. The following programs are the basis of future EPURA work projects: * Mountain Discovery Center. This project will beautify the area adjacent to the Highway 34-36 Intersection. It will have approximately 400 parking spaces plus 5 bus spaces outside the primary traffic corridor of Elkhorn Ave. The Big Thompson River will have beautification equal to Riverside Plaza. The Theater Project will generate, through a seat fee, a cash flow that will be utilized for funding a people mover; a transit system that will reduce · traffic volumes, yet provide convenient access to the downtown area. The implementation of this project will enhance the Town's image and accomplish EPURA's major goals of improving traffic movement and circulation, and creating pedestrian areas linked to downtown and provides essential funding to start a sustainable transit project. It is EPURA's belief that without this revenue source, a successful transit system will not be possible. + Phase 4 West Riverwalk.. This project will continue the successful downtown Riverwalk from Moraine Ave. to the Town- owned property north of West- Park Center. The project is approximately one-half mile long, and it will involve walkways, fish pools, water drops, and pedestrian amenities as found on the east portion of the Riverwalk. This development will provide opportunities for adjacent property owners to redevelop f the south side facades and add new opportunities. This project will invigorate West Elkhorn and meet the Authority goal of linking outlying west parking lots with the downtown. Board of Trustees - February 9, 1999 - Page 4 + Parking/Transportation/Pedestrian Links. This program in many respects glues together . the previously discussed items. This project will develop the Master Plan of all parking, transportation and walkways that · link. together the destination nodes. For example, this project willexamine the Knoll, Willows, and Bickle properties, along with Bond Park and Parcel 8 of the Stanley Historic District, to determine how pedestrian and transportation linkages can be developed among those locations. Questions such as the future decking of the Weist Parking Lot to increase capacity would be explored simultaneously with the Weit Riverwalk development so that the Riverwalk environment would not be impacted. Safe bicycle passage through Town needs to be explored. This project would evolve to actual implementation of projects. + Opportunities. There exists a continuing open door policy to new ideas concerning downtown public/private partnerships. EPURA intends to continue this policy and will consider new projects on their merit. The Authority remains committed to the concepts of pedestrian scale, mixed use, density transfers and infill, and the development of expanded housing opportunities throughout its Action Plan. These programs were selected because they fulfill the basic need of the community to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion. The projects are also economic development projects because they provide the infrastructure that Will encourage private development/redevelopment. The implementation of these major programs will require the Authority's full dedication and effort, and the EPURA Board has made this commitment. Chairman Putney requested the Town Board endorse EPURA's Action Plan as presented. Trustee Baudek requested clarification that the Board was approving the "concept." Chairman Putney responded that yes, EPURA is in a fact-finding stage on all four projects to gather facts on feasibility, cost, improved utilization of the center core, etc. Chairman Putney also confirmed that linkage of the trail system is being reviewed with potential networking to the Bickle property-review does not include any development. Trustee Doylen commented on the linkage possibilities for the trail system, adding that EPURA's role in facilitating opportunities is admirable. Trusted Hix commended the Forward Estes Park Foundation for their assistance in ·writing the original EPURA Redevelopment Plan. Mayor Dekker noted that it is important to explore the Mountain Discovery Center, and linking the trail system to the west. Town Administrator Widmer stated that the projects on this Board of Trustees - February 9, 1999 - Page 5 Plan as well as previous projects, are an indication of what can happen when a group is focused, and EPURA intends to continue this focused attitude to continue with the Plan. If the "economic engine" is not the Mountain Discovery Center, it could be something else; EPURA is charged not only with beautification or bricks and mortar-the economic engine is the core of their existence. Administrator Widmer confirmed he is pleased to serve on the EPURA Board. Trustee Hix added that due to EPURA, economics have improved, and EPURA has one of the best bond ratings of any Urban Renewal Authority in the State. Mayor Dekker noted that Palm Springs has become complacent, and are in jeopardy of losing their reputation-Estes Park is fortunate to maintain a pro-active stance in the market place. Trustee Doylen stated that the Action Plan is not only a 9 or 20-year investment, it is a continuing investment. Following conclusion of discussion, it was moved and seconded (HiWDoylen) the Board of Trustees endorse EPURA's Plan of Action, as presented, and it passed unanimously. 2. A. New Liquor Store License Application filed bv Paul Sauerzoph, dba ROCKY MOUNTAIN HIGH DISCOUNT LIQUOR, 308 E. Elkhorn Ave. (previous conditional approval for 214 E. Elkhorn Ave. is now void). Mayor Dekker opened the public hearing and Clerk O'Connor reported that the Board of Trustees previously granted conditional approval (lease) of a liquor store at 214 E. Elkhorn Ave. (La Casa Building). As both parties could not reach agreement on the lease, the applicant resubmitted his application for 308 E. Elkhorn Ave. (Range Realty Bldg.). Staff confirmed that the application is in order. Mr. Sauerzoph commented on the previous application, and confirmed that a new location was leased and the proper documentation had been filed. Trustee Baudek noted that ·the Town Board does take liquor licensing seriously; Mr. Sauerzoph concurred. Trustee Jeffrey questioned whether Mr. Sauerzoph had any access concerns; the Applicant believes there may only be a minor access problem with one vendor, and he believes his business will have significant walk-in traffic. There being no further testimony, Mayor Dekker declaredthe public hearing closed. Stating that the .Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood and that the desires of the adult inhabitants are for the granting of this liquor license, it was moved and seconded (Hix/Jeffrey) the New Retail Liquor Store License Application filed by Paul Sauerzoph, dba ROCKY MOUNTAIN HIGH DISCOUNT LIQUOR be approved, and it passed unanimously. B. Special Event Liquor Permit filed bv the Friends of the Estes Park Area Historical Museum, Inc., for public receptions scheduled March 19, May 7, Julv 2, and November 19, 1999. