The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2004-09-14Prepared 09/10/04 34 697 <65[EOk The Mission of the Town of Estes Fark le to plan and provide reliable, hi0h-value eervices for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take ereat pride eneuMn0 and enhancir10 the quality of life in our community by Deine 00od etewarde of public resources and natural eettinG. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, September 14, 2004 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENT TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated August 24,2004. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, August 26,2004: 1. Resolution #12-04 - Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (L.E.T.A.) 2005 Telephone Exchange and Wireless Access Charge, $.45/mo. B. Community Development, September 2,2004: Community Development: 1. Revision to Policy Manual, Development Review Fees - Implementation of 2005 Fee Schedule. Special Events Dent.: 1. Resolution #13-04 - Surprise Sale Days, October 9 & 10, 2004. Senior Center: 1. Catering for All Occasions - 2005 Food Contract. Museum: 1. Elimination of Museum Admission Fees. 4. Estes Park Housing Authority, August 11,2004 (acknowledgment only). 5. Audit Committee, August 31, 2004 (acknowledgement only). 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. WOLF MANAGEMENT PRESENTATION - LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSIONER TOM BENDER. 1 Continued on reverse side 2. ORDINANCE #4-04 - AMENDMENT TO BUSINESS LICENSING, PARTICULARLY VACATION HOME RENTALS (Short Term) RENTALS, MUNICIPAL CO0E SECTION 5.20. Town Attorney White/Community Development Director Joseph. 3. ORDINANCE #5-05 - ELECTRIC FENCING, MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 8.04.070((a). Town Attorney White/Community Development Director Joseph. 4. BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - REVISION TO POLICY MANUAL. FINALIZATION OF C.V.B. STAKEHOLDER FEE SCHEDULE. Business Development Director Pickering. 5. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. 6. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. . 2 !. Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 24,2004 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 24~h day of August, 2004. Meeting called to order by Mayor John Baudek. Present: John Baudek, Mayor Susan L. Doylen, Mayor ProTem Trustees Lori Jeffrey-Clark, Chuck Levine, Wayne Newsom, Bill Pinkham Also Present: Rich Widmer, Town Administrator Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: Trustee Habecker Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENTATION: Fire Chief Dorman presented Certificates, and Mayor Baudek presented Plaques, to Rick Emerson and Mike Jones, Light & Power Department Employees. Rick and Mike were commended for their heroic live-saving efforts on the rescue of two accident victims from their vehicle in the Big Thompson River on July 16th PUBLIC COMMENT None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Pinkham commented on recent TG articles suggesting CofC Town does group think, do Mayor's bidding, no one knows who the Town Board are; but he is impressed w/Town Board and Staff - keep customers in mind; may not always get it right, but all doing in Town's best interest. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated August 10, 2004. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Utilities, August 12, 2004: 1. Cornerstone Engineering/Cornerstone Construction Concepts, Inc., $714,049, Fall River corridor 8" Water Line & Storage Tank Project. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, August 3,2004 (acknowledgement only). I I Board of Trustees - August 24,2004 - Page 2 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, August 17, 2004 (acknowledgement only). 6. EVRPD Estes Valley Trail Committee: Removal of the 9/04 expiration date on the Town appointment of Community Development Dir. Bob Joseph. 7. Stipulation & Partial Settlement of Expansion of the Local Calling Area. It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Pinkham) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. lA. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek opened the Public Hearing for all Consent Agenda Items. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: 1. FINAL SUBDIVISIONS: A. Cito Subdivision, Lot 23, Block 4, Lake View Tracts Subdivision, a Part of Lot 4, Stanley Meadows Addition, Donald & Bonnie Cito/Applicants. B. Sixth Green Estates, Portion of Lot 9, South St. Vrain Addition, Robert L. Dekker & William G. Van Horn/Applicants. 2. PRELIMINARY & FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAPS: A. Bear Creek Luxury Condominiums, Units 1 through 6, Building A, Fall River Chalets, SRG Properties, LLC/Applicant. 3. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAPS: A. Vista Ridge Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium, Phase 111, Lot 2, Vista Ridge Subdivision, Estes Investors, LLC/Applicant. B. Thunder Canyon Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #1, Lot 22, Stanley Hills Subdivision P.U.D., Roy Johnson/Applicant. C. Park River West Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map, Phase XIV, Lots 1 and 2, Park River West Subdivision, Richard H. Wille, TrusVApplicant. a Trustee Doylen declared a potential conflict of interest with Item 3.A., and stated she would abstain from discussion or vote on this item. As there was no public testimony, it was moved and seconded (Doylen/Levine) Items 1. A., B., 2.A., 3. B. and C. be approved, and it passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine) Item 3.A. be approved, and it passed, with Trustee Doylen Abstaining. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. RE-APPOINTMENT OF TWO COMMISSIONERS - ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY. Mayor Baudek presented Irene Little and Al Wasson for re-appointment, and commented that, contrary to recent comment, citizens located outside Town Limits, are being represented on various Town-appointed Commissions/Committees. It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Doylen) both Commissioners be re-appointed to 5- yr. terms, expiring 9/14/09, and it passed unanimously. 2. LIQUOR LICENSING: TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FROM NORMAN & THERESA SCHAIBLE dba THE WOODLANDS. TO GREGG SUNFIELD, dba THE GALLERY RESTAURANT & BAR. 205 VIRGINIA DR.. #501. . Board of Trustees - August 24,2004 - Page 3 Town Clerk O'Connor presented the Transfer of Ownership Application confirming that the Application was filed August 11, 2004, Gregg Sunfield is an "Individual" Owner and required T.I.P.S. Training is of yet unscheduled. Mr. Sunfield commented that the anticipated opening is mid-Sept.; the overall building renovation (former Courtyard) is scheduled for completion May 2006; and David Oehlman is the restaurant's chef. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine) the Transfer of Ownership be approved, and it passed unanimously. 3. VISITOR CENTER FACILITY REPORT PRESENTATION - STEVE LANE/BASIS ARCHITECTURE. C.V.B. Director Pickering reported that Goal Team #3 was charged with studying the condition of the Visitors Center building to ascertain its effectiveness and efficiency in providing visitor information and customer services to the community, its customers, and residents. Under the Needs AssessmenVFacility Review, Architect Steve Lane prepared a comparison on remodeling v. replacement of the structure. Mr. Lane reviewed the Needs Assessment Report dated August 2004, and, in summary, remodeling the existing building is possible, but not recommended. The significant difficulties presented by incorporating the existing structure into an adequately sized facility and the costs associated, make this the less desirable option. Construction of a new facility east of the existing structure provides a better, more economical solution and has the added benefit of allowing the existing facility to remain operational during construction. â€¢ Remodel/Addition Estimate $1,295,000 â€¢ New Building Estimate $1,212,000 â€¢ South Parking Estimate $ 445,000 Trustee questions/comments pertained to: demolition costs, age of the existing building, south parking lot and Bureau of Reclamation land/access, highway signage, RMNP involvement relative to transportation, traffic/public safety, building flexibility, future expansion, and partnering with EPURA. Audience comments were heard from Ken Coleman who appreciated the presentation and noted existing negative issues pertaining the current location of the dumpster, window damage from RVs due to the placement at ground level, and inferior condition of the steps and ramp. Mayor Baudek clarified that once remodeling occurs, all structures must comply with the current Building Code. Bill Van Horn confirmed that the structure was originally constructed in the late seventies for $50,000; recommended a conservative traffic study be conducted; and that the building was constructed to avoid surface water concerns. Considering the cost benefit between a new or remodeled building, Trustee consensus favored a new structure. Town Administrator Widmer confirmed that the next step would be a contract for the design of the building, and project funding would be included in upcoming Budget discussions. