The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2001-01-23Prepared 1/17/01 Â»Revised 1/18/01 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, January 23, 2001 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated January 9, 2001. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Light & Power, January 11, 2001: 1. Fall River Hydro Plant Interpretive Exhibit Contract - Revised. B. Public Works Committee, January 18, 2001: 1. Stanley Ave./Hwy. 7 Intersection Reconstruction Project. 2. Stanley Ave. Trail Project. 3. Municipal Building Projects (Elevator Rehab.; Air conditioning; Rm. 203 Kitchen remodel; and Remodel Design Firm solicitation for 2002 Project). 4. Resolution #3-01 - Approving CDOT Grant Contract for Causeway Underpass/Trail Project. 5. Water Dept. Year 2000 Loop Project - Expand Scope (change ordeO. 6. Water Dept. Year 2001 Loop Project - Design scope of services. 4. Resolution #2-01 - Intent to Annex Dunraven Heights First Addition, and set public hearing on February 27, 2001. 5. Resolution #4-01 - Intent to Annex Uplands/Fish Creek Road Addition #1, Uplands/Fish Creek Road Addition #2, and The Uplands at Fish Creek Addition #3, and set public hearing on February 27, 2001. 1 Continued on reverse side 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. TREE BOARD ANNUAL REPORT PRESENTATION - Alice Gray, Secretary. 2. Â» EPURA - PRESENTATION OF 2001 PROJECT PRIORITIES. Chairman Putney and Director Smith. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. 4. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PROPERTY NEGOTIATION, and WILDLIFE CENTER LITIGATION BRIEFING. 2 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 9, 2001 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 9th day of January, 2001. Meeting called to order by Mayor John Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Trustees Jeff Barker David Habecker G. Wayne Newsom Also Present: Rich Widmer, Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: Stephen W. Gillette, Trustee Lori Jeffrey, Trustee Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Habecker urged the Board to be concerned and cognizant of proposed front- range methods for funding for a new transit system along the front range. Town Administrator Widmer noted that a northern front-range transportation district, similar to RTD, may be organized and that it may be in the best interest of the Town to participate in said district. Town Attorney White noted that the Town maybe included with Larimer County. Mayor ProTem Doylen introduced Jean Michaelson, staff person for the Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA). Ms. Michaelson gave her personal background and experiences that will assist her in proposing ideas for affordable housing in Estes Park. The Rental Assistance Section 8 Program is underway, and the Authority received 20 vouchers, and 8 families have received assistance. EPHA anticipates utilizing the remaining vouchers by the end of January. Ms. Michaelson has experienced a good response with businesses and Town staff; in the future, plans include a round table for groups with similar goals. It is very important for the community to realize there is a need for housing for all income levels. A challenge is being faced with the cost of property in Estes Park. Mayor Baudek announced the resignation of Carl Henderson from the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority; the resignation is effective immediately. Commissioner Henderson has served as a member of the Board since July, 1990. The Board expressed their appreciation to Mr. Henderson for his dedicated service to the community. Thus, Mayor Baudek presented the name of Steve Jackson to fill the unexpired 5-year term of Mr. Henderson. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Doylen) Steve Jackson be so appointed, with his term expiring September 14, 2004, and it passed unanimously. ...... A . 1 Board of Trustees - January 9, 2001 - Page 2 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated December 12, 2000. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Light & Power, December 14, 2000: 1. Fall River Hydro Plant Restoration Contract Change Orders, $18,248. B. Public Safety, January 4, 2001: 1. Estes Park Volunteer Fire Dept. Officers for 2001. 4. Estes Park Housing Authority, November 8,2000 (acknowledgment only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, December 19, 2000 (acknowledgement only). 6. Resolution #1-01 - Public Place for Posting Notices of Town Meetings. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Barker) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. lA. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek announced the following Planning Commission items: 1. SUBDIVISION. Amended Plat of Lot 2, Mountain Man Subdivision, Windy City, LLP/Applicant; combine two lots into one lot. 2. SUBDIVISION. Amended Plat of the Amended Plat of Lot 20, Amended Plat of Peak View Subdivision and Lot 16: S. St. Vrain Addition, Harold B. Miller Estate/Applicant; divide one lot into two lots. 3. PRELIMINARY PLAT. Bristlecone Subdivision, Tract 3, Arapaho Meadows Addition, Pawnee Meadow, LLC/Applicant. Attorney White requested Item #3 be removed from the Consent Agenda to conduct a public hearing. As there were no persons present offering testimony on Items 1 and 2, it was moved and seconded (Doylen/Barker) they be approved, and it passed unanimously. Mayor Baudek opened the public hearing on Item #3 - Bristlecone Subdivision. Planner Joseph presented the staff report, and reviewed/clarified the public street right-of-way, thru-street connection exception, historic access, and Planning Commission recommendations for conditional approval. Mayor ProTem Doylen questioned the emergency access, and staff confirmed that the plat was routed to the Police and Fire Departments, and no concerns were expressed. Paul Kochevar, Applicant's Representative, stated Planner Joseph presented the Applicant's proposal accurately, and clarified the location of the gate that is planned to control access. There being no further comment, Mayor Baudek closed the public hearing, and it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Barker) the Preliminary Plat of Bristlecone Subdivison be approved, including the exception relative to Section 10.5 A.7 and conditions 1 through 4 as further defined in the StaH Report dated January 4, 2001, and it passed unanimously. Board of Trustees - January 9, 2001 - Page 3 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. POLICE CHIEF EXECUTIVE SEARCH CONSULTANT SELECTION - APPROVAL. Assistant Town Administrator Repola reported that staff believes that a full-time Police Chief is instrumental to the future success of the Police Department, thus, this position was included in the 2001- 2002 Budget. An executive search consultant is being requested to aid in the selection process (recruitment, interview and reference checks), and the following firms have submitted their fee estimates: Rainguet-Morrison Assoc., LLP $4,500 + expenses Booth Research Group, Inc. $10,000 " Gerald Plock Assoc. $15,000 Based on the estimates and the inclusion of final recommendations/notifications and interviews with the Town Board and Police Department employees, staff is recommending acceptance of the Rainguet-Morrison Agreement for $6,000. (Mr. Rainguet is an Allenspark resident). Town Board questions included: (1) whether a fixed hourly rate was provided. Staff responded such was not specifically provided, however, it is assumed the total agreement amount would not be exceeded; and (2) firm experience-all firms have Colorado experience and personal experience was observed with Rainguet-Morrison and Gerald Plock Assoc. Mayor Pro Tem Doylen stated that the Town Board wants to be a part of this process, and the Board was assured a similar process will be followed as with the Finance Officer vacancy. The firm will determine Town Board desires, as well as interview Police Department employees, and possibly gather citizen input. The firm will also select and screen/pre-screen candidates. The anticipated timeframe to fill this position is mid-April. Mayor Baudek stated that "for the record", the process will be open to internal candidates. The Town would be responsible for expenses incurred in bringing any non-local candidate to Estes Park. It was moved and seconded (Habecker/Doylen) the Rainguet-Morrison Assoc., LLP firm be approved for a fee of $6,000 + expenses, and it passed unanimously. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. A. Street Computer Database Presentation. Public Works Director Linnane reviewed the Pavement Management Program and introduced Mgr. Sievers who presented the Micro-paver Street Database Program. This program provides a systematic method to determine street priorities for optimal repair. A question and answer period followed, with appreciation expressed for the presentation. B. City of Loveland Transit (COLT) Service. On February 8,2000, the Town Board approved funding in the amount of $6,000 for a one-year pilot program for COLT. Due to the low utilization of this service, COLT recommended ceasing this service at the end of December, 2000. Town Administrator Widmer concurred with the recommendation and paid a pro-rated invoice in the amount of $4,000. As included in the Budget, an additional day has been added to the Special Transit Contract. C. Stamey Resignation. Community Development Director Stamey has officially resigned to accept a job for the Town of Erie. Sr. Planner Joseph has been named Acting Community Development Director, and the position will not be advertised at this time. Board of Trustees - January 9, 2001 - Page 4 D. Business License Statistics. For informational purposes, an analysis of all business licenses issued from 1995 through 2000 was distributed. E. Customer Service Postcard. Mayor Baudek introduced his new customer service program: a postage paid postcard that includes a comment section and poses questions all relative to an employee's assistance. The postcard is self-addressed to the Mayor and all comments are strictly confidential. Distribution points include all Municipal Building reception desks, including the Police Dept., and Special Events, Museum and Senior Center. It will also be included with all Building Permits. 