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Jeffrey) the Special Event Permit for Friends of the Estes Park Area Historical Museum be approved, and it passed unanimously. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: , Board of Trustees - February 9, 1999 - Page 6 A. None. 4. EXECUTIVE SESSION: A. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Hix) the Board of Trustees enter Executive Session to discuss Property Negotiations and Personnel Matters, and it passed unanimously. Trustee Hix stated that discussion, not action, will be taken by the Board during the Executive Session. The motion passed unanimously. Following completion of all agenda items, Mayor Dekker adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 7:30 p.m. Mayor Dekker reconvened the meeting at 8:40 p.m., it was moved and seconded (Doylen/Jeffrey) the meeting be adjourned, and it passed unanimously. Trustee Doylen stated there were no decisions made during the Executive Session. Robert L. Dekker, Mayor Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk . 'RAD/ORD ./.LISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Light and Power Committee February 11, 1999 Committee: Chairman Hix, Trustees Barker and Jeffrey Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer, Light and Power Director Matzke, Deputy Clerk van Deutekom Chairman Hix called the meeting to·order at 8:00 a.m. Electric Rate for Short Term Rental Properties Director Matzke reported that in January 1994, the Town Board approved a water rate ordinance that included in its definition of commercial water customers, a dwelling unit that is rented out for a billing period of less than 30 days. In May of 1994, the Town Board adopted the same definition for commercial electric customers. Under the Town's current water and electric rate ordinance, a short term rental property must be billed on a commercial rate. Staff requests that the definitions of commercial customers be reaffirmed and that the definitions presented be added to the Light and Power Department Policy and Procedure Manual. The Committee recommends of the definitions to the Light and Power Policy and Procedure Manual. Director Matzke noted that the Town Clerk's Office began issuing business licenses to short term (less than 30 days) rental properties in January 1999 and this type of license is processed in exactly the same manner as B&B's. Since that time two questions have arisen: should these properties be billed on the Town's commercial rate; and should properties remain on the commercial rate year round if they are operated as short term rentals for a portion of the year. Public comments regarding these questions were heard from Sarah Rhodes, Ponderosa Realty; Annie Racine, Range Realty; and Judy Anderson, Anderson Realty and Management. Staff discussion followed regarding the application process, billing issues, treatment of existing categories, and the difference between the commercial and residential deposits. Concerns were raised regarding the impact of possible billing changes to the short term category. The Committee directed staff to review the current billing procedures, including commercial/residential deposits, and report possible options. Staff will follow the current short term licensing procedure and those customers will be billed on the commercial rate. Prospect Mountain Lease Agreement Director Matzke presented the Prospect Mountain Lease Agreement for radio equipment that is currently being reviewed by Town Attorney White. The Lessors are agreeable to continuing the terms of the previous agreement. The Committee recommends approval of the agreement as presented. Meadowdale Hills Three Phase Conversion - Change Order Request The Light & Power Department has received a change order request from TSI, Inc. for removal of 9,385' of cable on the Meadowdale Hills Three Phase Conversion project. This work was bid separately and not included in the original scope of work. The total amount of the request is $3,284.75, which will be funded from the 1999 Capital Budget. The work was performed at the request of the Town and ESC and the contractor is billing the work at the per unit bid price. The Committee recommends approval of the change order request as stated. BRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Light and Power Committee, February 11, 1999 - Page 2 REPORTS Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) Report: PRPA has not had a board meeting since the last Light and Power Committee meeting. Director Matzke reported receipt of a $45,000 lease payment from PRPA. Platte River has leased a portion of its fiber in Ft. Collins, Loveland, and now Estes Park to ICG, which is a retail telephone service provider. Director Matzke noted that the lease payment amount is revenue for the Light and Power Department. A recommendation will be made at a future Committee meeting for use of these funds, which will require a budget amendment. Financial Report: The December income statement was reviewed. Director Matzke noted that the January energy purchase was up from previous January energy purchases. Project Updates: Director Matzke reported the Park Lane underground cable has been energized and staff is in the process of removing the poles and installing streetlights. A Fall River Hydro update will be presented at the March meeting. The Christmas twinkle lights will be removed after Valentine's Day. Staff anticipates a final change order request for the lights in March. There being no further business, Chairman Hix adjourned the meeting at 9:00 a.m. '*?vam /@duWAW Rebecca van Deutekom, Deputy Town Clerk L . BRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee February 18, 1999 Committee: Chairman Baudek, Trustees Barker and Jeffrey Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer, Public Works Director Linnane, Clerk O'Connor Absent: None Chairman Baudek called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. CONFLUENCE PARK/RIVERSIDE DRIVE RETAINING WALL - REQUEST APPROVAL OF SCOPE OF SERVICES. The Public Works Department budgeted $50,000 to build a retaining wall to stabilize the road and river embankment adjacent and south of the bridge at Riverside Drive. The new wall will improve safety and prevent further erosion of the river bank and road subgrade. Director Linnane presented the design and construction management scope of services from Van Horn Engineering. Phase I includes a cost estimate and Phase 11 includes bidding construction to receive actual costs. If either phase determines that the $50,000 budget is inadequate, the project can be reassessed and postponed if necessary. If, after the 2~d phase, prices are found too high, the scope of services can be delayed to next year's budget Bill Van Horn clarified that due to erosion damage, the project area has expanded, and that work in the river requires a permit from the Army Corp of Engineers. Due to the expanded construction scope, staff anticipates that bids will