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. A. Economic Indicators Report for June. The Report indicated a 5.8% overall sales tax revenue increase over last year, and the retail category continues to lag. C.V.B. Dir. Pickering commented on a recent Colorado Economic Development Office report where statistics verify Colorado, and particularly Larimer County, is not experiencing an economic upturn. . 1 f Board of Trustees - August 24,2004 - Page 4 Trustee Newsom noted that the additional parking spaces on MacGregor Ave. have been completed and taking advantage of a Light and Power construction project provides dividends in the future. Mayor Baudek commented: (1) On Thursday, August 26~ at 8:30 a.m., ARD will be presenting an award to the Town and EPURA for Performance Park; (2) The Town will be hosting the Annual CML District 2 Meeting on October 21St; and (3) Baring an emergency, the December 28th Town Board meeting has been cancelled. Following completion of all agenda items, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 8:34 p.m. John Baudek, Mayor Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 26,2004 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 26th day of August, 2004. Committee: Chairman Newsom, Trustees Doylen and Pinkham Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Widmer, Police Chief Richardson, Fire Chief Dorman, Clerk O'Connor Absent None Chairman Newsom called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. POLICE DEPARTMENT. Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) - Request Approval of 2005 Telephone Exchange Access Facility Charge/Wireless Communications Access Charge. The Committee reviewed the standard Resolution as prepared by the LETA Board, and the rate is again $.45/month. The Committee recommends approval of the Resolution as presented. Reports. â€¢ Neighborhood Portfolio Presentation - Officer James Carsto gave a PowerPoint presentation that was prepared and utilized as a tool in community policing. For example, Officer Carsto visited with School Officials (to confirm programs being offered to the community), cost of housing, crime trends, meetings with internal Town staff, Larimer County Sheriffs Office, County Child Protection Services, Communications Center, CSO Program, Businesses. The Officer's observations and recommended Plans of Action concluded the presentation, followed by a question/answer period. â€¢ Estes Valley Victim Advocates 2004 Incident Report (Jan.-June). EWA Director Mary Mesropian gave an overview of the Program, and provided statistics based on the following incidents: domestic abuse, sexual assault, death, assault, stalking, counseling, and crime and other -non crime/trauma for a total of 387.75 advocate hours. Questions followed pertaining to the total number of advocates (male/female), funding, incident rate and seasonality, the impact of tourist-related incidents, and, notification to the victim of an offender's release from detention. â€¢ Quality Assurance Review-2004 Community Survey Results. During the first quarter, 105 surveys were mailed: 19 fully responded, 16 were non-deliverable, and 70 did not respond. A table provided specific percentages for each of the four questions, with a range between no response and excellent. The Department has adopted a 90% quality assurance rule, and 50% of the merit-pay pool is allocated to the officers if the 90% rule is met. r RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety - August 26,2004 - Page 2 FIRE DEPARTMENT. Reports. â€¢ Decontamination Trailer - A photograph was distributed of the trailer that has been received; preliminary training has taken place; however, additional training is necessary, and the Hospital/Ambulance group will be given a training exercise as well. A thorough description of how the trailer operates was provided. This unit will be utilized regionally, and training will also be provided to other Departments. A press release will be forthcoming. â€¢ Wildland Fire Truck. The truck has been delivered, and Fleet Mgr. Mahany is conducting an examination. The vehicle will be available for inspection by the Public Safety Committee in the near future. â€¢ 2004 Second Quarter Incident Run Report: Fire Calls - 18 Rescue & Emergency Med. Service - 78 Hazardous Conditions (no fire) - 32 Â· Service Calls - 9 Good Intent Calls - 38 False Alarm/False Calls - 24 Severe Weather & Natural Disaster - 1 In-Town Calls = 112 } Out-of-Town Calls = 88 } 200 incidents There being no further business, Chairman Newsom adjourned the meeting at 8:58 a.m. Vickie O'Connor, CMC, Town Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 12*04 BEING A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A TELEPHONE EXCHANGE ACCESS FACILITY CHARGE AND A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS ACCESS CHARGE FOR THE LARIMER EMERGENCY TELEPHONE AUTHORITY EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2005. WHEREAS, the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority was created pursuant to Â§ 29-11-101, et seq., C.R. S., by an Intergovernmental Agreement Concerning the Implementation of an "E911" Emergency Telephone Service, dated November 14, 1990, between certain governmental entities located in Larimer County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the aforesaid statutory authority and by resolution of the Town of Estes Park on May 8, 1990, and Ordinance No. 4-98 properly adopted by the Board of Trustees on February 10, 1998, the Board of Trustees is authorized to raise, lower, or reestablish a telephone exchange access facility charge and a wireless communications access charge to be assessed telephone (wireline and wireless) service users in the Town of Estes Park; and WHEREAS, the Board ofTrustees deems thatreestablishing thetelephone exchange access facility charge at the rate of forty-five cents ($.45) per month and the wireless communications access charge at the rate of forty-five cents ($.45) per month is necessary and appropriate to adequately fund emergency telephone services in the Town of Estes Park; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: 1. Commencing on January 1,2005, the telephone exchange access facility charge and the wireless communications access charge shall each be reestablished at forty-five cents ($.45) per month per exchange access facility or per wireless communications access. 2. Telephone service suppliers providing telephone service in the Town of Estes Park are authorized to collect the telephone exchange access facility charge in accordance with Â§ 29-11-101, et seq., C.R.S. 3. Wireless telephone service suppliers providing wireless telephone service in the Town of Estes Park are authorized to collect the wireless communications access charge in accordance with Â§ 29-11-100.5, et seq., C.R.S. Upon motion duly made, seconded and carried, the foregoing Resolution was adopted this day of , 2004. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 2 . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 2,2004 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 2nd day of September, 2004. Committee: Chairman Doylen, Trustees Habecker and Levine Attending: All Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Repola, Attorney White, Staff Members Joseph, Kilsdonk, Pickering, Hinze, Chilcott, Birchfield, Clerk O'Connor Absent None Chairman Doylen called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. 1. Business Licensing & Short Term Rentals (Intensity of Use) - Proposed revision to the Municipal Code. From the May 5, 2004 Town Board Study Session, Staff was directed to clarify language that requires individual business licenses for all properties operating as short-term rentals. Community Development Director Joseph and Town Attorney White presented staffs proposed revision to the Municipal Code. Town Attorney White noted that short-term rental terminology has been problematic as accommodations are also operated as short-term rentals. A solution is to use the term 'vacation home' which means a residential style accommodation contained in a residential setting. Proposed revisions and/or clarifications are as follows: â€¢ Accommodation means the leasing, rental or furnishing of any room, mobile home site, recreational vehicle site, camp site or other area in any hotel, motel, guest house, bed and breakfast, apartment, dormitory, mobile home park, recreational vehicle park or campground, any single-family dwelling, duplex, multiple family dwelling, condominium unit or any such similar place to any person who, for a consideration, uses, possesses or has the right to use or possess such dwelling, room, single-family dwelling, duplex unit, multiple-family unit, condominium unit, site or other accommodation for a total continuous duration of less than thirty (30) days. â€¢ Accommodation unit means each individual room, set of rooms, site, single- family dwelling, duplex unit, multiple-family unit, condominium unit or divided area rented, leased or occupied on a unit basis in an accommodation. â€¢ Each individual accommodation unit, which is separately owned, including, but not limited to, a condominium unit, shall pay a business license fee for the individual unit. An entity or company managing one or more accommodation units, including but not limited to, condominium units, shall also pay a business license fee for the management business separate from the business license fee paid by the owner of the individual accommodation unit. â€¢ Every person who is the owner of any business, profession, occupation or accommodation unit including owners of multiple businesses at separate physical locations, which is subject to the business license fee set forth in this , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee - September 2,2004 - Page 2 Chapter, shall obtain a business license from the Town prior to engaging in any business, profession, occupation or accommodation within the Town. â€¢ Includes language that does not permit pro-ration of a license if a business license is not renewed in the subsequent calendar year. Restrictions accompanying vacation homes in residential zoning districts are listed below, and these restrictions have no impact on accommodations in commercial districts: 1. No accommodation unit shall be rented to more than one individual group with a maximum of eight (8) individuals comprising the group. In the event that full-time on-site management manages the accommodation, more than one party may rent each individual accommodation unit up to a maximum of eight (8) individual guests occupying the entire accommodation. 