4. EXECUTIVE SESSION. Request to enter Executive Session to discuss property negotiations. It was moved and seconded (Barker/Newsom) the Board enter executive session and it passed unanimously. Following completion of all agenda items, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 8:27 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk BRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town ofEstes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 11, 2001 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the LIGHT AND POWER COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 11 th day of January, 2001. Committee: Chairman Jeffrey, Trustees Habecker and Newsom Attending: Trustees Habecker and Newsom Absent: Chairman Jeffrey Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer, Assistant to the Light and Power Director Mangelsen, Deputy Town Clerk van Deutekom Trustee Newsom called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. FALL RIVER HYDRO PLANT RESTORATION CHANGE ORDER - APPROVAL. Director Matzke reported that the Town negotiated a contract amount of $388,688 with R.C. Heath Construction Company for the historic restoration of the Fall River Hydro Plant, operator's residence, and visitor's center. The contract was awarded in June of 2000. In December 2000, change order requests were approved amending the total contract amount to $420,422. We have received the following change order requests from R.C. Heath: No. 10 Trim comer of Plant addition, grout slab seam, $1,375 construct bases for ETS heaters No. 11 Delete slab for stack, delete paint & install (6,200) Stack, delete paint cottage roof It is anticipated that the work deleted on request No. 11 will be included in a future negotiated contract with R.C. Heath to be performed when the weather improves. The total estimated project cost is $568,815, which includes a construction estimate of $410,000. These change order requests reduce the contract amount to $415,597. The Committee recommends approval of the change order requests resulting in a $4,825 reduction as presented. FALL RIVER HYDRO MUSEUM REVISED INTERPRETIVE EXHIBIT CONTRACT - APPROVAL. Director Matzke reported that the Light and Power Department received a revised contract proposal from Chad DeVore, of the Resource Connection to design and furnish the interpretive exhibits for the Fall River Hydro Power Plant Museum for a cost of $119,194. The original contract for $110,000 was approved in August 2000. The Town was invoiced $8,789.33 on the original contract, which has been paid and credited toward the new contract total amount. Work was suspended at the request of the State Historical Commission to comply with their grant funding requirements. This new contract includes an additional $9,194 for a kiosk and other work not included in the original scope. The total cost of the Fall River Project, including interpretation is $568,815. The Committee recommends that the revised interpretive exhibit contract awarded to The Resource Connection for an estimated cost of $119,194 be approved as presented. REPORTS Platte River Power Authority (PRPA): Director Matzke reported that the lawsuit involving PRPA and the Sierra Club has been settled, the Rawhide outage has been completed, and the 2001 Budget, totaling $181.3 million, was approved at the December meeting. Rates will not increase in 2001. Other items discussed included Rawhide combustion turbines and the Olympus Hydro project. Financial Report: The December graphs were reviewed. Customer Service Survey: Assistant Director Mangelsen presented the November, 2000 Customer Satisfaction report prepared by Client Insight and offered through PRPA. The approval ratings were 76% for the Base Customer Satisfaction Index (CS!) and 96% for the BRADFORD MELISHING Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Light and Power Committee - January 11, 2001 - Page 2 Field Order Book CSI. Assistant Director Mangelsen explained that a more proactive approach is being taken with customers and the survey will be conducted through April, 2001. Project Updates: Bids have been requested for the 2001 tree trimming contract. The Senior Center parking light project is complete. Installation of rebar Christmas trees on street light poles along Moraine Avenue will cost approximately $500 per pole. The Committee directed staff to continue the research and advise. There being no further business, Trustee Newsom adjourned the meeting at 8:55 a.m. 929**9*64 Rebecca van Deutekom, Deputy Town Clerk BAADFORDPUSLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town o f Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 18, 2001 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on 18th day of January, 2001. Committee: Chairman Barker, Trustees Doylen and Gillette Attending: Chairman Barker, Trustee Doylen Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer, Public Works Director Linnane, Mgr. Sievers, Water Supt. Goehring, Clerk O'Connor Absent Trustee Gillette Chairman Barker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. STANLEY AVENUE/HIGHWAY 7 INTERSECTION RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT (JANCO) - REQUEST APPROVAL OF: (1) DESIGN SCOPE OF SERVICES AND (2) SOLICITATION OF CONSTRUCTION COST. (1) This is a budgeted project and Van Horn Engineering has performed all of the right- of-way work associated with the Plat revision, and prepared a preliminary design of the proposed new intersection design. Staff requested and received a proposal from Van Horn ($12,845) to prepare the Construction Plan and manage the construction. The budget contains $15,000 for design and construction management, and $125,000 for construction. A June 15, 2001 construction completion deadline has been established, and staff is requesting (2) authorization to proceed with cost solicitation after the design is complete; the construction costs would be presented at a future Committee meeting, possibly in March. Preliminary plans include three lanes on each side of the highway and a future sidewalk connection. The Committee recommends approval of: (1) the design scope of services in the amount of $12,845 submitted by Van Horn Engineering, and (2) the solicitation of construction costs. STANLEY AVENUE PEDESTRIAN TRAIL - REQUEST APPROVAL OF: (1) DESIGN SCOPE OF SERVICES, AND (2) SOLICITATION OF CONSTRUCTIONS COST. (1) This budgeted project is for a concrete pedestrian trail along Stanley Ave., from Prospect Ave. to Hwy. 7, adjacent to KRKI. Budget funding is provided in 2001 and 2002. Staff requested and received a proposal from Estes Park Surveyors ($14,600) for design and construction management scope of services. The budget contains $60,000 for design, construction management and construction in 2001, and $50,000 for Phase Il in 2002. Staff is requesting (2) authorization to proceed with cost solicitation after the design is complete. Staff intends to bid the entire project this year, with confirmed with prices. The Committee recommends approval of: (1) the design scope of services for both years, in the amount of $14,600 submitted by Estes Park Surveyors, and (2) the solicitation of construction costs. BRAOFORDPUBLISHINGCo. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - January 18, 2001 - Page 2 MUNICIPAL BUILDING BUDGETED PROJECTS - AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED. Several improvement projeds are slated for the Munidpal Building to improve occupant comfort, safety, efficiency and expansion. The Munidpal Building was remodeled from an existing high school 27 years ago and in some areas it may be considered fundionally obsolete. 1) The elevator is due for a complete overhaul and modernization to meet current safety and ADA standards. 2) Air flow in the building is insuffident to maintain a comfortable working environment in the summer and hiring a mechanical engineering company to evaluate the possibilities of adding air conditioning is desired. 3) Relocate the Board Room to the Police Garage; hire an architect for design this year, with construdion to occur in 2002. 4) Public Meeting Room 202-203 can be made more effident by dividing it further to provide a third room, and the project indudes remodeling and modemizing the kitchen. This improvement will enhance control of access and use. In addition it will provide an emdent manner to serve food for fundions. The 2001 Budget contains four line items to address these improvements: 1. Elevator upgrade $ 45,000 2. Air Conditioning design & build $145,000 (plus $25,000 for Police wing) 3. Remodel Design $ 35,000 4. Room 203 Remodel $ 35,000 Staff is requesting: 1. Hire Montgomery Kone (the only authorized service company) to perform the necessary upgrades to the elevator at a negotiated cost of $38,959 and hold the remaining $6,041 as a contingency. Total expenditure: $45,000 2. Solicit RFP's from mechanical engineering firms that can provide A/C design plus construction management including construction and installation completion at the combined budgeted value of $170,000 3. Hire an architect to develop design options and drawings for the remodel at a cost of $35,000. 4. Hire a contractor to construct the remodeling and modernization of Room 202- 203 at the budgeted amount of $35,000. The Committee recommends approval of Items 1 through 4, with associated budget expenditures, as presented. CAUSEWAY UNDERPASS/TRAIL PROJECT CDOT GRANT AGREEMENT REQUEST APPROVAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA). Director Linnane briefed the Committee on this project, and reported the Town has received two CDOT grants for this project: the 2001 grant is for $157,000 with a $250,000 Town match, and the 2002 grant is for $167,000 with a $50,000 Town match. Similar to the other CDOT Lake Trail Grants, CDOT requires a contract with the Town that is adopted by a Town Resolution. The contract and resolution have been reviewed and approved by Town Attorney White. Staff clarified the grant match calculation as stated in the Resolution, adding that the Resolution is for year 2001 only. The Committee commended Director Linnane in obtaining significant grant funding for numerous projects. The Committee recommends approval of the IGA and subsequent Resolution. BRADFOADIUm.SHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - January 18, 2001 - Page 3 WATER DEPT. YEAR 2000 LOOP PROJECT - REQUEST APPROVAL TO EXPAND SCOPE OF SERVICES WITH A CHANGE ORDER. The replacement of the Wonderview 12" water main from Virginia Ave. to MacGregor Ave. was budgeted in 2001. Kitchen & Co. is currently completing the 2000 Wonderview 12" from James St. to Virginia Ave., and the contractor will honor the 2000 unit prices of the James St. Project to construct the 2001 Project from Virginia to MacGregor. The total estimated cost is $58,388. The 2001 Budgeted amount is $50,000. Although the cost is $8,388 more than the budgeted amount, the unit prices are year 2000 unit prices. The over-budget amount can be funded from the 2001 Engineering Services under-budget. RMC Representative Prochaska reported that due to the holiday season, the project has been somewhat delayed, however, RMC has not received any complaints from area residents. The Committee recommends approval of the expanded scope in the amount of $58,388, as presented. WATER DEPT. YEAR 2001 LOOP PROJECT - REQUEST APPROVAL OF DESIGN SCOPE OF SERVICES. The following construction projects and design/construction management services have been budgeted in 2001: 1. Fall River/Summerset 12" 2. Wonderview 12"; Virginia to MacGregor (construction management only) 3. Beaver Point 80 4. Stanley Circle 6" 5. Devil's Gulch 12" 6. Mary's Lake Raw Water Pump 7. Annual Fire Hydrant Project Director Linnane specifically reviewed the Water Line Priority List, confirming that by taking an aggressive approach on this Project, the Water Department is approximately 5 years ahead of schedule. RMC has submitted a Scope of Services in the amount of $113,930 for easement preparation, design and construction management. This proposal represents 12% of the construction budget, well within acceptable engineering standards. The Budget includes $145,000 for design and construction management, and $985,000 for construction. The Committee recommends approval of the Scope of Services in the amount of $113,930 submitted by RMC. There being no further business, Chairman Barker adjourned the meeting at 8:39 a.m. ~~i-, 0 (l,h.a. i ,) Vickie O'Connor, CMC, Town Clerk RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park has previously budgeted and appropriated in its 2001 Budget, sufficient funds for the Town's required financial participation in the Causeway Underpass/Fish Creek Trail, Phase I Project; and WHEREAS, in order for the Project to commence, it is necessary for the Town to enter into a Contract with the Colorado Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town to approve and authorize said Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: 1. The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park hereby approves and authorizes a 25% match of the federal funding, the additional Town overmatch of $211,000, and the execution of the Transportation Enhancement Contract by and between the State of Colorado for the use and benefit of the Colorado Department of Transportation in the Town of Estes Park for the Causeway Underpass/Fish Creek Trail, Phase I Project. 