The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2006-07-25Prepared 7/17/06 \'1 i .17 > . ' ' 4 4Â©45,] TOWN OF ESTES PARK 4 29. r ., t'Â· , :f i.". j :.,i --r- 3:Fl,Z'<.0:4Â·&44'Â·. W/929'.4.7 :2.*A...2t. 34 1% .- '.:*..3~:;::'.,4 '3_4.--Â·3 Â·Â· 1: ,A,.:,LEÂ·43 3413-f,' â‚¬V~ 31)1'lf .i FI:. ,,Â· :AÂ·- r-f- -~ ~ ~~ ....h i :-3Â¢ 51#; ..:~~Â·.:.ri?- An Â·. Â·Â·-Â«a, := / The Miesion of the Â·Town of Eetes Fark le to plan and provide reliable, hi0h-value services for our citizens, visitore, and employees. We take ereat pride eneurin0 and enhancing the cluality of life in our community by beine good etewards of public resources and natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, July 25,2006 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address) TOWN BOARD COMMENTS 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated July 11, 2006. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Works, July 13, 2006. 1. Purchase 2006 GMC 3500 4X4 with snowplow, $22,727 - Budgeted. B. Utilities, July 20,2006. 1. Purchase 2007 Ford F350 4x4 truck with utility body, $31,079 - Budgeted. 2. Purchase 2007 GMC 1500 4x4 truck, $19,250 - Budgeted. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, July 11, 2006 (acknowledgment only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, July 18, 2006 (acknowledgment only). 6. Ordinance #4-06 - Officially ratifying Town Board approval of 6/27/06 regarding EVDC Block 8 Amendments. 7. One-year Extension of Memorandum of Understanding between Rocky Mountain National Park and the Town/Estes Park Volunteer Fire Dept. for personal services and equipment required for both structural fire and wildfire suppression, July 20, 2006 - July 20,2007. lA. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Baudek: Open the Public Hearing for all Consent Agenda Items. If the Applicant, Public or Town Board wish to speak to any of these consent items, they will be moved to the "Action Item" Section. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: A. AMENDED PLAT 1. Stanley Hills Subdivision, Lot 22 and Outlot B, Thunder Canyon Homeowners Association/Applicant. 2. Lots 1, 2, and Outlot A, Timberlane Subdivision, and Tract 1, Brookside Addition, The Worldmark Club & Trendwest Resorts, Inc./Applicant. B. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. MLL-2 (Mary's Lake Lodge Il) Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #2, Units 40A, 40B, 41A & 41B, Lot 3B, Mary's Lake Replat of Mary's Lake Subdivision, Don Debey/Applicant. C. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. The Promontory Condominiums, Lot 6, Mary's Lake Replat of Mary's Lake Subdivision, The Promontory, LLC/Applicant. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. AQUATIC CENTER. Town Administrator Repola. 2. AMENDED MASTER PLAN. LOT 4. STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT. Town Administrator Repola. , A. Staff Report B. Developer Comments C. Public Comments D. Town Board Comments E. Discussion/Decision 3. CAFR REPORT. Finance Officer McFarland. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 5. ADJOURN. 4 NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. hp LaserJet 3015 423 HP LASERJET FAX invent Jul-21-2006 3:15PM Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 39 7/21/2006 3:05:29PM Send 6672527 1:23 2 OK 40 7/21/2006 3:06:57PM Send 5869561 1:23 2 OK 41 7/21/2006 3:08:25PM Send 5869532 1:35 2 OK 42 7/21/2006 3:10:05PM Send 5861691 1:58 2 OK 43 7/21/2006 3:12:09PM Send 6353677 1:36 2 OK 44 7/21/2006 3:13:52PM Send 5771590 1:43 2 OK Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 11, 2006 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 11 th day of July, 2006. Meeting called to order by Mayor.Baudek. Present: Bill Pinkham, Mayor ProTem Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer Richard Homeier Chuck Levine Wayne Newsom Also Present: Randy Repola, Town Administrator Suzy Schares, Deputy Town Clerk Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Absent: John Baudek, Mayor Mayor ProTem Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT None. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Eisenlauer complimented the Rooftop Rodeo Committee on the Parade. Trustee Pinkham stated the Army Corp Band put on an extraordinary event Monday night in Performance Park. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated June 27,2006. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, July 6,2006: Convention and Visitor Bureau 1. MacGregor Avenue to Park Lane Road Closures. â€¢ Estes Park Auto Extravaganza August 190 â€¢ Heritage Festival August 26'h & 27th. â€¢ Elk Fest September 2gth, 308 & October 1St. 2. 2006 Intercept Study - $12,200 - Budgeted. Museum/Senior Center Services 1. Fall River Picnic Shelter Restroom Guaranteed Maximum Price - $87,121.65 - Budgeted. 2. Policy Manual Update - Facility Rental Policy. It was moved and.seconded (Newsom/Levine) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. Board of Trustees - July 11, 2006 - Page 2 2. ACTION ITEMS: . 1. AQUATIC CENTER - REQUEST FOR FUNDING. Town Administrator Repola reviewed the request for financial assistance for the operation of the Aquatic Center. He explained the Park School District R-3 Board of Education and Estes Valley Recreation and Park District Board of Directors (EVRPD) have requested a reduction in utility costs and/or a cash dohation for the remainder of 2006 and all of 2007.to assist in the maintenance and repair of the Aquatic Center. The immediate concern is the gap between revenues and expenses. Park School -Board President, Larry Pesses, read the letter sent to the Town requesting financial assistance whichÂ·outlined several budget scenarios for the Aquatic Center. Both entities will request help from the citizens with elections in the fall of 2006 (School . bond issue) and 2007 (EVRPD mill levy); however assistance is needed for the next 18 months to cover expenditures. He commented this would be an opportunity fof 3 elected bodies to come together and address a community concern. The school board also requested assistance in developing a plan to effectively operate the Aquatic Center. Jack Holmquist, President of EVRPD, stated both organizations have spent a large amount of time preparing the scenarios presented. The EVPRD mission is to provide activities to both the citizens and visitors. Assistance is requested on a short-term basis to provide additional time to devise a plan to maintain the pool. EVPRD has raised fees on all services except youth activities. Public Comments: Comments where heard from Alice Schwartz, Joy Gimar, John Gammie, Karin Knudson, Linda Buehring, Sam Hewson, and Marilyn Herrmann: The Aquatic Center is a year-round community facility that benefits: both residents and visitors, young and old; swimming has many health benefits, especially for the disabled; the aquatic center is in need of extensive repairs,and financial support is'needed from the Town. Mayor ProTem Pinkham stated three letters urgingthe Town to assist the Aquatic Center were teceived from Jacqueline L. Oldham, Karen Steadman, and Brenda Reins. Town Administrator Repola reviewed the Town budget options to assist the Aquatic Center; a cash donation from 'the general fund, discounting the water ,and electric bills on a monthly basis or a combination of the two. After further discussion, the Board fa,vored subsidizing the' water and electric bills on a short- term basis. Trustee Newsom questioned whether the School and EVRPD bond and mill levy would pass, their advertising campaign, and the