exceed the budget. This is a difficult site, and management of traffic, construction materials, etc. must be clarified. The Committee recommends approval of the Design and Construction Management Scope of Services from Van Horn Engineering in the amount of $10,590.00, with the bids being submitted to the Committee for further review. WESTERN BYPASS FEASIBILITY STUDY - REQUEST APPROVAL OF SCOPE OF SERVICES. The Town budgeted $20,000 for a Western Bypass Feasibility Study. The Town has also requested that construction of the bypass be included in CDOTs North Front Range Transportation Plan (NFRTP). The request to CDOT includes the fact that the Town would be performing a feasibility study. The study would result in alternative locations for the bypass, including estimated costs. Not only will this study be important for the NFRTP, it also will be very important for future Town planning if the project is not funded. Van Hom Engineering submitted a Scope of Services in the amount of $19,940 (negotiated); the scope includes a detailed study researching approximate project alternatives that should give pertinent information to proceed with the project, a timeframe for completion of 90 days, and neighborhood group meetings. The Committee recommends approval of the Scope of Services submitted by Van Hom Engineering in the amount of $19,940.00. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - February 18, 1999 - Page 2 PROSPECT MOUNTAIN WATER TANK - REQUEST APPROVAL OF TANK DEED EXCHANGE. In 1998, the Town completed the water line connection between the Arapaho Estates water main and the Prospect Estates water main. This allowed water customers along Prospect Mountain to be serviced by the Marys Lake Plant tank rather than the old 60,000 gallon Prospect Mountain water tank. The Prospect Mountain tank now serves no purpose to the Town. John Heron, owner of the Prospect Mountain Water Company that services Venner Ranch, and Koral Heights, is requesting that the Town deed the tank to Prospect Mountain Water Company. This would reduce Town liability associated with the abandoned tank and also benefit Prospect's water users. Mr. Heron has agreed to disconnect and plug the Town's inlet water line to the tank, thus any Town liability would cease. Estimated construction costs for a new tank is approximately $60,000; however, Mr. Heron has no intention of building any new water tanks-the exchange of the existing tank is more convenient, and it will improve his system. Mr. Van Hom commented that this proposal makes use of property the Town intends to abandon, and the Owner will indemnify the Town. Mr. Van Hom has discussed the exchange with Town Attorney White, and there are no legal issues to be addressed. Mr. Heron is paying Mr. Van Hom's fees. In a separate issue, Mr. Van Horn informed the Committee that Mr. Heron also owns the top of Prospect Mountain and the Light and Power Committee recently recommended approval of a lease between both parties for the Town's radio equipment. As a "good gesture", Mr. Van Horn explained that Mr. Heron would increase the 5-yr. contract to a 10-yr. contract. Director Linnane clarified that if and when private water companies offer to sell their systems to the Town, the systems must be brought to Town standards-the Town is not in the market for a major capital investment of this nature. As both the Town and Prospect Mountain Water Company will benefit by the tank deed exchange, the Committee recommends approval contingent upon notification of this exchange with affected property owners. 1999 WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT - APPROVAL OF SCOPE OF SERVICES. The Town budgeted $100,000 for design and construction management to replace the following water lines in 1999: Fall River 12", Phase Big Hom Dr. 12", Phase 4 (aka Al Fresco Subdivision) Chiquita 6", Highway 7/Prospect Mountain RMC submitted a Scope of Services in the amount of $71,955 (negotiated) for easement preparation, design and construction management. The design and construction management scope represents 12.5% of the construction budget, which is within acceptable engineering standards. The Committee recommends approval of RMC's Scope of Services in the amount of $71,955 (includes design and construction management of the $20,000 Fire Hydrant Project). , BRADFORDPUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - February 18, 1999 - Page 3 TOWN SHOP FACILITIES GATE REPLACEMENT (2) - APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURE. Currently, three manual gates are being used at the Public Works and Light & Power Shop facilities, and these gates are being locked during non-work hours for yard security. When access to the shop area is required for duty personal, snow-plow personal and employees coming and leaving work, the opening and closing of the gates is becoming unsafe and not user friendly. Employees must park their vehicle on Elm Road while unlocking and locking gates, and, due to the traffic, the slope of the road and shop access area, a potential hazard arises for the person using the gate, especially during icy conditions. A team with Dave Mahany, serving as team leader, and members Roy Johnson, Daryl McCown and Tom Oldham, researched the gates, and are recommending replacing the lower (Light & Power) and middle (Public Works) gates with automatic gates with remote control and combination touch pads at a cost of $5,090.00/each. Light & Power personnel will install power lines to the gates, and an electrician will wire the openers. Staff confirmed that the gate replacement is a non-budgeted item; however, due to security and liability issues, staff was directed to review the issue and make a recommendation. Town Administrator Widmer noted that new construction would include the proposed gate system as standard equipment installation. Dave Mahany confirmed that 4-5 remotes/gate Would be required, and the estimated electrician fee is under $1,000. Light and Power will fund their portion of the project from their capital budget, and Public Works will transfer line item budgets (i.e. excess funds remaining from the Scope of Services from RMC for the Water Line Replacement Project) to accommodate this expenditure. Trustee Barker questioned whether approval of this expenditure would jeopardize other budgeted items, and that he prefers such items be budgeted. Staff responded that the budget could reasonably accommodate the expenditure. The Committee recommends approval of the request as specified and funded above, for a total expenditure of $10,180.00. MUNICIPAL BUILDING TELEPHONE SYSTEM Y2K UPGRADE - APPROVAL OF BUDGET EXPENDITURE. The Executone Telephone System was purchased in 1993 for $61,748.28, and it must be upgraded for Year 2000 compatibility. Executone has submitted an estimated scope of services to upgrade to Y2K at a price of $10,654.28. This phone system services all 12 Departments and 92 employees. Staff has investigated other options for Y2K upgrades, all of which