2. The appropriate officials of the Town of Estes Park are hereby authorized to execute the Contract as the same has been presented to the Town. INTRODUCED, READ, AND PASSED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK on this day of ,2001. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 1% 1%F~ L-= 7 - 00 - Â»/ \\4* 6_6 Â« dip f- 3 Church of Christ ~__ 4% RESOLUTION NO. 2-01 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, in accordance with Section 31-12-107, C.R.S., hereby states its intention to annex the area described herein. The Board of Trustees finds and determines that the Petition filed with the Town Clerk requesting annexation of the area described herein is in substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1)(g), C.R.S. The Board of Trustees further finds and determines that the Petition is signed by persons comprising one hundred percent (100%) of the landowners in the area proposed to be annexed and owning one hundred percent (100%) of the area, excluding public streets and alleys, and any land owned by the annexing municipality. Such area, if annexed, will be known as "DUNRAVEN HEIGHTS FIRST ADDITION" to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. Such area is described as follows: A portion of the E V of the SE V of Section 31, TSN, R72W of the 6th P.M. Larimer County, Colorado, described as commencing at the SE corner of the NE % of the SE ~ of said Section 31; thence N 40Â°20'56" W a distance of 684.08 feet; to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence N 79Â°22'38" W a distance of 259.81 feet; Thence N 00Â°51'42" E a distance of 105.95 feet; Thence 119.27 feet along the arc of a curve concave to the Southeast, said curve has a delta angle of 44Â°48'37", a radius of 152.50 feet and is subtended by a chord bearing N 21Â°32'36" E a distance of 116.25 feet; Thence S 67Â°23'38" E a distance of 345.14 feet; Thence S 38Â°54'22" W a distance of 166.18 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 1.3 ACRES. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with Section 31-12-108, C.R.S., the Town Board Public Hearing shall be held February 27, 2001 at 7:00 p.m., in the ' . e Municipal Building, located at 170 MacGregor Ave., Estes Park, Colorado, for the purpose of determining if the proposed annexation complies with the applicable provisions of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk shall give the notice of the hearing as provided in Section 31-12-108(2), C.R.S. DATED this day of , 2001. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk /-' .. \ Cl -- 1 . 1 -i 7 1 1 / -1. Â· KE- \9 1 1 1 liE-rin -11 / 1 6 1.1 1 I I J*Lill'~~ 4. 2Â· ~--B~-I~-f- 6Il--I--1-â‚¬1 ---\7 -,i~f 7 f-f /) - - 1 -im mg1 N Existing Town Boundary 400 0 400 800 Feet Area Proposed to be Annexed RESOLUTION NO. 4-01 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, in accordance with Section 31-12-107, C.R.S., hereby states its intention to annex the area described herein. The Board of Trustees finds and determines that the Petition filed with the Town Clerk requesting annexation of the area described herein is in substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1)(g), C.R.S. The Board of Trustees further finds and determines that the Petition is signed by persons comprising more than fifty percent (50%+) of the landowners in the area proposed to be annexed and owning more than fifty percent (50%+) of the area, excluding public streets and alleys, and any land owned by the annexing municipality. Such area, if annexed, will be known as "UPLANDS/FISH CREEK ROAD #1, UPLANDS/FISH CREEK ROAD #2, and THE UPLANDS AT FISH CREEK ADDITION" to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. Such area is described as follows: UPLANDS / FISH CREEK ROAD #1, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS: A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 6 AND CONSIDERING THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 6 AS BEARING S89Â°12'12"E WITH ALL BEARINGS HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE N89Â°12'04"W 1320.76 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 4 OF SAID SECTION 6; THENCE N89Â°16'13"W 183.90 FEET TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF FISH CREEK ROAD (LARIMER COUNTY ROAD NO. 63); THENCE S38Â°30'21"W ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SAID ROAD A DISTANCE OF 18.89 FEET TO THETRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SAID ROAD FOR THE FOLLOWING SIX COURSES; THENCE 249.71 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 1169.42 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 12Â°14'04" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS S32Â°23'19"W A DISTANCE OF 249.24 FEET; THENCE NON TANGENT TO THE CURVE S26Â°01'55"W A DISTANCE OF 9.38 FEET; THENCE 320.00 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 1027.91 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 17Â°50'13" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS S17Â°06'48"W A DISTANCE OF 318.71 FEET; THENCE NON TANGENT TO THE CURVE S07Â°38'54"W A DISTANCE OF 28.52 FEET; THENCE 197.32 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 542.69 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 20Â°49'56" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS S18Â°03'52"W A DISTANCE OF 196.23 FEET; THENCE NON TANGENT TO THE CURVE S28Â°25'32"W A DISTANCE OF 542.59 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY S61Â°34'28"E A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET; THENCE N28Â°25'32"E A DISTANCE OF 542.59 FEET; THENCE 208.03 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 585.53 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 20Â°21'25" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS N18Â°14'49"E A DISTANCE OF 206.94 FEET; THENCE NON TANGENT TO THE CURVE N08Â°04'07"E A DISTANCE OF 28.40 FEET; THENCE 93.56 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 1217.93- FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 4Â°24'04" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS N10Â°16'09"E A DISTANCE OF 93.53 FEET; THENCE 217.63 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 845.03 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 14Â°45'21" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS N19Â°50'52"E A DISTANCE OF 217.03 FEET; THENCE NON TANGENT TO THE CURVE N26Â°01'55"E A DISTANCE OF 9.06 FEET; THENCE 243.22 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 1095.58 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 12Â°43'10" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS N32Â°23'31"E A DISTANCE OF 242.72 FEET; THENCE NON TANGENT TO THE CURVE N51Â°29'45"W A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: CONTAINING 40,234 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS (0.923 ACRES). UPLANDS / FISH CREEK ROAD #2, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS: A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 6 AND CONSIDERING THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 6 AS BEARING S89Â°12'12"E WITH ALL BEARINGS HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE N89Â°12'04"W 1320.76 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 4 OF SAID SECTION 6; THENCE N89Â°16'13"W 107.99 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF FISH CREEK ROAD (LARIMER COUNTY ROAD NO. 63) AND THE TRUE POINT-OF BEGINNING: THENCE N89Â°16'13"W A DISTANCE OF 75.91 FEET TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID ROAD; Â·1-HENCE S38Â°30'21"W A DISTANCE OF 18.89 FEET; THENCE S51Â°29'45"E A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET; THENCE NON TANGENT TO THE LINE 243.22 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 1095.58 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 12Â°43'10" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS S32Â°23'31"W A DISTANCE OF 242.72 FEET; THENCE S26Â°01'55"W A DISTANCE OF 9.06 FEET; THENCE NON TANGENT TO THE LINE 217.63 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 845.03 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 14Â°45'21" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS S19Â°50'52"W A DISTANCE OF 217.03 FEET; THENCE 93.56 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 1217.93 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 4Â°24'04" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS S10Â°16'09"W A DISTANCE OF 93.53 FEET; THENCE S08Â°04'07"W A DISTANCE OF 28.40 FEET; THENCE NON TANGENT TO THE LINE 208.03 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 585.53 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 20Â°21'25" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS S18Â°14'49"W A DISTANCE OF 206.94 FEET; THENCE S28Â°25'32"W A DISTANCE OF 542.59 FEET; THENCE N61Â°34'28"W A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID ROAD; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SAID ROAD FOR THE FOLLOWING EIGHT COURSES; THENCE NON TANGENT TO THE LINE 287.37 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 968.40 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 17Â°00'10" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS S36Â°55'36"W A DISTANCE OF 286.32 FEET; THENCE S45Â°50'15"W A DISTANCE OF 20.50 FEET; THENCE NON TANGENT TO THE LINE 278.83 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 588.48 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 27Â°08'51" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS S32Â°15'49"W A DISTANCE OF 276.23 FEET; THENCE S17Â°11'59"W A DISTANCE OF 11.64 FEET; THENCE NON TANGENT TO THE LINE 266.46 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 1174.03 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 13Â°00'15" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS S10Â°41'52"W A DISTANCE OF 265.89 FEET; THENCE S04Â°12'23"W A DISTANCE OF 261.53 FEET; THENCE NON TANGENT TO THE LINE 335.24 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 985.87 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 