ability to meet the Aquatic Centers financial needs after 2007. Stan G@ngler, EVRPD, stated community needs should be addressed, budget -cuts would be necessary, and marketing brochures have been distributed with the CVB to assist in advertising the Aquatic Center to residents and visitors. Linda Chapman, Park School, District R-3 Superintendent, stated the pool has been funded through a joint venture with EVPRD for the past 20 years and the agreement needs revision. The School District's first goal is to educate children, yet additional funding for the Aquatic Center over the next 18 months has been dedicated. The School's operating budget is decreasing due to a decrease in enrollment, and expenses such as waged are rising. Several options have been explored including closing the pool to the community and limiting the use to the swim team and swimming lessons. She stated request for assistance is a short- Board of Trustees - July 11, 2006 - Page 3 term stopgap measure. She made it clear this is not a Town concern of the Town and the Town is under no obligation to assist. Trustee Homeier stated he appreciates the activities available at the pool and Superintendent Chapman for taking responsibility for the pool issues. He suggested the 2 entities seek assistance from Xcel Energy and form a fundraising committee. Mayor ProTem Pinkham stated there are several different taxing entities in the Estes Park that should collaborate to meet the needs of the community. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Blackhurst) to approve assistance to the Aquatic Center through 2007 by offsetting the utilities up to but not to exceed $30,000 annualized with the funding source being presented to the Utilities Committee and then to the Town Board on July 25, 2006 for approval, and it passed unanimously. 2. PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY APPOINTMENTS. Town Administrator Randy Repola to replace retired Public Works Director Bill Linnane in the interim, expiring 12/31/07. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Newsom) to approve the Platte River Power Authority appointment, and it passed unanimously. 3. OVERVIEW OF TOWN WATER RIGHTS. Town Attorney White briefed the Board on the Town's raw water rights. He stated the Town of Estes Park has a sufficient supply of water with 4 distinct water rights, including; 500 acre feet annually from the CBT project, 1217 units of CBT water, 3 units of the Windy Gap project (300 acre-feet), and 3 junior water rights in Fall River, Glacier Creek, & Black Canyon Creek. The Town has an augmentation plan that allows out of priority use of its junior water rights and replaces the water with Windy Gap water. Approximately half of the water rights are currently used each year and the remainder of the water is available for rental depending on the current conditions. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. â€¢ Town Administrator Repola reported the shuttle service began July 1, 2006 with 860 riders on July 4,2006 with an average of 12 riders per bus per hour. He stated this is the base year and adjustments would be made to continually improve the system. A commitment has been made for 3 years and any substantial changes would be made after that time. He reminded the public that the "loading zones" on Elkhorn Ave. are now shuttle stops and parking is prohibited. The Town has been very satisfied with the drivers from McDonald Transit. â€¢ Deputy Town Clerk Schares informed the Board of the T. I.P.S. training was held Monday, July 10, 2006 by American Eagle Distributing with 25 employees attending from 13 different establishments. Additional training sessions will be held after the summer season. Whereupon Mayor ProTem Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Bill Pinkham, Mayor ProTem Suzy Schares, Deputy Town Clerk Distribution: Town Board, Administrator Repola, EPHA/Kurelia FOOD TAX REFUND ANALYSIS JULY 20th, 2006 Report provided by Debbie McDougall, Accounting Manager AVERAGEINCOME FOR TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL " FAMIUES:r .DISABLED? 