are cost prohibitive. All other options require a telephone system replacement. A free phone switch was offered by PRPA however, it would require a new Voice Mail System and new telephones. Lucent Technologies estimated $70,000. The Town budgeted $15,000 for this project, and Executone's estimate is $10,654.28. Staff is requesting to proceed with the Y2K upgrade as proposed from Executone/Claricom. A contingency amount would be held should any unforeseen difficulties arise, and the work should be completed by June, 1999. Trustee Barker questioned whether Executone had identified what potential ramifications could occur without the upgrade? Staff will contact Executone on this question and advise the Town Board. BRADFORD PUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - February 18, 1999 - Page 4 The Committee recommends approval of the upgrade expenditure of $10,654.28, with staff providing the above-requested information. Due to time constraints, approval is not being withheld pending the requested additional information. REPORTS. The Customer Service Response Report for January 1999 was reviewed. The Accountable Water Report Update will be presented during the March meeting. Augmentation Plan Update. In February, Attorney White attended a status conference with the Water Court Magistrate. The hearing determined that that only the State has not responded to the Town's proposal. In order to move forward as quickly as possible, the attorney for the state requested the town draft a proposed decree. Attorney White intends to begin drafting the decree within the next few weeks, and a further status conference has been scheduled for April 13~h. Staff noted the importance of the Augmentation Plan as it relates to the Town's water rights. There being no further business, Chairman Baudek adjourned the meeting at 4:26 p.m. ~lf-Juj ©- th.auj Vickie O'Connor, CMC/AAE, Town Clerk Public Works :Engineering emo To: Public Works Committee Frorn: Greg Sievers CC: Bill Unnane Date: February 19,1999 Re: Telephone System Upgrade - Y2K I have attempted to summarize our finding to your question and Y2K in regards to the proposed Phone System Upgrade. We spoke with our account representative, Sue Miller at Executone, in length on Friday, February 19, 1999 1. Why wasn't our 1992 Phone system Y2K compatible? a) The hard drive is not compatible with Y2K dating. B) They did not have the CPU developed until 1997(Gateway & Dell didn't either) c) all models up to 1997 are not compatible. 2. Have Executone done test on the older systems? YES. The phone and voice mail system does not have the comprehension to understand the date ending in 2000. 3. What would happen if we didn't upgrade? The phones and voicemail WOULD continue to work just fine. They would not be able to time and date any sent or saved voice mails. The phones would not display the proper date. Any data reports needed in the future would not be possible. For Example: The system has memory. We can produce usage reports. That means, if called upon, the system can produce details like: total number of calls coming in and going out; from each of our phone numbers or any extension. Any future upgrades we would like to install will not be possible until the system is upgraded. OTHER PERTINANT INFORMATION 4. The cost of this upgrade is 'fb<ed'. There will be no further charges. It is a lump sum, for a turnkey product. 5. The L&P staff is researching an upgrade to a digital (T-1) service via a $45,000 revenue from a fiber optics lease payment. T-1 service results in a reduced rate per month in our line costs. The current phone and voicemail system will not be compatible with any upgrades of this nature. 6. L&P staff is also researching D.I.D. service. (Direct inward dialing) This will offer direct dialing from outside customer to an employee desk. Thereby reducing the switching through the operator. This service also requires Y2K compliant equipment 7. Any future expansion, such as updated desktop units, or feature enhancement to our system will require Y2K compliant equipment. 8. Inevitably, there will be future system enhancements. Therefore, it would be cost efficient to upgrade at this time. • Page 1 FELSBURG <1 HOLT & ULLEVIG engineering paths to transportation solutions February 10,1999 MEMORANDUM To: UFR TAC Members From: Debbie Zermuehlen/Jenny Halcomb Re: February 17 TAC meeting agenda and review items FHU Reference No. 98-182 In preparation for the TAC meeting on February 17, we have attached the agenda and several documents for you to review. 1. The Project Prioritization booklet. We have discussed some of the information within this at previous TAC meetings, and some is material we are submitting to you for the first time. This document will be used as the guideline for scoring and prioritizing the projects for the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan. Please review this; we will be finalizing this document based on your comments at the TAC meeting. 2. A draft set of the submitted projects. There is a separate list for each project category. Please review these lists to make sure that all of the appropriate projects have been included, and in the appropriate category. 3. The regional aviation project list was recently completed by CDOT's Division of Aeronautics. The cover letter, explanation of the prioritization categories and the list of projects are all attached for your review. 4. The Preferred List of highway projects from the 2015 plan. The table indicates if the project has been completed or is underway and if it is included in the proposed list of projects for the 2020 plan, the 2020 plan project number. If the project from the 2015 plan is not included in the list of proposed 2020 projects, or has not been identified as completed, it is denoted by an arrow out to the right side of the table. Please be prepared to discuss why you think each of these projects should or should not be included in the 2020 plan. 303.721.1440 fax 303.721.0832 fhu@fhueng.com Greenwood Corporate Plaza 7951 E. Maptewood Ave. Ste. 200 Englewood, CO 80111 IRADFOROPUILISMING CO· RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee January 21, 1999 Committee: Chairman Baudek, Trustees Barker and Jeffrey Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer, Public Works Director Linnane, Deputy Clerk van Deutekom Absent None Chairman Baudek called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. VEHICLE REPLACEMENT POLICY - APPROVAL. The Town currently maintains approximately 300 pieces of equipment. During the annual budget process, the Fleet Department recommends equipment replacement. The current replacement policy is unwritten, but has been consistent. Due to the large fleet size, staff developed General Vehicle Replacement Policy Guidelines to aid in the decision making process. Staff reported that the costs outlined in the guidelines were comparable to other municipalities and represent acceptable figures based on the information received. The