19Â°28'59" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS S05Â°32'07"E A DISTANCE OF 333.62 FEET; THENCE S15Â°16'03"E A DISTANCE OF 559.49 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY S89Â°14'04"E A DISTANCE OF 62.60 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SAID ROAD; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SAID ROAD FOR THE FOLLOWING SEVENTEEN COURSES; THENCE N15Â°13'19"W A DISTANCE OF 206.47 FEET; THENCE N15Â°19'22"W A DISTANCE OF 370.27 FEET; THENCE 315.00 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 923.17 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 19Â°33'00" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS N05Â°32'52"W A DISTANCE OF 313.47 FEET; THENCE NON TANGENT TO THE CURVE N04Â°12'53"E A DISTANCE OF 261.41 FEET; THENCE 252.91 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 1116.87 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 12Â°58'27" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS N10Â°42'07"E A DISTANCE OF 252.37 FEET; THENCE NON TANGENT TO THE CURVE N18Â°16'19"E A DISTANCE OF 11.66 FEET; THENCE 248.97 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 507.87 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 28Â°05'16" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS N32Â°18'58"E A DISTANCE OF 246.48 FEET; THENCE NON TANGENT TO THE CURVE N45Â°50'15"E A DISTANCE OF 20.50 FEET; THENCE 305.71 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 984.22 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 17Â°47'49" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS N36Â°56'20"E A DISTANCE OF 304.48 FEET; THENCE NON TANGENT TO THE CURVE N28Â°25'32"E A DISTANCE OF 542.59 FEET; THENCE 218.69 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 615.53 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 20Â°21'25" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS N18Â°14'49"E A DISTANCE OF 217.54 FEET; THENCE NON TANGENT TO THE CURVE N08Â°04'07"E A DISTANCE OF 28.40 FEET; THENCE 91.25 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 1187.93 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 04Â°24'04" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS N10Â°16'09"E A DISTANCE OF 91.23 FEET; THENCE 210.21 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 815.03 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 14Â°46'40" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS N19Â°51'31"E A DISTANCE OF 209.63 FEET; THENCE NON TANGENT TO THE CURVE N26Â°01'55"E A DISTANCE OF 9.38 FEET; THENCE 236.69 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 1065.58 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 12Â°43'36" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS N32Â°23'43"E A DISTANCE OF 236.20 FEET; THENCE NON TANGENT TO THE CURVE N38Â°30'15"E A DISTANCE OF 65.39 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 163,195 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS (3.746 ACRES). THE UPI_ANDS AT FISH CREEK - A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS: A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 72 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 6 AND CONSIDERING THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 6 AS BEARING S89Â°12'12"E WITH ALL BEARINGS HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE S00Â°16'47"E A DISTANCE OF 1551.09 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF LOT 3 OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S00Â°16'20"E A DISTANCE OF 1378.94 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF LOT 6 OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S00Â°15'02"E A DISTANCE OF 734.07 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF LOT 9 OF SAID SECTION; THENCE S87Â°07'34"W A DISTANCE OF 1109.11 FEET; THENCE N00Â°19'52"W A DISTANCE OF 612.11 FEET; THENCE N89Â°12'31"W A DISTANCE OF 250.11 FEET; THENCE N89Â°14'04"W A DISTANCE OF 890.81 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF FISH CREEK ROAD (LARIMER COUNTY ROAD #63); THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SAID ROAD FOR THE FOLLOWING SEVENTEEN COURSES; THENCE N15Â°13'19"W A DISTANCE OF 206.47 FEET; THENCE N15Â°19'22"W A DISTANCE OF 370.27 FEET; THENCE 315.00 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 923.17 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 19Â°33'00" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS N05Â°32'52"W A DISTANCE OF 313.47 FEET; THENCE NON TANGENT TO THE CURVE N04Â°12'53"E A DISTANCE OF 261.41 FEET; THENCE 252.91 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 1116.87 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 12Â°58'27" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS N10Â°42'07"E A DISTANCE OF 252.37 FEET; THENCE NON TANGENT TO THE CURVE N18Â°16'19"E A DISTANCE OF 11.66 FEET; THENCE 248.97 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 507.87 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 28Â°05'16" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS N32Â°18'58"E A DISTANCE OF 246.48 FEET; THENCE NON TANGENT TO THE CURVE N45Â°50'15"E A DISTANCE OF 20.50 FEET; THENCE 305.71 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 984.22 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 17Â°47'49" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS N36Â°56'20"E A DISTANCE OF 304.48 FEET; THENCE NON TANGENT TO THE CURVE N28Â°25'32"E A DISTANCE OF 542.59 FEET; THENCE 218.69 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 615.53 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 20Â°21'25" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS N18Â°14'49"E A DISTANCE OF 217.54 FEET; THENCE NON TANGENT TO THE CURVE N08Â°04'07"E A DISTANCE OF 28.40 FEET; THENCE 91.25 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 1187.93 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 04Â°24'04" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS N10Â°16'09"E A DISTANCE OF 91.23 FEET; THENCE 210.21 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 815.03 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 14Â°46'40" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS N19Â°51'31"E A DISTANCE OF 209.63 FEET; THENCE NON TANGENT TO THE CURVE N26Â°01'55"E A DISTANCE OF 9.38 FEET; THENCE 236.69 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 1065.58 FEET, SAID CURVE HAS A DELTA ANGLE OF 12Â°43'36" AND IS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS N32Â°23'43"E A DISTANCE OF 236.20 FEET; THENCE NON TANGENT TO THE CURVE N38Â°30'15"E A DISTANCE OF 65.39 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID RIGHT OF WAY S89Â°16'13"E A DISTANCE OF 107.99 FEET; THENCE S00Â°24'52"W A DISTANCE OF 459.65 FEET; THENCE S89Â°11'40"E A DISTANCE OF 459.53 FEET; THENCE N00Â°25'33"E A DISTANCE OF 459.64 FEET; THENCE S89Â°12'39"E A DISTANCE OF 861.20 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 6,951,064 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS (159.574 ACRES). IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with Section 31-12-108, C.R.S., the Town Board Public Hearing shall be held February 27, 2001 at 7:00 p.m., in the Municipal Building, located at 170 MacGregor Ave., Estes Park, Colorado, for the purpose of determining if the proposed annexation complies with the applicable provisions of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk shall give the notice of the hearing as provided in Section 31-12-108(2), C.R.S. DATED this day of ,2001. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk "Trees are a vital natural resource in Estes Park. Our mission is to protect and promote our trees for the present and thefuture." TREE BOARD ANNUAL REPORT TOWN OF ESTES PARK January 23, 2001 1. The Tree Board members are: JeffBarker Public Works Committee Rep. 4-year term Dan Speedlin Parks Department Rep. 4-year term Tim Rische Parks Department Rep. 4-year term Russ Franklin Parks Department Rep. 4-year term Wendell Amos EVIA Rep. 4-year term Alice Gray EVIA Rep. 4-year term Dick Lang EVIA Rep. 4-year term 2. The Tree Board's Mission Statement is: "Trees are a vital natural resource in Estes Park. Our mission is to protect and promote our trees for the present and the future." 3. January 2000: Estes Park's Tree City application was accepted. Arbor Day will be Friday, May 19, 2000. 4. February 2000: We received a Tree Memorial Donation for Jean Gimar. Dave Farmer and Brenda Orth, CSFS, suggested a tree walk for school children. Goals for 2000: A. Print a pine beetle information pamphlet B. Establish a Street Tree-pruning Program C. Create a Street Tree Inventory D. Publish more educational articles in the newspaper E. Workshop for Tree Boards - Sustainable plan, Forestry and growth 5. March 2000: A. There will be two more Tree City signs at the entrance to Rocky Mountain National Park. B. We will put information about donating trees near the Tree Memorial Plague. 6. April 2000: A. Guidelines for the Tree Memorial Program were the first topics for discussion. They are: 1. We are not responsible for tree deaths. 2. Locations might not be forever. 3. The Tree Board chooses the species and size (2" for deciduous and 4' and taller for pine varieties). 4. We choose the location. 5. We purchase, pick-up and plant the trees. 6. We will only plant trees in irrigated areas. B. Arbor Day: Three trees will be planted at the Senior Center. Tim Rische will find out possible locations for two more trees at the Youth Center. C. Pine Beetles: Tim Rische and Russ Franklin will put together a news release about pine beetles and a second article will be submitted to the Trail-Gazette in the fall. Dave Farmer said that he would help the Board establish an annual plan for beetle control. D. Information rack for the Municipal Building: The Board plans to provide a rack with five slots to offer information to the public. Included will be pamphlets and flyers about the Tree Memorial Program; pine beetles; a plant list; tips on winter watering; and one slot that will rotate seasonally. 7. May 2000: A. Arbor Day will be held at 10 a.m. Friday, May 19, 2000. We will plant two trees at the Youth Center; then three trees at the Senior Center; and one tree at the Elementary School. One tree will be in honor of Jean Gimar. B. Beavers are a problem. Eighty-five percent of tree damage is done by wildlife. The cost to replace a tree is $2,000. That amount covers going to the nursery; selecting and tagging the new tree; digging and preparing the hole; and planting and supporting the tree. C. We talked about the information rack and Tree Memorial Guidelines. 8. September 2000: We discussed the information rack, articles for the paper and the importance of watering trees. 