2. In residential zoning districts, accommodation units shall not be operated in manner that is out of character from residential uses. This includes vehicular traffic and noise levels that are out of character with a residential use. Accommodation units shall be designed to be compatible, in terms of building scale, mass and character, with a predominantly low-intensity and low-scale residential setting. Guest rooms shall be integrated within the accommodation unit. Kitchen facilities shall be compatible with single-family residential use. 3. Only one vacation home shall be permitted per lot in single-family residential zoning districts. 4. No changes in the exterior appearance to accommodate each accommodation unit shall be allowed, except that one (1) wall-mounted identification sign no larger than four (4) square feet in area shall be permitted. 5. No recreational vehicle, as the same is defined in Chapter 13 of the Estes Valley Development Code, tent, temporary shelter, canopy, teepee, or yun shall be used by any individual for living or sleeping purposes. 6. Each accommodation unit is permitted a maximum of three guest vehicles on site at any one time. 7. Accommodation units shall be subject to commercial utility rates and sales tax. 8..The application for a business license for any vacation home shall designate a local resident or property manager of the Estes Valley who can be contacted by the Town with regard to any violation of the provisions of this Section. The person set forth on the application shall be the agent of the owner for all purposes with regard to the issuance of the business license, the operation of the vacation home and revocation of the business license pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Section. Audience comments were heard from Judy Anderson/Anderson Realty & Mgmt. who requested and received clarification on the grounds for revocation of a license and vacation home restrictions apply to residential zoning districts, not commercial. David Crockett/Riverstone Resort-Condos questioned the reasoning in licensing individual condominium owners and managing companies. Staff stated that the proposed language clarifies existing regulations and the Town Board's initial intent in said licensing was to level the playing field between commercial accommodations and vacation homes/condominiums in residential zoning districts. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee - September 2,2004 - Page 3 Following discussion, the Committee recommends Town Attorney White be authorized to prepare an Ordinance, to include staff revisions, for consideration by the Town Board. Chairman Doylen expressed the Committee's appreciation to the audience for their participation. Director Joseph will review County Assessor records to verify commercial rate property taxes are being appropriately applied on residential properties that are operating as accommodations. 2. Building Permit Fees - Proposed Increase. Since 1998, Bldg. Dept. revenues have increased by approximately 20%. During this same period, the cost of delivering the service has nearly doubled due to an improved level of service. Fees no longer cover costs and staff is recommending a 15% fee increase effective January 1, 2005. The proposal would allow building permit fees to cover approximately 99% of the Bldg. Dept.'s cost to deliver services. Additionally, staff is recommending building permit fees be reviewed annually and increased if necessary to ensure that fees keep pace with the cost to deliver services. A spreadsheet comparing 1998-2005 building permit revenue and Bldg. Dept. expenditures was reviewed. The Town made a decision to be more assertive to ensure the quality of construction met the Building Code, and performance standards were established to improve service. Chief Building Official Birchfield commented on past and current levels of service and the improvement thereof. Additionally, copies of sample valuation worksheets were distributed, and staff noted that the construction market fluctuates; however, staff does have control over how individual permits are calculated. The valuations need to be adjusted, not the fee schedule. Discussion followed, with the Committee recommending staff prepare a fee schedule that balances revenues and expenses, to include simplification of the process for the lay person. Staff will prepare a draft by the week of 9/27/04 for Community Development Committee members. Should the Chairman determine the subject requires additional consideration by the Committee, staff will re-submit in October. Otherwise, this issue will be included in upcoming Town Board Budget Study Sessions. Chief Building Official Birchfield noted that should the Town adopt the 2003 International Codes, a fee schedule must also be adopted as fee schedules are no longer contained in the Codes. 3. Electric Fencing Regulations - Proposed revision to the Municipal Code, to include Refuse Containers. Staff is proposing that Section 8.04.070(a) be amended as it conflicts with the EVDC Section 7.5 Landscaping - Protection of Wildlife Damage. Also, EVDC Section 7.8.G.1.e Refuse Disposal states "developments on sites containing important wildlife habitat, such as black bear, must be approved animal-proof refuse disposal containers." The proposed is as follows: No electrically charged fences, except those approved through site-specific development plans in compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code shall be installed on any property within the Town. With Division of Wildlife approval, refuse disposal containers and enclosures may be electrified. Staff has discussed the conflict between dumpsters and bears with DOW Representative Spowart and Waste Management Mgr. Hurt, and both agree that electrified refuse disposal containers should be available to residents as a tool to potentially avoid killing bears. The voltage is not life threatening. The Committee RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee - September 2,2004 - Page 4 recommends protocol for DOW approval be clarified prior to submittal of the Ordinance to the Town Board for approval. 4. Policy Manual Development Fee Schedule - Proposed Implementation of Phase 11. In 2003, staff submitted a 2-yr. implementation schedule (2004-2005) for development fee increases. On December 9,2003, Phase I was approved and staff was to re-submit Phase 11 to the Community Development Committee. 2005 budget projections assume a $25,000 revenue increase. The objective is to achieve a 50% recovery of direct costs. The Committee recommends approval of Phase 11 as presented. Reports. â€¢ Monthly Building Permit Summary. The Committee reviewed the summary that indicated a 10% decrease in valuation through July, 2004. Staff predicts a strong finish in 2004 due to large projects nearing startup. â€¢ Personnel: Ben Espinosa has been hired to fill the vacant Bldg. Inspector position; he will serve as a combination inspector to include electrical inspections currently being performed by the State Electrical Inspector. Electrical inspections are now being provided three days/week and this new hire will increase inspection availability to five days/week. SPECIAL EVENTS. Surprise Sale Days, October 9 & 10, 2004 - Approval. The Committee reviewed the standard Resolution that cites established guidelines, naming October 9 & 10, 2004 as Surprise Sale Days from 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. The Committee recommends approval. MUSEUM/SENIOR CENTER. 1. Senior Center Meal Contract. The one-year Food Contract with Catering for All Occasions (CAO) expires 8/31/04. Under the new one-year contract, the Town would continue paying a $2/meal subsidy to CAO not to exceed $25,000 and there would be no change in the level of Town support for each Meals on Wheels client. A new item states that CAO would assume all expense and revenue from the coffee program and this will result in a cost savings to the Town of $1,000 in 2005. Additionally, staff is proposing members pay a $4 meal fee and non-members pay a $6 meal fee. The Committee recommends approval of the Food Contract as presented and proposed meal fees, with staff to negotiate a 3-mo. extension for the remaining year, moving toward a full year contract in the future. 