42(SENIORS YEAR APPLICATIONS FAMILIES DISABLED SENIORS 92Â»7Â·r A' Â»7Â·E..:' :..9'f-tit'=1~11.3: 19*1..:.ix .Jdify *t..4.3.1..:tf,2 4,%% 7-1...'~Â·S<.. .:7,2 1995 155 fortotal 75 17 50 Mciti$14,907 : " Â»Â·-1,$84881 t'f:4$10Â£863 :# $/ r * 9 : ./ Vn expenditure of 4,9::th 5-v. .:jv . ->43-3-3 ..Â·:Â·94%.:.... $24,250. t.lf.** -:7 1 4.,7107.1.r. t .1.1 ' 2 .1 1.-9:- Budgeted Ekit..>'Â· I. /' .; l.:;...iR*4~42 2 ' ...9. f, =. $10,000. /.Ptâ‚¬...~1?51":....11Â». t .A,1. L 4 Ut:i Â·14:0*.2 71% 14(. '.2...AC J '41 1996 122 for total 65 9 49 Â£1 4?4~15,795, 7 T~$7.,7563 5' -'2$10.760 expenditure of 95 ..D. 4.tâ€ž 4 :, f.Â»67! 4,44.1, 7 ... c.2 '14> $20,250. ... .......2 2... f t., 3 Budgeted $25,000. ~4 fibi. ''5â€ž9.â€ž k b .. 0 + 4Â·e 4. 27:i z.:,4 3, -1Â· .,1:zj.Â·..4*L.- .. .,â€ž~itI-;-JF~T..13 Di,7i 7 -.tilifl- 1997 134 fortotal 56 19 60 -%>TR ' #$ 6,167 t ri, 4. f~*$8,492.1 14Â©â‚¬$11:318.: expenditure of ,*,Â·Â§ *f'.,1, ...6.'I: .~Â·4-yÂ·Â· .Â·,I,~44171%.%,I $20,950 with 76 04 - ...i . k il k ; t.'1 1 3 repeats. ..b.,9/62,9.i:&:,5 '~4 -"/ .r: r'.; r. t> f.'.. ....1 4-,4.~ ''K t../. :59,ft,2 Â·6Â·4 .6 .1 --9 . I ... ., . 1 .... Budgeted *14Â£1 -2 * ,1.1'.-91, 13-'yt nf p $20,800. <ilÂ·ti.,r Â£7:Â· .~' ~,~Â«..d' ,r. 9- h Jik' f',.1 9146 :fÂ·. - ~..::.4. fr:t i),~3*#CLE.. <4 4 X 11.- . --1.1 W# 1998 141 fortotal 44 30 67 3,44$1,0,23Â§. 24-:$81025 1.-''tÂ·:4.201,1-l,123, '// 3 ; Â·A,9 6 expenditure of $19,600 with 106 repeats. ./Eygidjll- i...'<1~... .2/*Â·#AL .& Budgeted 10:34 ~Â·Â·~bÂ»:'t Â·~ 4vitt.Â«4:4.1 S 7+ 12: $21,180. ... 19> t.:. Â·Â·1 .= .-42.AltoÂ·.:let.:. r,-E 4-: Â·43,iJJ>..I.:Â·t~i : ..#f.:.-4., tÂ·,7:ip .3 - Fi:~1 '~tii :2~ ' :d 1999 148 for total 48 29 72 t.:' *$17:'363'/*44$8,018'q Â·' 1$1Â·22013: expenditure of ..2, 1 " I t.>Â· r ..' Â¢ 'Â·* $20,650 with ... I ... I Â·; . r.<AS th. : :I< :t Â¥Z.. ~' I 111 repeats. .71 ~St.ipÂ·, ... ,- 51!4/61, f.f'<Â·:Crw#Pf./31.:.. :fi ..4, r. :6,~. rE Budgeted .: .Â·. , les Â·~ . .-' ;~~. ,">tf~'~* ~ >,~~Y~'.'%Â¢ ~,Â·3Â· - ( Â· ./8.40, I. .02. f" ~ DE...: ..0 2., 1 '.>:9 . ./- 4. 44 1 % 4 . ' ' .0Â·*I-Â·.. 1,;4 .,IÂ·.:.g, 2 14:. $23,000. ,< - 73';; .. #Â· ..., Â· -.121{1 'yef.1.Â·d Al<. 24 :4-ruc V; ..45' 'b I ~'' 4'h : v '14 ' Â· 7': Â· ' Â·; ,Â·' *~ Â·%/ 49. Â· '19.41 Â»V. .,}~ , Â·:34. Â·Â· 3-/4.6:' f.,../ -*. 2000 133 foratotal 43 23 67 *Â·,4 $16:,74fi:U- $8;1764 ,:f, $.11,676 Q,â€¢Â·W expenditure of 342-1'13: 124, 45*f' '%11 h.4.: :,4....! $17,050, with 8 46*4:' ..... 1 1. 1 1, r '... r .....;43 .: I. . '. .t 110 repeats. V 'Al . P - I ; - 64:Â· $ . Â· Â· 4 - /Â£ Budgeted $22,000 in 2001. r.4':2 3...3.1 :.:di~~3 ..3.p:IF.20. i...t'.2 -..c .~fx, s:+.,~. 1 K t. .- 24* . 1.'44 41. I r N. 0., 2 FOR TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL ('FA@ILIES; 01*813{.1#D ' 9 ~SEN!ORS % YEAR APPLICATIONS FAMILIES DISABLED SENIORS L '2' 7.- I 4'Â·717~I~Ji~-- ~~-~~- -,Â·;~3<*.~1--7~& 2001 142 for a total 51 27 64 20 1 $,17926i: 4 ' 11040224 13 2$1Â·2;699' . Â· Â· I Y expenditure of 4 NL n; 64 $19,489.33, with 104 repeats. 4'S. . 0 . 'W Budgeted . s e A .2 e ':. $21,000 in 2002. 4 I .., . .... $ ./} .7..Â· 'y- & -9 Y'~ : 4 : 5 . -Â·Â·-Â· Â· G.Ay <+ .. 24 2002 123 foratotal 39 25 59 54%:<$18299,1. 4 -49,9,1,1: A <113,3010 0 N?f' ;.5... 3.,...,t ..: . .1. */ I. .V~Â· . expenditure of f. S.,F $ $15,621.25, with ~ ~ 'r 'r Eve A. u . v " Â·: Â· t.:p *27 +4Â· . 2 Â· Â·r 91 repeats. ~:.4 ' ''w t. *, '. Â·ft . ., k & 4/ ........ 4 ~ . Budgeted $ ... 1 $21,000 in 2003. .0 k f . P *#9 >' ''1 1, t,b t. , , I U . . 