9. November 2000: A. We discussed the effects of drought on our trees. Russ Franklin will put an article about "The Importance of Winter Watering" in the Trail-Gazette. B. Russ will redo the articles about pine beetle activity; the native plant list; and Tree Memorial Guidelines. C. The Tree Board information racks were originally mounted near the east entrance of the Municipal Building. To make them more visible, however, they have been relocated near the Tree Memorial Plague. D. Tim Rische stated that all papers for the Tree City renewal are completed and have already been submitted. E. The beaver problem for the year 2000 has resulted in 25 trees being chopped down and numerous other trees were damaged. The total cost of the damage is estimated at $10,000. Respectfully submitted, Alice Gray, Secretary CC: Mike Babler Dave Farmer Dave Lentz Vickie O'Connor Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority Revenue Stream and Cash Flow The revenue stream of the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) is made up of a limited number of sources; however, because of the way the bond security is structured, the cash flow takes on complexity and the overall picture can be very confusing. The main revenue source to EPURA is tax increment, or the incremental growth in the tax receipts from the base year. There are two sources of incremental taxes: property taxes and sales taxes. Property tax is distributed monthly by Larimer County from the taxes collected during the previous month. These funds are wired directly to the Bank of Cherry Creek, bond trustee. The property tax increment is held in a trust account that is used to pay the revenue bonds debt service payment (May 15th and November 15th). This funding source is estimated to amount to approximately $470,000 in 2000. Another major source of funds is the sales tax increment. In 1999, the sales tax is collected monthly by the Town and remitted to EPURA at the end of May, 2000. Based on a formula set when the bonds were sold, a portion is sent directly to the trustee to be used to pay the debt service. The remaining portion of the increment is received directly by EPURA to fund its budget. For 1999, these amounts were $1,061,163 and $987,688 respectively. Another revenuesource is the rent paid by the Town to EPURA for the Conference Center lease. The 2000 lease payment was $260,000. Additionally, interest earnings are credited monthly for both the funds invested by the bond trustee and the Town Finance Officer to the operating funds. The general operating expenses are fairly consistent month by month and capital is expended as projects are planned and constructed. The flow of funds from the bond trustee is the debt service payments on May 15th and November 158. On January 1St ofeach year, and after deducting and retaining the next May 15th payment, the trustee transfers excess funds back to EPURA. Insofar as the trustee has the upcoming May 15th payment set aside in the bond fund, the Conference Center payment is immediately transferred back to EPURA. If there were ever to be a deficiency in the bond fund, the trustee would retain a portion of the Conference Center payment to cover the deficiency. The Town pays EPURA the sales tax increment in excess of what is due to the trustee at the end of May. At that time, EPURA pays the Town the current year maintenance transfer and the TABOR excess revenue (community reinvestment) as calculated from the previous year. As one can see, there are a number of separate transactions, moving funds between the Town, EPURA and the bond trustee. The way the funds flow, sales tax generated in 1999 is transferred to the bond trustee in 2000 and excess funds after debt service are available for EPURA's operation in the Year 2001. While it is necessary to generally understand the flow of monies and these interrelationships for budget consideration, the fact of the matter is that much of this procedure is fixed, inflexible and not a factor relative to policy-making and EPURA's annual work programs. After debt service and the obligations from the general fund including lease/purchase payments on the Knoll Property, the Library contribution , and basic administration, approximately $400,000 is available for the continuing project and infrastructure improvements to Estes Park. This is the magnitude of our annual effort toward economic development and community improvement. This is the funding available to achieve our annual goals and implement our work program. Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority Proposed Projects for FY 2001 The Board of Commissioners of the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority met after its regular January meeting in its annual goal setting retreat on January 17, 2001. The focus of both the regular meeting and the retreat was to set project priorities for FY 2001, consistent with available resources. The projects selected, not necessarily in order of magnitude, are: Extension of streetscape amenities along the western periphery of Stanley Village Shopping Center within the right-of-way of Highway 34, to link Stanley Village to the central business district functionally and aesthetically. Improvement of the existing Tallant Park parking area on the south side of the river to accommodate approximately three times as many parking spaces in close proximity to the Riverwalk. Provide signage relative to the Riverwalk and the underpass connection to the Riverwalk. Assistance in the implementation and financing of a community performing arts center. Proceeding with next steps relative to key real estate acquisition within Walkway Westward project area. Continuation of sunrise symposia (but not necessarily at sunrise). Active involvement in Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study. (Major resource commitment is EPURA stafftime.) Exploration of extension of EPURA financial life beyond 25 years and possible expansion of Urban Renewal Area, to achieve key community project goals. Detailed planning and implementation of initial element(s) of Walkway Westward. This is yet to be specifically identified, pending the completion of the concept plan, detailed design and cost estimation. The concept plan will be completed within the month, at which time the actual FY 2001 feasible project(s) will be further examined and identified. . , ' ~ Jan 18 01 03:32p MATHAM BREMER DUMM MYERS 303 757 5106 P.2 - iÂ· : (33 E OVE [3\1 Iii HZ 1,f 11' Eighth Judicial DistIict Colirt, Lizimer County, Colorado 1 JAN 2 2 200 ~.1 22 Larimer County Justice Center 201 La Porte Avenne, Sui= 100 Fort Collins, Colorado 8052 1-2761 (970) 498-6239 Plaintiffs: INTERNATIONAL CONCEPT MANAGEMENT, - - Â· Â·Â· . - Â·.1- r -â€¢ â€¢-/ INC, a Co~o,ado COIparatiOn, and REYNOLDS POLYMER le: Â·LOUE,104*!My TECHNOLOGY, INC, a Colorado corporation : Defendant: TOWN OF ESTES PARK .1j..1 2_/., The Honorable * Case No.: 99 CV 1275 Disoict Court Judge John-David Sutlivan Courtroom 5C ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The plaintiffs fled suit for dedamtory and injunctive relief, as well as damages, wilh respect to an ordimnce adopted by the City of Est= Park, Colorado, that prohibits thÂ© plintiffs from building a "wildlife center" in Estes Park. The plaintiffs set forth nine claims for relief. The plaintills have now movcd for summary judgment on their fint, thilit, four~ fi#4 seventh, -CP and ninthclaims forrelief. Thedefendant hascross-moved forsummary judgmentonthese claims and hag moved for summary judgment on plaintiffk' second, st,alt and eighth claims for relief. As to plaintiffs' first claim for relicC the dcindant requests that summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part Being fbtly advised in the premises. the Court makcs the following findings of fhct conclusions oflaw, and order: 1. Ihe plaintiffs allege the following facts that are not in dispute. Plaintiff International Concept Managemcat, Inc., ("ICM") builds and op,ratcs "cducational science centers, zoological pmks and aquariums" in North America and elsewhere in the wofid. See 1 - Jan 18 01 03:33p MATHAM BREMER DUMM MYERS 303 757 5106 P.3 f f, 1 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY REMEF PURSUANTTO COLO. R. CIV. P. 570) AND 57(b),16 [heminafter AMENDED COMPLAINT]. Plaintiffs destreto build such a facility within the town limits of Estes Park, Colorado. The plaintiffs call this facility The Rocky Mountain Inte*retive Wildlife Center C'Wildlife Center"). See id.,1 7. This Wildlife Center would display small wild animals and fish that are indigenous to Rocky Mountain National Park. See W., 1 8. These animals would be captive.bred and [CM would contain these animals completely indoors in natural sum,undings. See id. ICM will provide the animals artificial light aIx! ventilation. Though the Wildlife Center's putported purpose is educational, it will also contain a restaurant, gift shop, and art gallery. See id. EstÂ¢3 Park's Board of Trustees C'Tnlstees") approved ICM's concept plan on June 8, 1999. See ld.,1 9. Estes Park's Planning Commission approved ICM's development plan in August 1999. See id.,11 10. On October 1, 1999, PlaintiffRcynolds Polymer Technology, Inc., C'RFI), ICM's parent company, purchased the property on which the Wildlifo Center was to be built See idâ€ž 1 11. Sometime during October 1999, Estes Park's Trustees approved ICM's development plan. See id.,1 12. While ICM was obtaining approval of its plan, cettain Â¢{timns of Estes Park and an organization called the Rocky Mountain Animal Defense C'RMAD") initiated a campaign to overturn the Trustees's and Planning Commission's approval of the Wildlife Center. See id.. 1 13. These persons diafted a proposed ordinance that would effectively prohibit the operation ofany zoo in Estes Pad[, including the plaintiffs' Wildlife Center. On August 24, 1999, Estcs Park's Trustees declined to adopt thc proposed ordinance. Thematter, RMAD obtained :hc required number ofcitizen signatures on a petition to have the proposed dinance presented to the citizens of Estes Pallk for approval at lbs November 2, 1999, 2 Jan 18 01 03:33p NATHAN BREMER DUMM MYERS 303 757 5106 P.4 r . geneml election. Sec id., 1 14. The citizens of Eates Patk approved this proposed ordinance on November 2,1999. See W.,1 16, Thig ordinance became effectiveNovember 9,1999. See id.,118. The parties call this ordinance Ordinance It-99. Ordinance 11-99("the Ordinance') is to bc codified at Estes Park Municipal Code Â§ 7.06.040. Dis section is entilled "Exhibiting Anima]5 Prohibited." 1CM now seeks legal relief from this ordinance on ~ constitutional and other grounds. 2. The full text of Ordinance 11-99 reads as follows: WHEREAS, it is thc desire ofthe citizens of Estes Parkto prohibit the exhibition of animals, because the coging and/or tethering for exhibition ofanimals is not desirable in itself, nordoes it, in the opinion of the citizens, reflect the unique character or nature orlhe Estes Park community. The exhibition ofanimals and the procurement ofguch for exhibition irrevocably diminishes community care and respect for such animals and imposes on them an unnatural and cruel existence. The natural habitat that animals experience in the Rocky Mountain National Park. which b cooliguous to the Town ul-Estes Park and is the primary symbol of the Town for all visitors to ibe Estes Park area, is tile image that the citizens want to preSCEVe. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, it is thÂ© intent of this ordinance to prohibit the exhibition of animals. SHALL THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE BE AMENDED TO ADD THE FOLLOWING SECTION? Section 7.06.040 Exhibiting Animals Prohibited a. It is unlawful for any person to exhibit an animal in a cage, kennel, box, tel], showcase, or other enclosUIe Otto exhibit an animal by tclhering thcanimal or tying or attaching the animal in any manner.1 b. It isa specific defensetoacharge of violatingthissectionthat: 1. The animal was exhibited temporarily for a period not exceeding 120 hours for educational purposes by the Park School DistIict or the Rocky Mountain National Park; 2. The anirnal is domestic, as determined by the Colorado Wndlife and Agricultural Commissions, and was exhibited in the ordinary coune of business by apet stem dog kennel, farm, ranch, fairs livery, stables or rodeo; ' Another version mates that it U untawful to "exhibit an wimal by fethering the animal or tying or attaching thc animal to imy o#ect." 8,2 FLAJ,mFF'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT 0 MonoM Pok SUMMARY JUDQ.fen, Exh. R. The plaintiffs alia providethc textprovided hem, Secid.,Exh.D. 3 .. Jan 18 01 03:33p NATHAN BREMER DUMM MYERS 303 757 5106 P.5 ' I .I. 0 - 3. The animal wat exhibited for purpoges of adoption by a non-probthumanesociety; ora non-profit Pet Associdon ofEstes Patk, Inc., which arc exempt from Fedenal ' income taxes under Section 501(c*3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code; or 4. The animal is wildlife, as defined by the Colorado Revised Statutes. and was being held for zehabilitation or medical treatment by a penon licemed by the State of Colorado to provide such rehabilitation or medical treatment. tt is important to point out the stated ptupose and rationales of this Ordinance. Presumably, the stated mtionates provide Ihe rational conneÂ©tion between the stated purpose ofthe Ordinance and its operative provisions found in subsections a and b. The stated purpose of the Ordinance is "to prohibit the exhibition of animals." SeeOrdinance 11-99, The Resolution Clause. The Ordinance sets forth four rationates for this pulposc: 1) thal caging or tethering animals for exhibition is not desirable in itself; 2) that caging or tethering animals for exhibition docs not reflect theunique character ofEstes Park; it is not the image that the citizens of Estes PA want lo preserve; 3) the exhibition ofanimals d~ninishes community care and respect for such animals; and 4) th cxhibition ofanim,113 imposes upon them "an unnatural and cruel existence." See id., The Whereas clause. The Court Onds that the Ordinance creates distinctions among businesses that engage in the same conduct, namely, the exhibition of an animal "in a cage, kennel, box, cell, showcase, or other enclosure" or extbiting an animal "by tethering the animal or tying or attaching the animal in any manner." Id, Â§ a. The prohibition of 54011 1 applies to the plaintiffs' Wildlife Center as well as many other businesses or entities. In subsection b., however, the Ordinance identifies those businesses that may gamy on the conduct prohibited in subsection a. without legal repercussions. 1n subsectionb.1.,the Ordinance pennie the Park School District and Rocky Mountain National Park to exhibit wild animals in a cage or other enclosure foreducalionalpurposcs temporarily fo, aperiod not exceeding 120 hours 4 Jan 18 01 03:33p MATHAN BREMER DUMM MYERS 303 757 5106 P.6 (Eve days). In subsection b.2. the Ordirmnce pe:mila a pet store, dog kennel, form, ranch, fair, livery. stables, or rodco to exhibit domestiÂ¢ animals in some enclosure orby tethering the animala without any time limits on such exhibition. In subsection b.3., the Ordinance permits a non-profit humane society to exhibit any animals in a cage or by tethe,ing without any time limitation. In subsection b.4., the Ordinance permits a veterinaiy hospital to exhibit wildlife En a cage, without any tinle limit, so long as such animal was bel,g held by such a facility for medical or rehabilitative treatment The cffcct ofthc Ordinance, therefore, is to prohibit the plaintiffs ftom exhibiting animals in a cage or other enclosure in their Wildlife Center while permitting the exempted businesses to do so. 3. Thc plaintiflh seek declarato,yand injunctive relief, as well as damages, under ninc claims for relief. First, the plaintiffs claim that they acquired vested propetty rights in their Wildlife Center under C.R.S. Â§ 24-68-103 whco Estes Park's Planning Commission approved the site specific development plan for the Wildlift Center. Ordinance 11-99 effectively interfer= with these rights. See AMENDED COMPLAINT at 4-5. Plaintiffs nook damages *br interferonce with their SUÂ¢Utorily vested pcopecty tights. Second, the plaintiffs olaim that they acquired vested property rights in their Wildlife Center under common law and that such rights are protected by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Alticle 1!, Section 15, ofthe Colomdo Constifudon. Ordinance 11-99 effectively interferes with these rights. The Plaintiffs scck damages for this interference, See id at 5. 5 Jan 18 01 03:33p NATHAN BREMER DUMM MYERS 303 757 5106 P-7 4 - Third, the plaintiffs ask this Court to declare that Ordinance 11-99 is unconstitutional because it is special legislation, prohibited by Article V, Section 25, ofthc Colorado Constitution. See id at 5-6. Fourths the plaintiffs ask thjs Court to declare that Ordinance 11-99 is unconstitutional because it violates due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article lA Scction 25, ofthe Colorado Constitution because it is vague: "it docs not provide fair wanting ofprohibited conduct, and persons of ordinary intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning and differ as to its application." Id. at 6. Fifth, the plaintiffi ask this Court to declare that Ordinance 11-99 is unconstitutional : because it violates due process oflaw. Itposcs the danger ofarbitrary enforcement and the . . Ordinance vcsts Estes Park officials with unguidcd powcr of cnfomoment because it is vague and its standards of conduct arc ill-defined. See id. at 6-7. Claims four and five are analylically intertwined. See PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION To DEFIiNDANT'S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDOMENT at 3. Sixth, the plaintiffs ask this Court to declare that Ordinance 11-99 is unconstitutional because it violates due process of law as an invalid exercise of Estes Park's police power. See AMENDED COMPLAINT at 7. Seventh, plaintiffs ask this Court to declare that Ordinance 11-99 is unconstitutional because it violates tho equat prolection guarimlees of the Food(Quth Amendment to thc United States Constitutibn and Article 11, Section 25, ofthe Colorado Constitution. See id. Eighth, the plaintiffs ask this C0UI1 to declare that Ordinance 11-99 is unconstitutional under Article II, Section 3, ofthc Colorado Constitution, because it prohibits the plaintiffs 6 Jan 18 01 03:34p NATHAN BREMER DUMM MYERS 303 757 5106 p.8 fkom exercising their right to conduct a legitimate buginess. See id at 8. This claim is . S analytically intertwined with claim 6. Ninth, 1hc plaintiff; ask this Court to declare that Ordinance 11-99 is invalid because it is prcempted by State law that regulates wildlife. See W. at 8-9. The plaintifth havemoved forsummasy judgment on their frst third. fourth, lifth, seventh, and ninth claims for relief. The defendant has aoss-moved for summazy judgment on theses claims and has movcd forsummasy judgment on plaintifft' second, aixth, and eighth claims for relief. 4. Summary judgment is proper "if Ihc pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and thatthemoving parly isentiticd to judgmentas amatterof law." CAC.P. 56 (c). See also Civil Serv. Comm'n v. Finder, 812 P.25 645,649 (Colo. 1991). Summary judgment is proper only when there is no doubt concerning material facts. See Roderick v. 00' of(WorÂ¢,40*rings, 193 Colo. 104,106 (1977). All doubts as to the existeoce of an issue of material fact must bc resolved against the moving party. See Ridgeway v. Kiowa School Dist. C-2,794 P.24 1020,1024 (Colo. App. 1989). The Court finds that the only material facts in dispute pertain to plaintiffs' first and second claims for relief. The remainder of plaintiffs' claims can be decided by the Court on summary judgment. 5. The Court denies the plaintiffs' motion forsummary judgment on 1hcir fourth claim for relief that Ordinance 1 1-99 is vague ands therefore, unconstitutional as a violation of due process. Convenely, the Court grants. the defendant's cross motion for summazy judgment on tbis claim. 7 ..... Jan 18 01 03:34p NATHAN BREMER DUMM MYERS 303 757 5106 P.9 - The only facts pertinent to this clairn are the terms 61 the Ordinance itself Them is no dispute as to these terms. Plaintiffs argue that three terms or phrams in Ordinance 11-99 are vague so that the Ordinance does Rot put the plaintiffs on notice that its proposed Wildlifb Center violates the Ordinance. First,theplaintiffs argue thot the word"exhibit" insubsection a. of the Ordinance is not sufficiently clear to an average reasonable person to put such a person, including the plaintiffs, on notice as to what type of conduct the Ordinance prohibits. The plaintiffs' argument revolves around whether the word -exhibit" as it is ordinarily understood, connotes a deliberate act of seeking the public's attention or encompasses a passive activity that indirectly places something in public view. The plaintim argue that, if the word exhibit could cncompabs a dog owner taking hordog for a walk on a lensh or keeping her dog in a fenced yard open to public view as well as placing an animal in a plexiglas enclosure or cage with the Intention of displaying the animal lo the public, then the word exhibit in Ordinance 11-99 is Vague. See PLA]NnITS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT at 8-9. Second, the plaintiffs argue that the phrase "educational purposes" in subsection b.1. is also impennissibly vague because this phrase does not indicate whether education mustbe the sole motivation of the proscribed conduct or merely aby-product of such conduct. See PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF at 10. 