2. Museum Admission Fees. Admission fees were last increased in 1995, and the Museum Advisory Board is recommending an increase in 2006 from $2.50/adult to $3.00, and adults 60 & over from $2.00 to $2.50. Staff is recommending the increase be effective in 2005; schedules indicate a "no maximum" with the $1.00 maximum/family fee. The rates offer incentives for memberships and Estes Park school children. The proposed increase in revenue is $1,100. Discussion followed on eliminating the fees as administrative costs and relative insignificant income. The Committee recommends eliminating Museum Admission Fees. Reports. â€¢ Senior Center Bi-Monthly Report. Overall, thus far, the Center has increased revenues from 2003. Miscellaneous Senior Center Board activities, buildings and grounds, and programming were also highlighted. â€¢ Museum Bi-Monthly Report. Attendance at the Museum, Fall River Hydroplant, and programs were reviewed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development Committee - September 2,2004 - Page 5 MISCELLANEOUS. Chairman Doylen requested Directors Kilsdonk and Mitchell provide the Committee a conclusive report of all municipally owned public meeting space (fees-amount and how same is applied, amount of meeting space, amenities, etc.). There being no further business, Chairman Doylen adjourned the meeting at 9:51 a.m. Vickie O'Connor, CMC, Town Clerk DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEE SCHEDULE Effective 1/1/05 All fees are due at time of submittal. Submittals will not be accepted unless fees have been remitted. ITEM FEE Administrative Appeal to Board of Adjustment or Board of Appeals $300 Annexation $1,200 Development Agreement or Annexation Agreement $1,000 (Plus any direct Town Attorney fees) Pre-Application Conference No Fee Rezoning $1,500 (Less development plan review base fee, if paid) Temporary Use Permit $50 Street Name Change $100 ROW / Easement Vacation $100 Separate Lot Review $100 Variance Petition (Board of Adjustment) Prior to Construction $350 Variance Petition (Board of Adjustment) After Un-Permitted Construction $700 Condominium Subdivision Preliminary Condominium Map $1,200 (Less development plan review base fee, if paid) Final Condominium Map or Supplemental Map $280 Development Plan (including Special Review and P.U.D.*) Non- Residential Use: Base Fee (21000 s.f. Gross Floor Area) $400 (Plus $20 per 100 s.f. of G.F.A. in excess of 2,000 s.f. up to a maximum of $2,400) Base Fee applied to Concept Plan Review and Amendments 2 ITEM FEE Development Plan (including Special Review and P.U.D.*) - Continued: Residential or Accommodation Use: Base Fee (3 units) $400 (Plus $100 per unit for every unit in excess of 2,000 s.f. up to a maximum of $2,400) Base Fee applied to Concept Plan Review and Amendments Land Subdivision Preliminary Plat Base Fee (ten or fewer lots) $2,000 (Plus $100 for every lot in excess of ten, up to a maximum of $4,000) Final Plat Base Fee (ten or fewer lots) $1,200 (Plus $60 for every lot in excess of ten, up to a maximum of $2,400) Minor Land Subdivision Minor Land Subdivision $400 Amended Plat $280 Boundary Line Adjustment $200 * Total P.U.D. fees are based on the cumulative amount of all applicable review steps as listed above. NOTE: Recording fees are not included and must be paid by the applicant at time of recording. NOTE: Refunds for work not performed are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. The Director's decision may be appealed to the Community Development Committee. All requests for refunds must be made in writing. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 13-04 WHEREAS, on July 23, 1991, the Board of Trustees adopted Ordinance 15-91 pertaining to "containment" within the C-D District, and subsequent adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code (Chapter 4, Zoning Districts, specifically paragraph a. Outdoor Sales, Use, Storage and Activity in the CD Zoning District, Number (3) Exceptions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the following guidelines shall be adopted for the "Surprise Sale Days" being sponsored by the Special Events Department that is scheduled October 9 and 10, 2004: 1. Hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. 2. The Sale Weekend is available to all Estes Park businesses. 3. The Sale Weekend will be held rain or shine. 4. Businesses will be allowed to sell merchandise in front of their store only during the hours specified above. 5. Each business will be allowed one (1) outside selling space. 6. Sidewalk displays shall provide a minimum clearance of 4' for pedestrian ways and handicapped accessibility. Displays and/or merchandise will not be allowed in any street. 7. Those merchants without sidewalk frontage may reserve a space in Bond Park by contacting Linda Hinze at 586-6104. 8. Advertising posters will be provided. 9. All participating businesses must possess a current Town Business License. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that every business is urged to participate in this Surprise Sale Days annual event. DATED this day of ,2004. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) Board Meeting Date: August 11,2004 Members Present: Susan Doylenâ€ž Eric Blackhurst, Karla Porter, Catherine Jensen Members Absent: Jack Dinsmoor Staff Present: Rita Kurelja, Sam Betters Others Present: Mariann Pugh, David Lingle, Joe Wise, Guests: The August 11, 2004 meeting ofthe Estes Park Housing Authority was called to order by Chairperson Susan Doylen at 8:39 a.m. in Room 203 ofthe Estes Park Municipal Building. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made to approve the July 7,2004 minutes of Estes Park Housing Authority Board of Commissioners meeting by Eric Blackhurst and seconded by Karla Porter. Vote was called for. All voted Aye. Motion to approve the July 7,2004 minutes of the Estes Park Housing Authority passed. COMMITTEE REPORTS- None to report FINANCIALS- Preliminary Budget: Sam Betters presented the Board with a preliminary budget for 2005 and 2006. 2005 will be a year of transition with few major changes in the budget. 2006 will bring more changes including terminating the IG agreement. Sam's role as Director will diminish. EPHA will purchase accounting services from HACOL. Accounting fees will go up while management fees will go down. Various scenarios were being investigated regarding employee benefits. Sam reiterated the importance of paying employees a good wage. The board was given a projection on cash flows. Sam suggested a transition team be appointed to assist with issues related to this transition. Eric and Karla volunteered. Sam reported that the HACOL board is committed to the EPHA and accounting services or other services could be contracted for as long as desired or needed. DEVELOPMENT UPDATES Vista Ridge- â€¢ Sam reported that he and Rich would be meeting with Coe on Friday to discuss Phase 3. â€¢ Sinnett will be moving ahead to replace the trees at Vista Ridge. If this is not done immediately EPHA will take care of it and deduct the cost from the retainage held. â€¢ Joe Wise reported the last unit in phase 1 was now under contract. Joe asked about having the model 'moved' into phase 2. Price would go up due to options. Will decide on next month. EPHA Board Meeting Minutes Page 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS Communications to Report - none to report. REPORTS UPDATES & OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Talons Pointe Budget revision: â€¢ Sam presented a revised budget necessary due to a formula error. Project still shows a good profit. Motion to approve the revised Talons Pointe budget was made by Eric Blackhurst and seconded by Karla Porter. Vote was called for and all voted Aye. Motion passed. â€¢ Occupancy and Delinquency: Rita reported that there were 2 vacant units in July, one has just been filled and the other was an eviction in progress. Delinquency of $1200 was from that same tenant. Cleave Street - â€¢ Dave Lingle presented the board with renderings and proposals on the Cleave Street renovation project. Two different concepts, one being all brick front and one partial brick. Also presented were cost estimates on each conceptual idea. The board complemented Dave on his work. Discussion on improving the quality of investment and various financing ideas. Rita and Sam will be going to DOH for some funding. Staff will continue on with the process. Talons Pointe- Mariann reported that she had one vacancy and $2,912 in delinquency however All of that was 30 days old or less. OTHER BUSINESS- â€¢ LhOP request will be postponed until September meeting. â€¢ Rental Survey- Rita gave a brief report on the rental survey she had done. Gave the Board a draft of some highlighted points. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn was made by Eric Blackhurst and seconded by Karla Porter. All voted Aye. Meeting was adjourned at 10:15 am. Respectfully submitted, Rita Kurelja Estes Park Housing Authority Program Manager EPHA Board Meeting Minutes Page 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 31, 2004 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the AUDIT COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 31St day of August, 2004. Committee: Trustee Bill Pinkham, Chairman, Mayor Baudek, Town Administrator Widmer, Assistant Town Administrator Repola, Finance Officer Brandjord Attending: All Also Attending: David Lee and Neil Waud, representing MBIA Absent None Chairman Pinkham called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. ANNUAL AUDIT SERVICES - ENGAGEMENT LETTER. Discussion followed regarding contracting with the independent audit firm of Swanhorst and Cutler, LLC, to perform the audit of the Town of Estes Park's financial statements for the year ending December 31, 2004. It was moved and seconded (Baudek/Repola) the engagement letter between Swanhorst and Cutler, LLC and the Town be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously. INVESTMENT PERFORMANCE - ANNUAL REVIEW. David Lee/Client Services Manager, and Neil Waud/CFA, Assistant Vice President, Portfolio Manager with MBIA Customized Asset Management discussed the market environment and performance of the Town of Estes Park's portfolio. There being no further business, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 2:55 p.m. Pete Brandjord, Finance Officer MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: 9-9-04 Subject: Vacation Home Regulations (short term rentals) Background: Staff has prepared clarifications and minor revisions to the existing short-term rental regulations, including business license requirements. These changes have been reviewed in detail by the Community Development Committee and are now being presented for adoption. The most significant new element is a limitation of 8 guests per single family lot or residence. The existing code format also sets out business license requirements in two separate sections that, taken together require separate licenses for separate ownerships. The proposed revisions simplify and clarify this standard that requires separate licenses for each separate ownership, including each individual condominium ownership. Budget Impact It is expected that strict enforcement of the separate ownership/separate license standard will result increased revenues. Recommendation: The Community Development Committee recommended Adoption. 18 August 2004 COLORADO WOLF MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP What are your thoughts about a wolf presence in Colorado? The possible wolf presence in Colorado is a serious matter for those ranchers and farmers who rely on their livestock to support their families and to remain on the land. This situation is also a serious matter for the well-being of agriculture and the production of food. Wolf presence can negatively impact those agricultural stewards of our land that provide us with open space and the wildlife that drives our tourism industry. For some Coloradoans, the presence of wolves is strictly an emotional, spiritual, or religious experience and will not negatively impact them as long as the wolf presence does not effect their pocket book or move to their back yard. I'm privileged to be one oftwo county commissioners on this fourteen member Colorado Wolf Management Working Group which is assigned the task of developing a state plan for managing and controlling Canadian wolves as they migrate into Colorado. You might say that we are to develop a plan that advises the Colorado Division of Wildlife about when, where, and under what circumstances to manage wolves when they arrive and are de-listed. We initially met as a group, June 13, 2004, to establish ground rules of process and personal relations with individual members representing wildlife advocates, sportsmen and women, livestock producers, and local government. My pro-active participation in the Front Range Fuels Treatment Partnership, Rocky Mountain National Park Elk Management Task Force, and Ozone Early Action Compact to address environmental issues from a common sense and teambuilding point of view is rewarding and constructive. Since my knowledge is limited, my conflict resolution skills are being utilized and tested to the fullest to encourage constructive dialogue among members with emotional, diverse, and conflicting opinions on this wolf working group. Our July 13-14 meetings consisted of presentations by wildlife agencies and other stakeholders to provide us with information from wolf reintroduction states. We also established sub-group membership and goals for the August 16-17 group meetings. These sub-groups: Ecology, management, and livestock came up with recommendations for discussion and consensual agreement. The areas of discussion on the 17th were centered around definition of high and low conflicts and impact-based management. Limited consensus on a couple topics was achieved. We identified need for Wildlife Commission regulatory changes needed to deal with wolfpresence when it occurs. We established working sub-group assignments to work on funding issues, high and low conflict area definitions, and livestock-wild ungulate compensation. I .6 You must understand that Colorado is not a reintroduction state and is not required to develop a plan as the states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Colorado is being pro- active in anticipating wolf presence and developing a plan prior to being needed. This is a slow process and designed to be a consensus developed for all interests involved. When a draft is completed, hopefully by the end of this year, an outreach process will begin for public comment. I am now developing an outreach and citizen input program for Larimer County. I will be actively contacting groups and individual citizens throughout Larimer County prior to our September working group meeting in Glenwood Springs. Our next work group meetings will be Sept 28-28 to discuss results of sub-group assignments. Ifyou would niore information on the Working Group, you can go to the Meridian Institute website: www.merid.org. I can be reached at (970) 498-7002 or tbender@larimer. org ifyour organization or you would like more information. - 4*9 ~ For your information if 4 # â€¢ Brief historical perspective of wolf recovery r Wolves and Ungulates in Idaho < â€¢ CurTent management Â· ?9 â€¢ Changes in the wind Trends in populations and hunter success * â€¢ Wolf population status in Idaho Steve Nadeau â€¢ Ungulate populations status Wolf Program Coordinator f t.,4 f> . - ~ â€¢ Monitoring efforts in relation to wolves ';â€¢' â€¢ Effects on hunting success and hunters -VA=le.:2.2. % ~, Brief Recent History of Wolf ~ Brief Recent History of Wolf 01 Recovery in Idaho Â£ Recovery in Idaho 00 â€¢ 1980's numerous field surveys R â€¢ 1988 Legislature restricted IDFG 36-715 < 0 1996 First pups produced in Idaho; 3 packs i, â€¢ 200130 breeding pairs in 3-states for 1St time, meet~ 3 â€¢1992 Legislature allowed IDFG in EIS 2% delisting criteria in 2003 i â€¢ 1995 15 wolves released in Idaho, * â€¢ 2002 Legislature Accepts Wolf Plan * â€¢ 2003 FWS down-lists wolves in WDPS . * 0 2003 Leg. Allows IDFG reinvolvement 11 â€¢ 1995 Legislature rejects Wolf Plan w/ IDFG a.'Â¢~Â·Â· 9 â€¢ 2004 FWS proposes Sec. 100) rules change â€¢4 lead role, NPT leads recovery effort 1* â€¢ 2004 [DFG lists wolf as big game 4222 1 Current Management Model ~ Proposed Changes to 100) rules â€¢ USFWS primary authority ; â€¢Service proposed more leniency in taking of â€¢ Contractual agreement with Nez Perce Tribe for Â¢ wolves by private sector protecting livestock, Idaho monitoring ~ i.3 pets â€¢ Wildlife Services depredations/control 2 0 22 tts' Cord plans to manage â€¢ Contractual agreement with IDFG transitioning into management . I May take effect this summedfall â€¢ IDFG, USFWS, WS, and NPT conducting field work ~1 â€¢ Interim management prior to delisting % ~ Idaho Wolf Plan (2002) ~RM Wolf Recovery and Delisting: ~ CAfter de-listing) ~tecovery Criteria @# â€¢ Identifies IDFG as primary manager following delisting; Lill- ~ â€¢ IDFG delineates roles of participating agencies; -Ii 1. Population Goal I, â€¢ Manage and monitor a minimum of 15 packs to assure @5 long-term survival where conflict is minimal; plit â€¢~ 2. "Adequate Regulatory â€¢ Depredations coordinated w/ WS; *%1~ Mechanisms" â€¢ 1&E presenting an objective view; (State Manage. Plans) Â¥ . â€¢ Depends on federal funding for implementation. 3â€¢ r â€¢ Manage similar to bears and lions .1 -- 424 2 1 . RM Wolf Recovery and Delisting: ~IRM Wolf Recovery and Delisting: ~ reeding Pairs 1995-2003 aracks and Breeding Pairs 2003 5011 - - - *. No. Breeding 0 State No. Wolves Pairs TI ---- ~it# Montana 182 9 25n - t - - - - - 4 2On 21 1511 -1------ 10{f~~| ~------- Wyoming 234 17 I NUES.2 ----- 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 _1)02 2003 Idaho 355 25 81 Population Recovery Goal Achieved 4 Total 771 51 in December 2002 47& 126 ~opulation Trend 1995-2003 -.e. Â·Â·~-lor/:I.-11;12#fut iffoi<43Â·44{91:4 12 - olf Population Status in Central Idaho: ~' . 1; ~~ 7. *.ht d~i, :*;t 44' 4- '1' "i' -'* 8 94**1*4% --Â·*- Â¥6 re,411 *mil143â‚¬2>, I 3~ 350 46;iEF'50-4-4. ~Â¥&*A e --*;Se =2*,~~ 21, ,~ â€¢,J~2~ 9,- - / 340 Ilililillillililillililli~ dowaidfilatimix/+ 422210:111/6/1//65733//S./ imigil:liz*12 D :50 1 LO / 8......... /1/Vul=a 7/171.16/1 491/'1 'A ./Mwill 1/limirp lemnameNEr# M 0 ..awl.- I i~ il iwil"/6, 1995 1996 1997 199* 1999 2000 2001 2002 20(}3 ~ 1 378 Wolves in 2003 A--in-lillial y > 43 Active Radio Collars 537* - fi~"uvi#- - ~ 1 > 16 Missing Collars 1 -1,-W#r*~IM-M= r.