6 I :9/ . I 1, . .r, b , 4/. 2003 139 foratotal 47 24 69 0.1, $19f47.1:,. , 5,Â·$111'269.'Â» : 4Â°1143,468 expenditure of Â· ~ , t 4 1 ... $17,511.46, with 95repeats. r. ~ '** 1 4,' 4 Budgeted - k ' ':.2.r f.... 4. 5/6 ". 4 2.,5 $19,950 in 2004 I, I -/..1 I I . . D . %Â» ,â€ž.1,6 1 Â¥ .1 .- 4 ' 71Â·51 ./- 2004 109 foratotal 39 19 51 97' $17171., '1$'10,5172 , .0''f$9319 4::./. expenditure of 1 - ' . Â· ~Â·' .Â·Â· Â·I --- - ----$14;065.08.- -- ---- -- -- %, *4 9< 2, :=â‚¬'/ I Budgeted is e '3- 4Â» M~ ~ ~ ~~ ;: *3 3 ~' 1 r . 9,1.2 ,.2. .4 7 :&25 .4:,b 4 . $20,500 in 2005. '9. v . â€ž I - 2005 126 foratotal 38 29 59 F -.,$19,1450.- 1145330: 1 $13.932 expenditure of $15,845.01. 44,". > 0 !. 0% 1% 1 4,.51. fl, , i~:rit.,21': f. Budgeted $ I . 4 4 'i-,r , r 4 $20,500 in 2006. 4 4~ ' .'41:~.> '17 . 4-'LÂ·. . 4.% '.Â·*4Â· t ~ ' U. . - I .al 1 2 Synopsis of Program Administration for 2006: * Primary qualifications include: â€¢ Provide proof of residency for the entire 12-month period of the previous year (refunds are based on the previous year's income tax return/earnings). We did allow Pine Knoll residents who lived in the area during all of 2005 to apply, even if they did not live in the EVRPD boundaries in 2006. â€¢ Proof of earnings (Federal Tax Return or social security statement, plus any social service income (food stamps, etc.). â€¢ Dependent birth certificates. * H.U.D. provides the Low-income Guidelines; applicants must qualify based on gross income. 0 Issued a Press Release and program initiated April 2601. Application blanks mailed to social service agencies, apartment complexes, Harvest House, and Good Samaritan. + All applicants are advised that if they have an overdue utility account, the refund will be applied to their account; the applicant receives any remaining balance. We had 12 applicants in this category. 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 13, 2006 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 13th day of July, 2006. Committee: Chairman Levine, Trustees Blackhurst and Homeier Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Repola, Acting Public Works. Director Goehring, Deputy Town Clerk Schares, Public Works Supt. Mahany Absent: None Chairman Levine called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. Garth Mudge, Glassworks Studio & Gallery, presented an example of the smell created by the meat smoker at the Big Horn Restaurant. He constructed a filter for the meat smoker, but the owners of the Big Horn Restaurant would not share the cost of filters or allow the filters to be placed on the meat smoker. Director Joseph has contacted Larimer County Public Health to file a complaint. Mr. Mudge stated he has not seen results and requested a complaint be filed with the State because he understands this type of meat smoker is illegal. Trustee Blackhurst stated it should be Mr. Mudge's responsibility to buy the filters if he is the one bothered by the smoke. He also stated the West Park Center has private covenants that may address the issue. Administrator Repola will have Director Joseph file a complaint with the State and contact all parties involved in writing. PICKUP W/SNOWPLOW REPLACEMENT (G75) - REQUEST APPROVAL. Public Works Superintendent Mahany stated vehicle G75 - 1994 Chevrolet 3/4-ton 4x4 pickup w/ snowplow has 12 years of service and 81,000 miles. The Street Department requests replacing the vehicle with a one-ton pickup/snowplow that can handle the load and slide of the V-box sander used during snow removal. Vehicle G75 is within the Town's vehicle replacement parameters (Type 2). This replacement was postponed during the 2004 & 2005 budget years. â€¢ Transwest GMC - Henderson, CO 2006 GMC 3500 4x4 w/snowplow $27,527.00 Trade-in: Truck G-75 1994 Chevrolet 