'Ihird, the plaintiffs argue thatthe phrase "foraperiod not exceeding 120 hours" in subsection b.l. ofthe Ordinance is impermissibly vague because this phrase does not define whether an animal can be confined tr a total of !20 hours in the animal's lifetime or whether this time limitation refers to 120 consecutive hows of confinomeat on ae given E Jan 18 01 03:34p NATHAN BREMER DUMM MYERS 303 757 5106 p.10 occasion, allowing for many periods of 120 hour exhibition in an animal's lifttime. See W. at 10. Th< Court concludes, as a matter of law, that these terms and phrases are not unconstitutionally~ vague. In general, a Jaw violates due process because of vagueness only if the law "forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague thatpersons ofcommon intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning and differ as to its application...." Famo v. Department 0/Social Services, 841 PEd 299,309 (Colo. 1992). This slandard does not require rhat a law be mathematically precise. See Colontdo Dog Fanciers v. Denver, 820 P.2(1644,651 (Colo. 1991). In other words, a law is vague under due process not when the law contains an imprecise but comprehensible standard but when the law contains no standard et conduct at aU, See Board ofEducation ofJâ‚¬Kerson Counly v. Wilder,960Â¥.26 695,703 (Colo. 1998). Furthermore, the void for vagueness doctrine doÂ¢8 not permit straining thc language of a law to inject doubt as to the meaning of a term when no doubt arises fora person ofcommon intclligence. See id. at 705 (quoting UnitedStates v. Powell, 423 US. 87.93,96 S.Ct. 316 (1975)1 The Court must also take intoaccount whether thelawinterferes with a constitutionally protected right. When a law does not interfere with a complainant's constitutional rights, the law is not void fbr vagueness when the complainant's conduct clearly falls within the law. See id. (quoting Parkâ€¢r v. LeÂ·,4I V U.S. 733,756.94 S.Ct. 2547 (]974)). As to the term "exhibit," the Court finds diat a person ofordinary intelligence would understand that exhibiting something involves purposely displaying it to the public. See. e,g., BLACK'S LAW DicnoNARY, 3,6 ed. (defining "exhibit" as "to show or display; ...To 9 Jan 18 01 03:34p NATHAN BREMER DUMM MYERS 303 757 5106 p. 11 -. presÂ¢nt; to offcr publicly . . ..). Thus, Estes Park's officials will not prosecute c dog owner for taking her dog for a walk because the commonly understood meaning ofthetenn "exhibit" places such conduct outside the Ordinance. See PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT at 9. Furthermore, the plaintiffs have no fundamental constitutional light at stake in their Wildlife Center and plaintiffs' proposed Wildlifo Center clearly falls within the Ordinance. Thus,lhc lerm"exhibit" in Ordinance 11-99 is not Vague 25 to theplaintiffs. Moreover, the term educational purposes" in subsection b.1. ofthc Ordinancc is not vague when read in thc context of subsectionb.1. Even if theplaintiffs'Wildlife Center would also conduct educational programs, it is clear that subsection b.1. applies only to the Park School Distfict and Rocky Mountain National Park and not to the plaintiffs, Thus, the term educational purposes is not vague as to the plaintiffs with respect to determining whether Their Wildlife Center is prohibited by the Ordinance. Clearly, their Wildlife Center does not fall within the exception provided in subsection b.1. Finally, the phrase "for a period not exceeding 120 hours" ako docs not contain the vaguencsj the plaintiffs attempt to interject into it This phrase is modified by the word "temporgrily." A natural reading of subsection b. 1,, therefore, reveala that 120 hourn Hmits a temporary exhibition of an animal. There isnothing in subsection b.1. to suggest that it limits the total number of hours an animal may be exhibited in its lifetime. Thus,as applied to thÂ¢ plaintiffs, it is clear that thc activity the plaintiffs' proposed Wildlife Center entails falls under the prohibitions ofOrdinancÂ© 11-99. Thus, Ordinance 11- 99 is not devoid of any Gtandar(Is of conduct ss applied to the plaintiffs. As applied to the plaintiffs, therefore, Ordinance 11-99 is not unconstitutionally vague- ]0 Jan 18 01 03:35p NATHAN BREMER DUMM MYERS 303 757 5106 p. 12 6. Because Ordinance 11-99 is not unconititutionally vagne, it is not subject to arbitruy and .. discnminatory enforcementas amatter oflaw. Thus, plaintifTs' fifthclaimfor relief also fails. 7. In theirsinh andeighthclaims fbrretief, plaintiffs allege that Ordinance 11-99 violates thcir right undcr the United States and Colorado constitutions to carry on a legilimate business because the Ordinance is an 11!cgitimate exercise of Estes Park'8 police powcr. See AMENDED COMPLAINT, 158, 68. These claims can be treated together since the consututional.analysis for both claims is the same. There arc no factual issues in dispute as to these claims and these claims can be determined by the Court See Ciop ofEnglewood v. *ostotic Chriwian Church, 146 Colo. 374 (1961). The right to carry on a legitimate business is not an absolute constitutional righL See In re ktmogatories, 97 Colo. 587,596 ( 1935). A person's right to engage in a legitimatc business may be restricted by a legitimate exercise of a municipality's police power. See id. The test is whether the law is"reasonably designed to further a legitimate state jntcrest." Coloradduto and Truck }Freekers Assoc v. The Department of Revenue, 618 P.ld 646,655 (Colo. 1980). A legitimate state interest is one that pertains to the general health, safety, und welfare. See id. at 654. The stated pulpose ofthe Ordinance is "loprobibit the exhibition of animals" Two stated reasons for this prohibition arc that the exhibition ofanimals subjects lhem to a cruel and unnatural existence and diminishw community care and respect for such animals. Scesupra, at 3. Preventing cruelty toanimals isa legitimate exercise oftbc police power. See Jenb v. Stunw, 41 Colo. 281,284 (19071 Whether exhibiting an animal in a cage or other enclosure or by tcthcling constitutes cruclty to that animal is a legislative judgment ofthc people ofestes Park with which this Court will not interfere. 11 Jan 18- 01 03:35p NATHAN BREMER DUMM MYERS 303 757 5106 p. 13 - Whether the exceptions found in subsectionb. of the Ordinance arc reasonably related to the purpose of preventing crucity to animalsis an issue more appropriately addressed under the doctrines of special legislation and equal protection 8ince subsection b.1. creates distinctions among entities that engage in the same behavior. Consequently, the Court grants the defendant's motion for iummaiyjudgment on these claims and treats the rational. relationship of the Ordinance's operative provisions to its stated putpoac under the doctrines of special legislation and equal protection. 8, In their ninth claim for relief, the plaintiffs claim that Ordinance 11-99 is preempted by Colorado state law. Specifically, me plaintiffs assert that Colomdo's wildlife statules occupy the field so as topreempt local regulation of wildlife. Both partia have moved for summary judgment on this claim. No matdrial factualissues are in dispute as to this claim. It is true that the General Asumbly adopted wildlife statutcs to provide "a comprehensive program- of wildlift regulation. C.R.S. Â§ 33-1-101(1) (2000). To providc a comprehensive program of wildlife regulation, the General Assembly established the Division of Wildlife. Thw Gencral Assembly went ontop,ovide thot 'Trlight, title, intnrest, acquisition,... possession ofwildlifc shall bc permitted only as provided in article 1 to 6 of this title or in any rule or regulation ofthe wildlife commission." AL Â§ 33-1-101(2) (emphasis added). This statute provides thatright,title, interest, etcâ€žinwildlifemay only bc acquired according to articles 1 to 6 oftille 33, or under any rule or regulation of the wildlife commission. The Wildlife Commission provides that an applicant for a license to operate a wildlife centermust certify that -theproposed po~session ofwildlife is not in violation ofany city or county ofdinance." See Division of Wildlife Reg. #1105.5. Thus, the Wildlife Commission'sregulations rccognize thelegitimacy of local regulation of wildlife. Thus, , I2 lan 18 01 03:35p NATHAN BREMER DUMM MYERS 303 757 5106 p. 14 State law does not occupy the field as to wildlifb regulation because it expressly provida that the Wildlife Commision may regulate wildlife ind this Commission defers to local ordinances. Consequently, the plaintiffs ninth claim for relief should be dismissed. 9, As to plaintiffs' first and second claims for relief, the Court finds that there are material factual issues in dispute as to tbesc claimt The Court therefore, concludes that summary judgment is not appropriate for these claims. 10. In their third claim for relief, plaintiffs allege that Ordinance 11-99 violates Article V, Sccdon 25, ofthe Colorado Constitution because it is special legislation. Both pmties have moved fbr summary judgment on this claim. No material Rictual i5SUÂ¢S pettaining to this claim are in dispute. A special legislation violation "arises when the effect of a law is to prohibit n car,ying on ofa legitimate business or occupatioli while allowing other businesscs or occupations not reasonably lo be distinguished from those prohibited to be carried on freely." Dunbar v. Hâ‚¬Oinan, 171 Colo. 431,486 (1970). ThÂ¢ Court concludes that Ordinance 11-99 is special legislation bccause it prohibits the plaintiffs from operating their proposed Wildlife Center while permitting other businesscs not feasonably to be distinguished from the plaintiffs' business to be canied on freely. It is undisputed that the plaintiffs' Wildtife Center will exhibit animals in a mannerprohibited by thc Ordinance. It is also the case that the businesses or entities identified in subsection b. also engage in conduct prohibited by subsection a. and thal web conduct is the same conduct in which the plaintiffs desireto engage. If suchisnot the: case, theatherewould be norcasonto provide defenses for such businesses or entities identified in subsection b. The issue, then, in light of die Ordinance's stated purposes and raionales, U whether it is reasonable to prohibit the plaintiffs from engaging in the same conduct that the exempted businesses or entities may engage in freely. 13 ' Jah 18 01 03:36p NATHAN BREMER DUMM MYERS 303 757 5106 p.15 Thc Court concludes that it is arbitrary to permit the Park School Distict and Rocky Motmtain National Park to exhibit animals in a manner prohibitcd by the Ordinance for Â¢ducatiooal pu:poics while not allowing the plaintiffs to do so also for educational purposes. The time limitation of 120 hours in subscctionb.1. is a meaningless distinction because it is also poasible Br the plaintiffs to exhibit a given animal for educational purposes for a temporary time period not exceeding 120 hours. It is noteworthy that the Ordinance does not prohibit confirmnent ofanimals. k prohibits only the exhibition ofanimals. Aus, thereis no reason why theplaintim could not exhibit their animals tomporally for a petiod not exceeding 120 hours. Thus, if exhibiting wildlife for 120 hours for educational purpogessubjects such animals to an unnatural and cruel exislence or diminishes community care and respect for such animals when the plaintiffs undertake such exhibition, then such exhibition must produce the same results when the Park School District and Rocky Mountain National Park undertake iL There is no reasonable basis to suggest that when thc School District and Park engage in the same conduct as the plaintiffs, the School District and the Park do not contravene the Ordinance's purpose of prohibiting the exhibition ofanimals. Thus, subsection b.1. does not reasonably distinguish between the plaintiffs' Wildlife Center and the Park School District and Rocky Mountain National Park. Similaily, if it is cruel treatment fortheplaintiffs to confine animals for exhibition, it is also cruel for thÂ«ntilies exemptedinsubsection b.2. to do so. 1k distinction between wild and domestic enimals is cphemcral. The Ordinance's stated pmpose and rationales make no such distinction. It 4 therefore, arbitrary to single out the plaintiffs' conduct whiIe other businesses engaging in the same conduct, that also contravenes the purpose of the Ordinance, may do so without repercussions. The Court finds that Ordinance 11-99 is analogous to the law in Allen v. Clor â‚¬fColorado *rings, 101 Colo. 498 (1937) (pconitting drug stoms to sell groceries on Sunday 14 ' Jan 18 01 03:36p NATHAN BREMER DUMM MYERS 303 757 5106 p. 16 but prohibiting grocery stores from doing sol and the statute in Dimbar v. Ho#inan. 171 Colo. 481 .