~0~-Y:;Ar.A~*,dfE:~496 3: IU-- . 1 â€¢Â·. ~ > 27% Increase in 2003 C O - :377 :7Â· Â· - .*:-rrr.:~-70'-~.. -, lmâ„¢Ers=7237ErEDÂ·/Â·'Ar.Â·-....4.--Â· 7.- .7 --e ,8 aoiel.Ii.,4,0 , 70 --3 .~Wi .02 -,2, .â€ž 2:3 .-~2,<591~.A'~t3~~6&Â£I~~F.2,412~ INg ~ 1442Â·4*/41Â»9*~ -1....3-,e..3 1.bffÂ©NiKEW/$34%*RE#2 57 1 -4*2cÂ£,Se=$22 .4 -Â· Â·Â· 4 -â€¢42*. 7 ---226:. v ka**5622.nk:â‚¬53.kikz~2 - . ...3.--- 1=:I--. I.- 4.-/- y. 2/ I- BA:.:&Â·:.Â·-Â·.eÂ·-CS.J..2ITOr*~f.Â£3Â·33%-fTSMR' .--# .'~Â·'Â·9-1-NIA..Dil'./.*4..+24*tu .... , 4, Â·." Â·Â·Â·Â· 0.-- 4.-77%;i#40;'i24220Â»; :.t'. -9 Â·0siÂ·â€¢ijb 4 @7 . ~ .:*... ...Â·r.-*931:Il#Illl:Tfb~~fÂ·Iket:Gle* â‚¬ r i ,..0 2'ji:..=.. 'A *.iMf>4**92/Tzie/:64/WI ' Â»32=ETPsâ‚¬22-Â« . 4,9 '~Il. Â·t..14'.t 3- - 3:3~2â€¢&11?,2,~3320*3:=.-ET ~~~1 ./27 * .732*3*.4 /- ##AE.13.â‚¬.=- 2*.. Bvi--*1-&V ppl. . It : *144>-Â·iÂ·?- Â·Â·12 Â·=9'21#*0% - 0 7.'1;'7ASM~ 4 AA/ff,Kia,till ' SU-MA -. . 2-~ t,c> ...Â¢4':,74.25 1 - . .4.-Â·Â· 4, : . ~.1- --t:*5;r ... 461. :t: - ' "; -j:1+N '.iÂ·Â·Â·11!I:+1492:.4Â·:,53Â·t- c-Â«4Â·. V . -M-vit. 7.7 -Â·- -940-Â·f~-253*j.3-5.- Â· -Â·'" -Â£-Mr'-- ~Â©941*14*iÂ¥t'*4: 04*24*Â»:24'65 ~un~ ./IN:/.lk....2/la<. L F- 2003 Wrolf Actlvlty R.44t-- 4.-I-- (Li St,4 'I-:= *A EFEE=- O=-h Â®=i #Â«All it 5 -- 0/.----'.0........ f.,Fr.,- - 4- g 6~-6. 43 Â¥-2.-- i,\6-44/0.-â€ž ?1131 Â»:-*2;*93. rÂ«.7 - I .. ht#Â¢0-1/8/0//#20/JW/' , fr ,- i -.r- .AÂ« Cerâ€ž 1-h- '4 i., 1.- *f.-<.tj,Lki 13 Il 1 r ' ' -' 91 1.1.1~ .., - -: .791 9 L_f 4 1'2,7.%.f.~~~~ 1, . 154% 3/61&8*WRN*A.'Pr - ~ Middle Fork Zone Elk Numbers -9-- Unit 28 Calf Ratios by Strata 45 - y moo-Â· C %000 35 * 30 .4 5000 ~ 25 te---,Lk---/7 ~ l ~*Pinther 4000 m calves 4 IE- ~ -er- Carnal 10 5- ~ 1991 1996 ~ 1999 2000 ~ 2001 ~ 2002 2003 ~ 2004 1989 1992 1995 1999 2002 0Â·' East Face No fire Impach: litle, b/Increasing, woÂ¥ actlvit0 i Lower Parther CT.: Large-scale fire Impacts and high woN activity < Units ZOA, 26,27 Camas Cr.: Highwo/ activlty. b/ bow to moderate fire Impacts ~ Outfitter Quotes 4 Middle Fork Calf:cow' Bull:cow ratios F 30' * â€¢ 'Opportunity remains plentiful but not as big as it was in 25 F the height of the elk herd" Travis Bullock, Mile High Outfitters, Middle Fork Zone 20 -- .m 2 1% â€¢ ThelOGA supports state wolf management and urges ~ 5 ~0-1 1 â€¢caltÂ·loocows ,* IDFG to be aggressive with utilizing all available tools 10' r .1 mi .4 1 including trapping, hunting and meaningful research to 5, deal with unacceptable wolf predation on ungulates. 0 /1, Grant Simonds, IOGA 1989 1992 1995 1999 2002 M 1/ ~ Study design ~ Clearwater Dilemma a â€¢ Early 1990's declining elk populations ~~ â€¢ 1 treatment area bear/lion reduction, â€¢ Plummeting calf:cow ratios < â€¢ 1 treatment area no hunting for bears and lions - : â€¢ Implemented research in 1997, following harsh winter ~ Â· -3 180'6 normal snowpack + i; â€¢ Control: no change in hunting *- â€¢ Radio collared calves suffered 95% mortality, due * â€¢ Wolves present in all study areas, increasing mostly to bear and lion predation ~ mostly in no hunting area (Unit 15) â€¢ Continued research/monitoring, doubled harvest of ~ bears and lions, calf:cow ratios improved 1 â€¢ Habitat concerns 3 9, ~ Clearwater Unit 10 Elk Numbers Â£ Calf:100 Cow Ratios Clearwater 8 72- r.5 40 - 35 :., 8000- - 1 1- ~ Total 25Â· - Â· ~m Unit 15 a.: 6000- . COW. 4.k n 1â€¢ Unâ€¢101 *f 20 2 -Ull 2000 ./. Â» U a O Calves IOUnit14 I- 5 :iffliafÂ«6+10.1 0 1989 1992 1994 1998 1999 2002 2003 2004 1987 19B9 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 M 193 - 99 6 L _41 Selway Wilderness Elk 30 . ,-t- L 25- 71. 5 /IE - / 1 A l.7.- * : -Â· 1. i J.f :--p~kfFTÂ·8[ 1< - :- p77Â¢:3 -41 0. 1988 1991 1995 1999 2004 F .ck -v:21 Ifii 2003 Wolf ACUVIty 11.NCI - 131--'-I ..morÂ·- f Â·4~ A.mz... Â· 47-4.p?. - :ur-=m. imr..,/- d# Idaho Hunter Numbers and Harvest . fiFEEEDâ‚¬9. ~ 120000 0 100000Â· - ttlÂ·=Slit- 80000. 60000 1 Harvest -/817&--- -#-1 -4 Â»-4 reF U 40000 9- 20000- #11.-L---- --COL-j--LU vi 4 4, ofi .klifit] I.I.il.Iii -4,-4 Fxf,.Â£ 2<1Â·W 1982 1988 1994 2000 6-0131 k r>h //!il -- Â¥1,= lek 7/91611 Hunter Success Rates vs. Wolf 1~ Packs in Idaho ~ Summary 40 , â€¢Wolf populations continue to increase in Idaho C â€¢Elk populations are stable in Idaho with some 30 P fluctuations by zone due to variety of reasons 25Â· -~ A. / V V J /VT - %Success 4. Hunter success is stable: minor nuctuations due to 20 - 2 15 - - wolf packs $ weather, regulations, population fluctuations at local 2 ~ level, economy,911, etc.. 4 U â€¢ Some fluctuations in populations at local or unit level O .1,1,111,1,11/11,1.111 1~ likely, and may be influenced by wolves and other :W carnivores lift â€¢ Hunter attitudes greatly impacted, most likely primarily 4 due to behavioral changes in elk. Summary e Mere fact of predation by woives and other large carnivores does not immediately or always result in lower populations, but seems to have impact following harsh winters or reduced quality of habitat:. Predation must be monitored and managed, but it is just one of many factors influencing elk populations and not necessarily the most important one. ORDINANCE NO. 4-04 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5.20 BUSINESS LICENSE AND REPEALING CHAPTER 5.35 SHORT TERM RENTALS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO WHEREAS, it is necessary for Chapter 5.20 of the Municipal Code to be amended to clarify that all accommodation units, including but not limited to condominium units and vacation homes, which are separately owned are required to obtain a business license from the Town of Estes Park if the units are being rented on a short term basis (tenancy of thirty days or less); and WHEREAS, it is necessary to repeal Chapter 5.35 Short Term Rentals from the Municipal Code and include a significant portion of said repealed section within a new Section 5.20.120 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to adopt certain terms and restrictions on the use, occupation and renting of vacation homes within the Town in order to maintain the residential character of neighborhoods within the Town; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, has determined it is in the best interest of the Town to amend the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado by the adoption of this Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: Sections 5.20.010, 5.20.020, 5.20.040, 5.20.060, 5.20.070, 5.20.080, 5.20.100 shall be amended and to read as follows: Section 5.20.010 Business License Fee (1) There is imposed a business license fee on the privilege of carrying on or engaging in any business, profession or occupation within the Town, which business, profession or occupation consists of the selling of goods, wares, merchandise or service; the performing or rendering of service, for charge, the leasing, renting or furnishing of accommodation units; and the carrying on or engaging in any nonresident business or community special event. Each business, profession or occupation conducted at a separate physical location, regardless of ownership, shall pay a business license fee. (2) Each individual accommodation unit, which is separately owned, including, but not limited to, a condominium unit, shall pay a business license fee for the individual unit. An entity or company managing one or more accommodation units, including 1 . but not limited to, condominium units, shall also pay a business license fee for the management business separate from the business license fee paid by the owner of the individual accommodation unit. Section 5.20.020 Definitions In this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: (11 Accommodation means the leasing, renting or furnishing of any room, mobile home site, recreational vehicle site, camp site or other area in any hotel, motel, guest house, bed and breakfast, apartment, dormitory, mobile home park, recreational vehicle park or campground, any single-family dwelling, duplex, multiple family dwelling, condominium unit, vacation home or any such similar place to any person who, for a consideration, uses, possesses or has the right to use or possess such dwelling, room, single-family dwelling, duplex unit, multiple-family unit, condominium unit, vacation home, site or other accommodation for a total continuous duration of less than thirty (30) days. 91 Accommodation unit means each individual room, set of rooms, site, single- family dwelling, duplex unit, multiple-family unit, condominium unit, vacation home or divided area rented, leased or occupied on a unit basis in an accommodation. (2.1) Vacation home shall mean a residential dwelling unit, as defined in the Estes Valley Development Code that is located within a residential zoning district and is rented, leased or occupied on a unit basis as an accommodation. Section 5.20.040 Business License Required Every person who is the owner of any business, profession, occupation or accommodation unit including owners of multiple businesses at separate physical locations, which is subject to the business license fee set forth in this Chapter, shall obtain a business license from the Town prior to engaging in any business, profession, occupation or accommodation within the Town. Section 5.20.060 Payment of License Fee The owner of each business, profession, occupation or accommodation unit subject to the