Committee recommends approval of the Vehicle Replacement Policy Guidelines as presented. Chairman Baudek commended staff on a very professional and useful report. CHANGE ORDER - 1998 BIG HORN DRIVE/CHIQUITA LANE INTERCONNECTION PROJECT The modifications made to the original contract have been the result of increased asphalt quantities due to water line realignment along Big Horn Drive and the discovery of two additional service connections during construction. Director Linnane explained the benefit of a service connection to the Big Horn Loop Project line and abandoning the existing service line. The requested increase to the contract is $5,388.00. This amount will be funded in the 1999 Capital Improvement Fund. The Committee recommends approval of the Change Order for an additional $5,388.00 funded from 1999 Capital Improvement Fund. REPORTS. The Customer Service Response Report for December 1998 was reviewed. Upper Front Range Region Transportation 20-Year Plan to the Year 2020. In accordance with CDOT requirements for future transportation projects funding, all regions within Colorado (15) must submit a regional transportation plan for the years 2000 through 2020. Bob Felsburg, of Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig Inc., is under contract with Larimer County, Weld County, and Fort Morgan County (Upper Front Range Region) to prepare this plan. All municipalities in this region were requested to submit projects for CDOT funding_by January 224. After considerable discussion and input from staff and the public at the Transportation Forum in April, the Town will submit the following projects. The final report will prioritize all submitted projects from the affected agencies. 1. Highway 36 improvements west of downtown from Crags Drive to Marys Lake Road: • The addition of two 6' shoulders 1 : • Construction of an 8' detached sidewalk the entire length • Improvements to the Crags Drive intersection and Marys Lake Road intersection • Center turn lane in the heavy commercial area •RAOFOAOPUSLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - January 21, 1999 - Page 2 2. Western/Downtown Bypass between Hwy. 34 and Hwy. 36: • New roadway • Exact location undetermined 3. Valley-wide/Rocky Mountain National Park mass transit system feasibility study: • This study would research the possibility of various transit systems between the Estes Valley and RMNP, and within the Park. Director Linnane reported that the Upper Front Range Region Transportation group will hold an open forum on February 23,1999 from 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. in the Board Room of the Municipal Building. Immediately following the forum, the group will make a presentation to the Board of Trustees at the 7:00 p.m. Board meeting. Accountable Water Report Update. In January 1998, the Committee approved the scope of services for the Black & Veatch study. In April 1998, Black & Veatch recommended that the Town wait until the end of the year so that the 1998 meter change-out program data could be used in the report. Director Linnane reported that the accountable water has improved from a January 1997 12-month running total of 72% to a December 1998 12-month average of 84%, an increase of 12%. Several major leaks were discovered and repaired which contributed to this improvement. Director Linnane also reported that 84% is well within the industry standards. A final draft of the reported is anticipated at the February meeting. 1999 Proposed Water Line Replacement Projects/Water Line Replacement Projects Priority List Update. Director Linnane presented an updated priority list of the proposed 1999 water line and replacement projects. The following water line projects are scheduled for 1999: 1. Fall River 12" - Phase 4 2. Big Horn 12" - Phase 4 3. Chiquita 6" 4. Hwy. 7/Prospect Mountain water line Items 1 through 3 are maintenance problem lines with a Priority #1 rating. Item 4 is a master plan item with a Priority #2 rating. Director Linnane explained the reasons for completing Item 4 in 1999. This project would benefit the system as a whole by increasing water pressure to the area. If the Prospect Mountain pump house is converted to a pressure reducing valve and the 2" line replaced with an 8" main, water can then flow in both directions allowing for increased flow for fire protection. The estimated increase is 3,000 gallons per minute to 4,500 gallons per minute. There being no further business, Chairman Baudek adjourned the meeting at 4:19 p.m. h€v~40244__, Rebecca van Deutekom, Deputy Town Clerk 1 t N UN e Z Z 0 Q 4120 4 12 U) :08 1208 02.- oa.- 1,- a W O.0-U) 01> U) J » ZU,U) Z 0 u) 0 -Ncri 4 4 m B 1- 1- LU 4 1,- &; €2, -Ne A 44 - N e in UN Cri - N 0,5 LU U) LL A A Ad m TRANSIT RAIL HIGHWAY PRESERVATION AVIATII AVIATIC OllVIAV NOUM1130dSNVI:Il W31SAS AWAHDIH 1IVW 1ISNVU1 0410 Ag) 180ddnS NOUVAUBSayd SYSTEM AVAILABL TRANSIT HIGHWAY PRESERVATION 7 LARIMER 6 ; , =i WEID~ -L IMORGAN 2020 Upper Front Range Regional Transportation Plan DEFINITIONS OF PROJECT CATEGORIES Transit "These projects would include vehicle purchase, service expansion and operations, and supporting facilities/infrastructure (such as transfer centers, transit park-and-ride lots, etc.) for regional bus service, city bus systems, and paratransit services." (This category will not include HOV lanes, carpools, vanpools, and ride- sharing park-and-ride lots.) Rail "Projects in this category would include any projects which would enhance service or supporting facilities/infrastructure for passenger rail, would maintain and improve the rail system for freight haul, and would improve rail/highway grade crossings." Hiqhwav "This category would include all projects, on the State Highway System, which have a primary objective of improving the infrastructure for safe and efficient vehicular movement. Such projects could include new roadways, roadway widening, intersection improvements, shoulder widening, HOV lanes, and ride-sharing park-and-ride lots." Svstem "Projects in this category would include projects which preserve, through Preservation reconstruction, the existing State Highway system without significantly changing the current geometrics of the roadway." Transportation "These projects would be those less traditional improvements which Support provide support to the infrastructure system. This category shall remain Systems flexible and could include projects and studies such as telecommuting, ITS, access management, traffic signal systems, travel demand management (TDM), carpools and vanpools, intermodal facilities, and feasibility studies." Aviation "This category would include projects that improve on-site airport activity (including equipment purchase, runway and terminal improvement/construction, economic development, etc.) and access to/from airport facilities (including links to other modes of transportation)." 