% S (1970) (prohibiting barbera in first or second class cities from cutting hair on Sundays white permitting barbers in other cities to do so). In these Cases the Colorado Supreme Court found that there was no reasonable basis to distinguish one business from another when both businesses engaged in the same conduct The coun's conclusion in Allen is particularly pertinent hcrc. The court stated: The legislative authority of Colorado Springs in adopting the ordinance undoubtedly was motivated by a desire to further the observance of the Sabbath and prevent the desecation oftltul day by the operation ofsecular establishments. However, the result did notmeet thisobject, in that, undcr the thcls here stipulated, the salc on Sunday of groceries by diug stores--exempt from the operation of the ordinance-would have precisely the Rame disturbing effect upon the public in Ihc observance of the Sabbath as would tho proscribed business of the defendant [Plaintiff], Id. at 503. Likewise, a pot store exhibiting animals in a cage, even if such animals are dogs or cats, has the same effect in relation to the Ordinance*s stated purpose and rationales as would the plaintiffs' Wildlife Center. Such conduct by a pet stom must also not be desirable in itself, must subject such animals to a cruel und unnatwal existence, must diminish community care and respect for animals, and must contravenc the putpose of preventing the exhibition of animals, if the plaintiffs' Wildlife Center does so when it exhibits animals in an enclosure. By the way, it is worth noting that pet stores also exhibit animals in cages or enclosures that are not necessarily domeslic, such 4 exotic birds, reptiles, fctrets, ele. Thus, subsection b.2. docs not reasonably distinguish between the plaintiffs' Wildlife Center and the businesses or entities exempted therein. I5 ' 1,4 n 18 01 03:36p MATHAM BREMER DUMM MYERS 303 757 5106 p. 17 . This same analysis applies to Ax-exempt humane societies. This Court finds that, ifthe plaintiffs Wildlife Center contravenes thÂ¢ putpose of tim Ordinanceby exhibiting animals in an enclosure, then a tax-exempt humane society does so as well when it engages in the same conduct The tax-exempt status of such a humane society is not a reasonable distinction with respect to the Ordinance's stated purpose and rationales. The Court notcs that subsection b.3. ofthe Ordinance makes no distinction between domestic animals and wildlife. Finally, the COUIt makes a similar finding as to subsection b.4. In relation to the Ordinance's stated purpose and rationales, it makes no difference that the exhibited animal was once held for rehabilitative or medical treatment, as the subsection suggests. It is a meaningless distinction to Â· assert that the plaintiffs exhibition of un animal in an enclosure subjects such an animal to a cruel and unnatural existence or is not-desirable in itself whilc a velerinaly hospital doing so does not produce suck results simply because such a facility held the animal for medical or rehabilitative trcalment. The vclerinary clinic's behavior contravenes thepurpose ofthc Ordinance just as the phtintiffs' behavior does. Thus, for pwposes of special legislation analysis, there is no reasonabtc basis to distingllish between the plaintiffs' Wildlife Center and the businesses or entities exempted by the Ordinancc. . Ordinance 11-99, therefore, linconstitutionally singles out the plaintiffs' Wildlife Centerby prohibiting their behavior while permitting others to engage in the same conduct. 11. Similarly, as to plaintiffs' seventh claim for relief, the Court finds that OIdinance 11-99 violates the plaintiffs' right to equal protection of the law. The threshold question for an equal protection challenge is "whether the persons allegedly subject to disparate treatment am iii fact similarly situated. Ifthey afenot similarly situatcd, then an equal protection challenge must fail. See Western Metal v. Acoustical andCons#uction Suppa Ine, 851 P.2Â£1 875,880 (Colo. 1993). If the 16 . 0 Jan 18 01 03:37p NATHAN BREMER DUMM MYERS 303 757 5106 p. 18 challenger meets this threshold requirement, the inquiry becomes whether there is a basis in fact . .t for the classification, and whether thc clanification bears a rcasonable relationship to a legitimate governmental interest See id. at 881. The Court finds that the plaintiffs and the businesses or entities exempted by subsection b. of the Ordinance are similarly situated. All these businesses or entities exhibit animals m a manner prohibited by subsection a. of the Ordinance. Furthermore, as to subsection b.1., the plaintim and the Park School District and Rocky Mourrtain National Puk exhibit anirnals for educational pulposes. There is no rcasonablc basis to aasume that the plaintiffs could not carry out an exhibition of a particular aoimal for educational purposes for a temporaor period of 120 houts. Thus, there is no reasonable basis in fuel to distinguish between the plaintiffs and the School District and the Park. Moreover, ifthe plaintiffs' conduct controvenes the Ordinance's purpose, then the School Distriot's or Park's identical conduct docs so as welL Or, if the plaintiffs' conduct is cruel to animals, then so is the School District': and Park's identical conduct It is arbitrary to exempt the School District and Park white not exempting the plaintiE. As to subsection b.2., the Court finds that the plaintiffs and the businesses identified 1]lerein arc similarly situated. The plaintifTs and the businesses identified in subsection b.2. engage in the same conduct The distinction between wildlife and domestic animals is illusory in relation to the Ordinance's pu.rposc and in relation to preventing cruclty to animals or in relation to declaring that confining animals for exhibition is not desirable in itself Thus, there is no basis in fact to distinguish theplaintilth from thebusinesses identified in subsection b.2, and to except such businesses from the Ordinance's prohibition while not exempting the plaintiffs bears no rational relation to the Ordinance's purpose and mtionales. 17 i 18 01 03:37p MATHAM BREMER DUMM MYERS 303 757 5106 Likewise, both the plaintiffs and a tax-exempt humane society, holding a wild animal for adoption, engage in the same conduot. The tax-exemptstatus of such anentity is nota factual distinction that bears any relation to the ordinance'B purpose ofpreventing the exhibition of animals. Thattheplaiatifihexhibition ofanimals is forprofit while ahumane society'sexhibition is not is also a meaningless distinction ifconfining animals for exhibition subjects them to an unnatural and chict existence, diminishes community care and respect for animals, and is not desirable in itself. Thus. subsection b,3. bears no rationat relationship to the purposc ofthe Ordinance. Finally, the plaintiffs and any veterinary hospital engage in the same behavior when they contine animals for exhibition. It is meaningless to assert that a veterinary hospital does not produce the deleterious effects on animals stated in the rationales for the Ordinance simply because such a facility once held (or is holding) the animal for medical treatment Jfconfining ao animal for exhibition Â£5 not desirable in itself, then it is undesirable when a veterinary hospital does it, even if the hospital is holding the animal for medical treatment. The conduct of both the plaintiffil and the veterinary hospital conuavenes thepurpose ofthe Ordinance. Thus, subsection b.4. bears no rational relationship to the purpose of the Ordinance. To summarize, the Court finds that Ordinance ] 1-99 does not make distinctions that have any reasonable basis in fact between theplaintiffs and other business that engage in the same conduct Ccuiquently, the Court concludes that the exceptions for businesses or entities described in subsection b. of the Ordinance bear no rational relation to the Ordinance's stated purpose or rationalcs. Ordinance 11-99, therefore, violutes the plaintiffs' Iight to equal protection of the law. THEREFORE, tho Court denies theplaintiffs' motion fbraummaty judgment ontheir fourth claim for rclicf (vagusness). The Court grants the defendant's cross motion for summaty 18 DI,ki.-1 . . t â€¢ ' Jan 18 01 03:37p NATHAN BREMER DUMM MYERS 303 757 5106 p.20 judgment on plaintiffs' fourth olaim and dismisses this claim. TIle Court also denies the plainNffs' motion for summary judgment on their fifth claim for relief (arbihly enforcement). . . 4 , The Court grants the defendont's cross motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' fifth claim and dismisses this claim. The COUIt grants the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' sixth and eighth claims for relid Ollegiumatc exercise ofpolice power and interfbrence with a legitimate business) and dismisses these claims. The Court denies the plaintiffs' motion forsummary judgmenton their ninthclaim for relief (preemption). The Court gnints the defendant's cross moriori for summary judgment on plaintiffs' ninth claim and dismisscs Ihis claim. The Court denie& the plaintiffs' motion and the dcandant's cross motion for summary judgment on plaintiffi first claim for relief (statutory vested property rights). The Court denies the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff&' second claim for - relief (common law vestcd property rights). The Court glants the plaintiffs' motion for Gummary judgment on their third and seventh claims for relief (special legislation and equal protection), hereby, declaring that Ordinance 11-99 is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to these plaintiffs because it is special legislation and violates the plaintiffs' right to equal protection of the law. The City of Estes Park is, therefore, enjoined from enforcing Ordinancc 11-99 against tile plaintiffs and prohibited from withholding abuilding permit Bum tho plaintiffs for their proposed Wildlife Ccnter on the basis of Ordinance 11-99. DATED this //~ay of January 2001. BY THE COURT: (34...~L2*LÂ« JOH04)AVID SULLIVAN - / District Court Judge 19 â€¢ '' Jan 18 01 03:38p NATHAN BREMER DUMM MYERS 303 757 5106 p.21 CERTIFICATE OF MA[LING . â„¢s is to certify thal, on the 1 3 6-y of January 2001, a true and coirect copy of the above and forgoing order was delivered to the counsel of record and parties appeafing pro se in the Bllowing manner For counsel in Fort Collins, who have agreed to such procedure, by placiog said copy in the attomey's pick-up box located in the LarimÂ¢r County Justice Center, 201 La Potte Avenue, Suite 100, Fort Collins, Colotado. For all other cowsel, or parties appcming pro se, deposited in the Unites States Mail with the correct postage affixed thereon. U. 1,0 vul .k- cc: J. Andmw Nati}an, Esq. Andrew J. Fisher, Esq. Nathan, Bremer. Durnm & Myers, P.C. 2900 E. Mexico Ave., Suite 1000 Denver, CO 80210 John L. Palmquist, Esq. Fairfield and Woods, P.C. 2400 Wells Fargo Center 1700 Lincoln Street Denver. CO 80203 20 -