provisions of this Chapter shall pay the business license fee for each calendar year in which the owner engages in any business, profession, occupation or accommodation within the Town as follows: (1) One-half (1/2) the business license fee may be paid at any time, provided that full payment is required on or before June 30 of each calendar year. (2) Any new business, profession, occupation or accommodation which begins its business on or after January 1 and on or before June 30 shall pay the full amount of the business license fee. Any new business, profession, occupation or accommodation 2 which begins its business on or after July 1 and on or before September 30 shall pay one-half (1/2) of the business license fee. Any new business, profession, occupation or accommodation which begins its business on or after October 1 and on or before December 31 shall pay one-fourth (1/4) of the business license fee. All business license fees subject to this Subsection (2) shall be due and payable upon submittal of an application to the Town Clerk's office. (3) In the event any existing business license is not renewed in the subsequent calendar year on or before July 1, the business license shall be deemed to have lapsed. A new business license fee in full must be paid by the owner. There shall be no proration of this business license fee. Section 5.20.070 Violation It shall be a violation of this Chapter for an owner of a business, profession, occupation or accommodation or any person subject to the business license fee imposed herein to fail or refuse to make payment to the Town of the fee or in any other manner to evade the collection and payment of the fee imposed by this Chapter. Section 5.20.080 Revocation of License The Town, after giving written notice to the owner of any business, profession, occupation or accommodation unit who has failed to pay the fee in accordance with Section 5.20.060 may revoke the license of the owner. Upon revocation of the license, the owner's right and privilege to conduct the business, profession, occupation or accommodation within the Town is terminated. Section 5.20.100 Inspections The Town shall be entitled at any time, upon reasonable notice to the owner of any business, profession, occupation or accommodation, to inspect the premises occupied by the business, profession, occupation or accommodation for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with the terms and conditions of this Chapter. In the event that such inspection reveals that the business license fee charged to the business, profession, occupation or accommodation is in fact erroneous, an adjustment shall be made by the Town of the license fee. Section 2: Subsection 5.20.030 (5) shall be deleted in its entirety. Section 3: Section 5.20.090 Reinstatement of License shall be deleted in its entirety. Section 4: The Municipal Code shall be amended by the addition of Section 5.20.120 Vacation Homes in Residential Zoning Districts to read as follows: 3 . Section 5.20.120 Vacation Homes in Residential Zoning Districts This Section shall apply to the leasing, renting, and occupation of any vacation home existing in the following zoning districts of the Town: RE-1, RE, E-1, E, R, R-1, R-2 and R-M. (a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to permit the operation of vacation homes in residential zoning districts while maintaining the residential character of those districts. (b) Restrictions on Rentals. The leasing, renting, or occupation of all vacation homes subject to this Section shall be restricted as follows: (1) Vacation homes shall not be operated in manner that is out of character with residential uses. This includes vehicular traffic and noise levels that are out of character with residential uses. Vacation homes shall be designed to be compatible, in terms of building scale, mass and character, with a predominantly low-intensity and low-scale residential setting. Guest rooms shall ba integrated within the vacation home. Kitchen facilities shall be limited to be consistent with single family residential use. (2) A vacation home shall be rented, leased or occupied by no more than one party with a maximum of eight (8) individuals comprising the party. In the event that full-time on-site management manages the vacation home, the vacation home may be rented, leased, or occupied by more than one party provided no more than eight (8) individual guests shall occupy the vacatioh home. (3) No changes in the exterior appearance to accommodate each vacation home shall be allowed, except that one (1) wall-mounted identification sign no larger than four (4) square feet in area shall be permitted. (4) Only one vacation home shall be permitted per lot in single family residential districts. (5) No recreational vehicle, as the same is defined in Chapter 13 of the Estes Valley Development Code, tent, temporary shelter, canopy, teepee, or yun shall be used by any individual for living or sleeping purposes. (6) Each vacation home is permitted a maximum of three guest vehicles on site at any one time. On street parking shall be prohibited. (7) Vacation homes shall be subject to commercial utility rates and sales tax. 4 (8) The application for a business license for any vacation home shall designate a local resident or property manager of the Estes .Valley who can be contacted by the Town with regard to any violation of the provisions of this Section. The person set forth on the application shall be the agent of the owner for all purposes with regard to the issuance of the business license, the operation of the vacation home and revocation of the business license pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Section. (c) Violation. It is a violation of this Section for any owner, agent, guest, and/or occupant of a vacation home to be convicted, including a plea of no contest, of a violation of Section 9.08.010 (Disturbing the Peace) of this Code; to fail to pay all required sales tax to the State due and owing for the leasing, rental or occupation of a vacation home; to violate any provisions of this Section; and/or to fail to acquire and pay for a business license. For the purpose of this Section, only violations of Section 9.08.010 of this Code which occur on the premises of the vacation home and while a vacation home is being occupied as a vacation home shall be a violation of this Section. Section 5: Chapter 5.35 Short Term Rentals shall be repealed in its entirety. Section 6: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF , 2004. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2004, and published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on the day of ,2004. Town Clerk 5 I , MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: 9-9-04 Subject: Electric Fence restrictions Background: The proposed revisions address unintended restriction of limited use of low voltage wire to protect landscaping from elk damage, and to deter bears from raiding dumpsters. This clarification will make low voltage deterrence available to protect landscaping and dumpsters from wildlife. Budget Impact None. Recommendation: The Community Development Committee recommended Adoption. Dear Town Clerk, I have just been informed that the town of Estes Park intends to pass an ordinance requiring individual owners of rental units to obtain a business license, even if the units are managed by a professional management company under an existing license. - I am writing to voice a strong objection to this action. There is no obvious benefit to residents of Estes Park or to the town (other than the collection of fees) in this ruling. Rentals such as the Solitude Cabin unit that my wife and I own, are managed by an on-site professional management company that is responsive to any problems which may occur at the ' property. Owners such as ourselves are merely investors, not business owners actively involved in theÂ· operation and control of the property. The management company is responsible for any actions required to ensure compliance with reg.ulations and maintain compatibility with neighboring properties. I am distressed that this action would be considered without notifying those directly affected by it. I learned of the proposal less than an hour ago and am not able to be present to defend my interests or present my views. Please convey the content of this e-mail as the opinion of two owners (my wife Sherry and myself) who are affected by this proposal. We are not currently residents, but we will be soon. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dave Followill 569 Amherst Cir. W. Satellite Beach, FL 32937-4003 321-773-7571 voice or fax Page 1 of 1 Vickie O'Connor From: ddenny@penton.com Sent: Tuesday, September 14,2004 3:57 PM To: Vickie O'Connor Subject: business license ordinance Sir/Madam: I do not understand the logic behind instituting a separate business license requirement for each and every homestead in Estes Park that accepts rental income. The original intent of the ordinance, as I understand it, was to ensure a degree of compatability between full-time residents and those who might rent or lease their home out to vacationers for a limited amount of time during the year. However, as I own a home among the Cabins at Solitude complex, all buyers know that many if not most of those homes would be rented out at times during the year. There could not be lack of access to property given this pre-purchase disclosure. Truely, this approach appears to be a method of taxing a portion of the community without a need for a public vote for atax. Further, this dismays meto find out this ordinance was put to a vote when most of the owners have gone home for the winter months. I respectively urge you to not institute this kind of aggregious and non-representative business licence requirement as a guise for raising taxes without due process. Darrell Denny Homeowner 1855 Sketch Box Lane Estes Park, Co 9/14/2004 urainance concerning Business Licenses Fage i oi 1 Vickie O'Connor From: Debra Van Tassel [VantasD@ci.louisville.co.us] Sent: Tuesday, September 14,2004 4:16 PM To: Vickie O'Connor CC: dvant@indra.com Subject: Ordinance concerning Business Licenses Importance: High To the Town Clerk, Mayor and Council of the Town of Estes Park: It has come to my attention that the Town of Estes Park will consider passage of an ordinance this evening that will require that each owner of a unit managed by a property management company to obtain a business license. While I respect the intent of the Town to insure compliance with existing regulations relative to compatibility with neighbors in residential areas, most of the units managed by a property management company are on commercially zoned property and not in residential areas. Any noncompliance by guests of these units can be addressed by the property management company directly. Surely the town does not encounter problems that would require them to deal directly with the property owner--especially when some of these owners are not residents of the State, let alone the Town. I, too, want the beauty and solitude ofEstes Park preserved and will work with my property management company to achieve this goal. However, the proposed change in ordinance appears to be merely a method of taxing a portion of the community without a need for a public vote for a tax -- at a time when most of the owners have gone home for the winter months. As a prospective owner, I strongly urge the Mayor and Council to reject any such proposal. Sincerely, Debra S. Van Tassel 2212 Kay Street Longmont, CO 80501 9/14/2004 FROM : ESTES PARK SURVEYORS FAX NO. : 9705865816 Sep. 14 2004 04:52PM Pl MEMORANbUM SOLITUDE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC. Post Office Box 304~ Telephone 970-577-7777 Estes Pork, CO 80517 FAX received at 970-577-0381 September 14, 2004 RE: Business License - Town of Estes Park Ordinance We just received notice that the Town of Estes Park will pails an ordinance this evening that will require that each owner in Solitude Cabins obtain c business license. The cost of the license is $150. It is the Town staff's opinion that the new ordinance will only clarify the requirement that is already in-place. Several years ago, when business licensing was first discussed for persons wishing to rent their homes for less than 30 days, the premise was that some control by the Town was needed to insure compliance with existing regulations relative to compatibility with neighbors in residential areas. This is no longer the case as they now exercise this control in all zoning districts including ours at Solitude Cabins. It appears to us that the Town could realize the same result by holding Solitude Management responsible for guest violations. There is no need for each cabin owner to have a separate license. The subdivision covenants for Solitude allow only one property manager on the site if a person wishes to rent their unit for less than 90 days. If the Town pursued only management companies, when one is being used to rent units for owners, they would only receive the revenue from one license rather than many licenses. For example, four rental managers in Town represent over 200 units. Under the plan being passed tonight, the Town will receive $30,000 in license fees each year in addition to the $1,500 provided by the management companies. Almost all of these units are on commercially zoned property and not in residential areas.- What possible problems could the Town have to deal with that requires their immediate access to the landowner? If they have any problems on the properties the management companies represent, they will simply call the management company. This scheme truly appears to be a method of taxing a portion of the community without a need for a public vote for a tax, you should also note that the Town brings this ordinance to a vote when most of the owners have gone home for the winter months. Thank you Paul & Kathy Kochevar . ORDINANCE NO. 5-04 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 8.04.070(a) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO ELECTRICAL FENCING WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park has determined that low voltage electrified fencing is an effective method to buffer and preserve landscaping from wildlife related damage and to animal-proof refuse disposal containers; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town to amend the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, by the adoption of this Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: Section 8.04.070 (a) of the Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: Section 8.04.070 (a) No electrical charged fences shall be installed, maintained or operated on any property within the Town, except low-voltage electrified fencing to protect landscaping from wildlife related damage approved through site specific development plans in compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code and to animal proof refuse disposal containers and enclosures subject to written approval of the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF , 2004. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor J I '.. Business Development Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Town Trustees From: Tom Pickering, Director of Business Development Date: 9/10/04 Re: Estes Park Convention & Visitors Bureau Background: At the June Town Board meeting staff presented a schedule of fee's that the CVB Board recommended for the first year of operation. At that time the fees for web enhancements had not been reviewed. The CVB board would like to recommend those fees as listed. 1. One basic web listing in appropriate business category No Charge 2. Enhancement to basic listing includes $350 Photo 8 bullet points Top of page placement 3. Any additional listings after one free one (additional categories) $150 4. Special group categories (Weddings, Photographers etc..) $50 Budget: None Action: Approve 2005 web fees. 1 - > L. I ESTES PARK CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU 2005 STAKEHOLDER FEE SCHEDULE **SEPTEMBER, 2004 IN-TOWN* OUT OF TOWN, IN BOUNDARY* 1. Business License 1. Business License Equivalency Fee 2. Property Tax 2. Property Tax Equivalency Fee 3. Collects 4% Sales Tax 3. Pays a 2% fee based on the previous year's revenues THE FOLLOWING FEES ARE IDENTICAL FOR BOTH GROUPS: 4. Phone & computer leads base fee of $200.00; Accommodations/rentals add $10.00/unit; Campsites add $1.00/site 5. Brochure Racks: $150.00/first rack; $50.00 each additional 6. Outdoor Advertising - $300.00 /space 7. Group Leads - $250.00/business 8. Web Links Only - No additional charge 9. Referral System - No additional charge **10. One basic web listing in appropriate business category No Charge Enhancement to basic listing $350 Includes: Photo 8 Bullet Points Top of page placement Any additional listings after one free listing (additional categories) $150 Special group categories (weddings, photographers, etc.) $50 *Year-to-year program that is subject to change. 1 09 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 .1 0\0 0\0 0\0 0/0 w M q m (1 00 414 Ch r-1 (N CO m O Ir) Do ,-1 m h m Ul G N ,-1 0 Mr-1 111 1 lili O\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 09 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 iN LO m 94 (-9 03 â€¢-1 (NCOCOChr-10911 ...... Cor-IL-r,mNs r--1 10 r-It r-1 ENCEÂ°Â°ZÂ°<rq. O\0 0\0 0\0 0\Do\O 0\0 O\0 019 0\0 o\Go\Â° O\0 0\0 M 00 m h O h 0141(33,-10Â©Ch# 03 > In O (1 00 Ch m 03 0 0 Ch 00 ,-1 1-1 ,-1 â€¢-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 2 09 2 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 O\0 0\0 ow O\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 r-1004'004'LOr-1 r-ING)[-LONO (NLOWL.r)/#Lfl M h r-IN (N ON 01 1 I cir-1 11 01 111 O\0 0\0 00 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 > 5 In LD m 00 0 / 5 01 03 N 00 â€¢41 5 0 m w ft-1.0 81 0,4)(N>000* 1 .1 1 r-1 r-1 r-1 E, O\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0\low 0\0 0\0 0\0 4 9 9 9 ul : b M L.0 t--1 r-1 5= eT-STâ„¢ .... 91 O Ul 01 01 1 1 to E-, 9 9 M oho ow e e ow m 8*..... ,- o N Ln co m O,-O!.nelt-ltÂ·- ..... Ul O 5 03(N '' LO el 1 0 0 2. 1 1-1 1 0 0 1 1 H = dp-ded*dp 0/0 0/0 .P de - E-1 m M 91 w 00 9 rn#r-19115 41 O LD (N .-1 9 N CÂ·Â·- Â·11 M Ir-IT--1 1 O\0 ow O/0 0\0 0\0 0\0 0/0 010 0\0 0/0 0/0 0\0 0\0 ow 0\0 0\0 01.#ht'.4â€¢LO Grn=lit-OLOCNLA ...... Om.510.-1 03(Nr-lt-Inr-Imt.r) [91111.-1 Er - lit m M M >1 Z 1-1 ED Al E-1 > U 8%1*MERN=ERE 1,*0<ME@E:*mokA . I . VISITS US 34 U L RETAIL ACCOM REST GROC DONS N MODDY 7 IVIHN UYZEOLL UYLLOM n # E sn SMISIA ECONOMIC INDICATORS g 2004 - 2003 SALES TAX ' 6.3% -21 XVE SEUVS ONTHLY % % 3190-01-kIVEA