2/10/99 7 LARIMER .1 L.ZA ~MORGAN 2020 Upper Front Range Regional Transportation Plan DEFINITIONS OF EVALUATION CRITERIA Safety Projects should enhance safety by addressing an existing hazardous situation, a potentially unsafe situation, or a transportation facility of substandard design. Maintain Existing System Projects should reconstruct existing roadway segments of regional significance or should replace or rehabilitate other transportation facilities or equipment. Relative Benefits / Relative Costs Projects should project a positive relative benefit/cost ratio, including minimizing long-term operating and maintenance costs. Congestion Relief Projects should reduce congestion by capacity or operational improvements, or by reducing demand through trip reduction or shifts to alternative modes. Environmental Projects should improve the quality of the environment in the region (air quality, noise pollution, energy consumption, etc.) and impacts should be able to be mitigated. Ability to Implement / Public Support Projects should be readily able to obtain necessary approvals, necessary acquisitions should be achievable, and public support should be evident. System Continuity Projects should complete gaps or improve incomplete or inadequate segments of the regional system. Emphasis should be placed on regional connections (major origins to major destinations) rather than local connections (within communities). 2/10/99 f-/ f National Park Service Briefing Statement Prepared for: Submitted: February 1999 State: Colorado Title: Wilderness Recommendation for Rocky Mountain National Park Issue: National Park Service Support of Wilderness Legislative Bill Status/Background: • In 1974 President Nixon recommended Rocky Mountain National Park for wilderness designation to Congress. No action occurred on that proposal. On October 16, 1998, Congressman David Skaggs (D-CO-2) introduced HR 4850, a bill designating approximately 90 percent of Rocky Mountain National Park as wilderness. Since 1974, all non-developed park lands have been managed as potential wilderness. • Representative Skaggs' bill had different acreage from that proposed by the National Park Service in 1974 (239,835 acres for immediate designation and 5,169 acres for potential designation). The new acreage figure reflected modifications brought about by land acquisition, water diversion or storage rights, and boundary adjustments. Accurate net changes in acreage proposals will be determined once wilderness boundary maps are completed with assistance from the park. • The area proposed for wilderness exclude road, water, and utility corridors, developed areas, and other inappropriate areas. Wilderness designation would not alter any current visitor activities or access within Rocky Mountain National Park and would allow visitors to utilize the park in the same ways and places that they presently enjoy. • Federal reserved water rights for park purposes are not an issue. Reserved rights have been decreed for both east and west of the Continental Divide within the park. No claims for wilderness purposes will be made as part ofthis legislation. Position of Interested Parties: • Colorado has a large and vocal citizenry supportive of the national parks and wilderness systems. Local, county, and state officials also will be supportive. In late 1998, the County Commissioners from Boulder, Grand and Larimer counties wrote letters of support for the designation. • The League of Women Voters, Rocky Mountain Nature Association and Rocky Mountain National Park Associates are highly supportive of a bill. • No water rights language should be included in the legislation, or state water rights advocates will be very actively opposed. Department/Bureau Perspective: • Rocky Mountain National Park and the Interior Department support wilderness for the park. Program Contact: A. Durand (Randy) Jones, Superintendent (970) 586-1201 . .r ADDENDUM TO THE WILDERNESS RECOMMENDATION ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK WILDERNESS AREA COLORADO October 1998 President Nixon submitted the wilderness recommendation for Rocky Mountain National Park to Congress on June 13, 1974. The proposal consisted of 239,835 acres to be designated as immediate wilderness, and 5169 acres to be managed as potential wilderness additions. Since that time, modifications have taken place due to changes in land ownership, changes in the place of diversion or storage for water rights and boundary adjustments. The wilderness recommendation, as amended, consists of about 249,562 acres to be designated as immediate wilderness, and 1,125 acres to be managed as potential wilderness additions. These are preliminary acreages. Official acres will be calculated by Rocky Mountain Regional Office once official maps are produced. Along the south boundary of the park, 2,917 acres are already in the National Wilderness Preservation System. The Indian Peaks Wilderness Area was established by Public Law 95-450 (92 Stat. 1099) within the Arapaho National Forest in 1978. As a result of Public Law 96-560 (94 Stat. 3272) dated December 22, 1980 this 2,917 acre portion was transferred to Rocky Mountain National Park from the Arapaho National Forest. This portion of the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area should be redesignated as part of the Enos Mills wilderness unit within the Rocky Mountain Wilderness Area. There are four recommended wilderness units within the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness. They include the Mummy Range Unit, the Never Summer Unit, the Trail Ridge Unit and the Enos Mills Unit. A general desciiption of each unit follows. This addendum replaces all other previous addendums. * Mummy Range Unit This is the northernmost section of wilderness, about 84,006 acres north of the Fall River Road and east of the Grand River ditch, includes large areas of the alpine, sub-alpine forest, wet meadow and montane forest ecosystems. Dominant features are the Mummy Range and Specimen Mountain. This portion extends to the park's north boundary, adjoining existing Comanche Peak Wilderness on the Roosevelt National forest. * Never Summer Unit Recommended wilderness in this unit includes about 9,824 acres of the steep upper slopes and peaks of the eastern side of the Never Suinmer Mountains and west of the Grand River ditch. About 2/3 of the area is above timberline, capped by a row of 12 peaks reaching over 12,000 feet in altitude. This are adjoins the existing Neota Wilderness on the Roosevelt National Forest and Never Summer Wilderness on the Routt National Forest. . 4 f.\ * Trail Ridge Unit This is a relatively small section, of about 6,310 acres, lies between the Trail Ridge and Fall River Roads. It includes forested mountainsides of lodgepole pine, Englemann spruce and sub-alpine fir, and the parks trademark expanse of alpine tundra and sub-alpine forest. * Enos Mills Unit The largest recommended wilderness unit, approximately 149,408 acres, contains examples of all the ecosystems present in the park, including a spectacular array of open meadows, rugged peaks, snowfields and glacial cirques. The park's dramatic stretch of the Continental Divide, featuring Longs Peak (elevation 14,255 feet) and other peaks over 13,000 feet dominate. Former reservoir sites at Blue Bird, Sand Beach and Pear lakes, previously breached and reclaimed, are included in wilderness as is a portion of the Indian Peaks Wilderness transferred to the park in 1980, when the boundary between the park and the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest was adjusted. Potential Wilderness Additions Also included in the recommendation are Potential Wilderness Additions. Some are non-federal inholdings within the wilderness boundaries that will become part of the wilderness and managed accordingly if they are acquired by the United States. Others are specified federal lands within the park and will be managed as wilderness when current incompatible uses cease. Areas excluded from wilderness designation The following areas are not included in wilderness: * Trail Ridge and other roads used for motorized travel; buildings; and other developed areas. * Parcels of privately owned land or land subject to life estate agreements in the park. + Water storage and conveyance structures (see below). Existing water facilities Boundaries for the wilderness designated in the bill are drawn to exclude (among other things): existing water storage and water conveyance structures, assuring continued use of Grand River Ditch and its right-of-way; the east and west portals of the Adams Tunnel of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (CBT); CBT gauging stations; Long Draw Reservoir; and lands owned by the St. Vrain and Left Hand Water Conservancy District, including Copeland Reservoir. It is not intended to impose new restrictions on already allowed activities for the operation, maintenance, repair, or reconstruction of the Adams Tunnel, which diverts water under Rocky Mountain National Park (including lands that would be designated as wilderness) or other CBT facilities, and that additional activities for these purposes will be allowed, should they be necessary to respond to emergencies. 2 THE IMPACTS OF WILDERNESS DESIGNATION ON MANAGING A PARK "Nothing in this Act shall modify the statutory authority under which units of the National Park System are created." With the introduction during the week of May 2, 1994, of a wilderness bill for Rocky Mountain National Park by Congressman David L. Skaggs (D, C) -2) , there will a great deal of discussion on what impacts wilderness designation will have on the management of the park. The following inform- ation is provided as a guide for answering questions of park visitors and neighbors who express interest and concern for such a designation of Rocky Mountain National Park. It is taken from Appendix B of the original Wilderness Study for Rocky Mountain National Park dated January 1973. Discussion The Wilderness Act of 1964 recognizes that all lands which may be included in the National Wilderness Preservation System are not to be managed alike. For example, the Act provides for certain multiple uses in wilderness areas of the national forests designated by the Act, such as existing grazing; mineral prospecting until 1984, and mining (with author- ity to construct transmission lines, waterlines, telephone lines, and to use timber for such activities); and water conservation and power projects as authorized by the President. However, no such lowering of park values is contemplated by the Wilderness Act for national park wilderness, since the Act provides, in part, that: "...the designation of any area of any park...as a wilderness area pursuant to this Act shall in no manner lower the standards evolved for the use and preservation of such park...in accordance with the Act of August 25, 1916, [and] the statutory authority under which the area was created..." Moreover, the status of those national parklands not included by the Congress in the National Wilderness Preservation System remains unique, pursuant to previously existing National Park Service legislation, because the Wilderness Act does not contemplate the lowering of park values of these remaining parklands not designated legislatively as "wilderness, " nor does the management of such lands compete with any other resource use. Of course, when Congress designates wilderness areas within the national parks and monuments for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System, it may prescribe such standards and criteria for their use and management as it deems advisable. What's Allowed And Not Allowed In A Wilderness Area Management Facilities, Practices, and Uses Only those structures, administrative practices, and uses necessary for management and preservation of the wilderness qualities of an area are A . 1' -2- permitted. These may include, but need not be limited to, patrol cabins and limited facilities associated with saddle- and pack-stock control. Fire Control Wildfire will be controlled as necessary to prevent unacceptable loss of wilderness values, loss of life, damage to property, and the spread of wildfire to lands outside the wilderness. Use of fire lookout towers, fire roads, tool caches, aircraft, motorboats, and motorized firefighting equipment is permitted for such control. -Rescue and Other Emergency Operations In emergency situations involving the health and safety of persons and to meet recognized management needs, use of aircraft, motorboats, and other motorized or mechanical equipment is permitted. Regulation of Excess Wildlife Populations Population control through natural predation is encouraged. Trapping and transplanting excess animals will be practiced by park personnel as necessary. If these methods are insufficient, direct reduction by park personnel will be instituted. Non-Native Plants and Animals Non-native species of plants and animals will be eliminated where it is possible to do so by approved methods that preserve wilderness qualities. Research Recognizing the scientific value of wilderness areas as natural outdoor laboratories, the National Park Service will encourage those kinds of research and data gathering which require such areas for their accomplishment. The Service may establish reasonable limitations to control the size of the area which may be used for varying types of research projects within national park wilderness; projects exceeding these limitations will be subject to approval by the Director. Fishing Fishing is an appropriate use and is permitted under applicable rules and regulations. Visitor Use Structures and Facilities Primitive trails for foot and horse travel are acceptable. Narrow trials, as well as footbridges and horsebridges which blend into the landscape, are allowed in wilderness areas, where they are essential to visitor safety. Stock-holding corrals or non-intrusive drift fences are permissible if necessary for protecting wilderness values. No improvements are permitted that are primarily for the comfort and convenience of visitors, such as developed campground and picnic areas. However, trailside shelters are permitted where they are needed for protecting wilderness values. v -3- Boating Boating, except with motorboats and airboats, is an acceptable use of park wilderness. Commercial Activities Saddle- and pack-stock and guided boat trips are acceptable uses, but the number, nature, and extent of these services are to be carefully controlled through regulations and permits so as to protect wilderness values. Mining and Prospecting Mining and prospecting are not permitted in national park wilderness areas. Where these activities are expressly authorized by statute, the area in question will be recommended for wilderness only with provisions that such activities will be discontinued and the authorization will be revoked. Actively operated claims, based on valid existing rights, will be excluded from the proposed wilderness. It will be the policy to phase out existing active mining claims and acquire the lands involved. When this is accomplished, such lands will be proposed for designation as wilderness if they otherwise meet the criteria for such areas. Inholdings Unless acquisition by the United States is assured, inholdings will be excluded from the area classified as wilderness. It will be the policy to acquire such inholdings as rapidly as possible, and as they are acquired, to designate such lands as wilderness if they otherwise meet the criteria for such areas. Water Development Projects Water development projects, whether for improvement of navigation, flood control, irrigation, power, or other multiple purposes are not acceptable in wilderness areas. Where these activities are authorized by statute, the area in question will be recommended for wilderness only with the provision that such authorization be discontinued. Grazing Grazing is not an acceptable use in national park wilderness. Except where grazing is conducted under permits which may be expected to expire at a fixed or determinable date in advance of legislative action on a wilderness proposal, lands used for this purpose will not be proposed for wilderness designation. It will be the policy to phase out such operations as rapidly as possible, and as this is done, the lands will be proposed for designation as wilderness if they otherwise meet the criteria for such areas. Timber Harvesting Timber harvesting will not be permitted in national park wilderness. Hunting Public hunting will not be permitted in national park wilderness. '. -4- Motorized Equipment The use of aircraft for airdrops or for other purposes, and the use of motorized trail vehicles, generators, and similar devices will not be permitted in national park wilderness, except as otherwise provided herein to meet the needs of management. Roads and Utilities Public use roads and utility line rights-of-way will not be permitted in national park wilderness. Prepared by: Doug Caldwell Public Information Officer Rocky Mountain National Park Date: May 5, 1994 NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK Wilderness designation in 1988 504,000 380,000 ---Z 1991 1998 35,000 25,0~- 1988 1998 (All figures are rounded) Wilderness Visitor Nights Total Park Visitation . OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK Wilderness designation in 1988 5.0 million 3.5 million ./ 1988 1997 120,000 87,0~ 1988 1996 (All figures are rounded) Wilderness Visitor Nights Total Park Visitation TOWN OF ESTES PARK Office Memorandum To: The Honorab )r Dekker and Board of Trustees From: Rich WidmefT Town Admi~trator Date: February Jri 1999 Re: Town of Estes Park 1999 Organization Chart BACKGROUND: The Town Municipal Code (Section 2.68.040) requires the Town Administrator to propose an administrative organization plan ofthe Town which shall be presented to the Board of Trustees for approval. Even though the Code does not require this to be done annually, we have traditionally presented the current Organization Chart for approval each year. Attached is the 1999 Organization Chart. The changes from 1998 include adding the Senior Center and Stanley Hall Advisory Boards, revising the title, job responsibilities, and direct reports of the Assistant Town Administrator position, adding Housing Authority responsibilities to the Community Development Director position, and adding Plane River Power Authority responsibilities to the Light and Power Director position. BUDGET/COST: Included in adopted budget. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the 1999 Town of Estes Park Organization Chart. o 't M 39.-e. 2% il 0 1- m Ul - Ill b- 0<50. DI. 2 : 0 2 28:a 9 94: £ fs lif <C 41*2 ~2@ i*8 - f 1 1 & M ~ le 8 i - *2 S Egt tr; R #§ luEBW ie dj 25Ut LL m 11 ~ 25 D 0 Q. 5 0 m - 5/ 1 82 8 :S* Amw &i4 Hip 111 E g O 3 - Z30103]Z:lia ON ll3>ibIVIN/S3-IVS h!0103bila SlNEIAE] 1VIO3dS hl0103hliC] IAIn3Snl/\I h!0103hlla 3ONVN 1=1 TOWN OF ESTES PARK ORGANIZATIONAL CHART TOWN ATTORNEY URBAN RENEWAL MUNICIPAL JUDGE FIRE DEPARTMENT h!39VNVIN DNISLLh]3AC]V 20.1.038Ia 1NB 23010323!C] S>IhIOAA Olland FEBRUARY 1999 ESTES PARK CITIZENS TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES ~ ADVISORY BOARDS TOWN ADMINISTRATOR :13 IHO 3&1=1 83 IHO 3OllOd Aindaa &101VULSINIINCIV NA/\O11NViSISSV A-LE=! S Olland 30 zl3 IHO OSLIGPO 1!A.0 Museum AdVisory/Sr. 2301032]IC] hi I C. E 6 0 & 5 SE> 25E> 2 6. CO 6Ei &: A > 2 a. ' p M 8 5 SE> 5E¥ d: & 3 1% S , 64% 0 2 2 4@Ali ffA52 83= 9 211 e 128,036 141,270 10.34% 145,635 3.09% 160,651 10.31% 151,629 -5.62% 162,775 7.35% 173,414 6.54% 221,731 27.86% 116,892 146,106 24.99% 143,084 -2.07% 178,663 24.87% 203,979 14.17% 172,433 -15.47% 214,301 24.28% 216,038 0.81% 157,335 180,591 14.78% 195,477 8.24% 218,480 11.77% 226,199 3.53% 224,965 -0.55% 227,601 1.17% 272,203 19.60% 134,666 170,178 26.37% 169,924 -0.15% 196,104 15.41% 212,103 8.16% 194,650 -8.23% 205,841 5.75% 264,186 28.34% 237,388 258,861 9.05% 270,722 4.58% 302,968 11.91% 297,381 -1.84% 341,826 14.95% 362,036 5.91% 374,411 3.42% June 430,401 470,100 9.22% 489,638 4.16% 535,491 9.36% 542,292 1.27% 569,949 5.10% 580,200 1.80% 649,522 11.95% 518,745 565,744 9.06% 592,147 4.67% 629,833 6.36% 691,855 9.85% 743,048 7.40% 785,123 5.66% 855,485 8.96% 567,691 591,899 4.26% 575,406 -2.79% 629,507 9.40% 636,336 1.08% 764,138 20.08% 815,371 6.70% 788,676 -3.27% %167Z 9 1*'St.9 96ZSZ- 886'£99 %20'6- 0€E'899 %99'6- 1/8'*19 %96'6L 889'169 %098 SES'9LS %Zool 188'OES 9£/'18* JaqW@ %EZ'6* LE6'OL* %98-0 849'SLE %ZS-D- SL6'ZLE %LL' L L LZI.'6ZE %99L ESt''t,6Z %69'El OSL'ELZ 960£'St 96L'0*Z £*8'80Z %L65 L81'08Z %LL 6 1 1.'*91 %264,1 688'0*Z %0To 909'60Z %0901- 86 L'60Z %kL'Ot ZoO'DEZ %88-0 OLE'99 L LZB'*9 L % LL'B L6S't,LE %96'* LSE'68Z %89'Z- ELL'SLE % LGE 9 LE'88/ %66 SZ *6Z'SLZ %0LF- 809'8 LZ %Ld.PL SEE'68/ 906'80-Z 969*.Zi %ZL'* %OLE %00'Z 96917£ %*6.* %SE-OL MONTH 1991 1992 % 1993 % 1994 % Change 1995 % Change 1996 % 1997 % 1998 % Change Prev. Year Z8E'E8E'S LGE'LBL't, 9Z9'LLS't, 899'80*'D 6ZZ'ZZE't, 1£8'*88'E OEO'ZOL'E 696'*SE'E OF ESTES PARK ~ TAX REVENUES