2500 4x4 w/snowplow $ 4,800.00 Bid Price: $ 22,727.00 â€¢ . Weld County Garage - Greeley, CO 2006 GMC 3500 4x4 w/snowplow $28,037.00 Trade-in: Truck G-75 1994 Chevrolet 2500 4x4 w/snowplow $ 3.500.00 Bid Price: $ 24,537.00 â€¢ . Spradlev Barr Ford - Ft. Collins, CO 2006 Ford F-350 4x4 w/snowplow $27,573.00 Trade-in: Truck G-75 1994 Chevrolet 2500 4x4 w/snowplow $ 3.000.00 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - July 13,2006- Page 2 Bid Price: $ 24,573.00 â€¢ Phil Lonq Ford - Colorado Springs, CO 2006 Ford F-350 4x4 w/snowplow , $30,854.00 Trade-in: Truck G-75 1994 Chevrolet 2500 4x4 w/snowplow $ 5,000.00 Bid Price: $ 25,854.00 Staff recommends trading in the 1994 Chevrolet 3M-ton 4x4 pickup/snowplow (G75) and purchasing, a 2007 GMC 1-ton 4x4 pickup/snowplow from Transwest GMC Truck in Henderson, CO for a cost of $22,727. The Committee recommends approval to purchasethe budgeted pickup/snowplow as outlined above at a cost of $22,727 (Account #101-3100-431.34-42). REPORTS. 1. Bond Park Drainaqe and Electricity. Acting Public Works Director Goehring reported vendors have experienced trouble with the electrical system in Bond Park due to the GFI equipment installed as a safety feature required by code. The breakers are tripped by the vendor's faulty equipment and staff recommended the vendor's equipment comply with the Town's electrical system. CVB Director Pickering mentioned the sound system vendors should be informed that their equipment must be in good working condition and tested prior to an event to prevent future electrical problems. The park request application should be modified to identify the electrical specifications and to clarify that safety is a priority. Administrator Repola stated the vendor should meet insurance requirements if electricity' is used. Trustee Homeier requested the stage also meet the code requirements. â€¢ Trustee Levine commented on the standing water in Bond Park and the damage to the sod from the latest car show. Director Goehring stated an old foundation underground may be retaining water and causing water to pool in that location; however some areas of the park are low and staff continues to add soil gradually to raise the ground level. Staff has suggested drilling holes to determine the main issud. Director Pickering suggested the car shows change the layout of the vehicles and park narrow wheeled cars on the pavement. Administrator Repola requested staff consider alternate locations for car shows for the remainder of this year. Other alternative suggestions included marking the sprinklers to reduce damage, flagging the area and contacting the event organizers to discuss the Town's concerns. 2. Playground Equipment. Superintendent Mahany reviewed the bids received by vendors for playground equipment at Children's and Riverside Parks. He stated Recreation Plus has been wonderful to work with and both parks can be furnished for $34,162. Bluegrass Playgrounds was the lowest bidder; however the company can not install the equipment and therefore, the warranty would not be honored. The project will be within budget and both parks will be done this year in August. 3. Eagle Rock Mural Tiles. Director Goehring reviewed the history of the Community Pedestrian Tunnel Mural Project (Highway 34 UnderpaS,s). He stated a meeting has been tentatively scheduled with the contractor, Clayton Quackenbush 111, and Cindy Elkins, Project Coordinator, to layout dhe cost and time frame for installation of the tiles. Ms. Elkins has informed staff the project should be completed with the funds already received and no further funding from the town has been requested. Trustee Blackhurst questioned the $2,000 in annual maintenance. Director Goehring stated the funds would be used for cleaning and graffiti removal and is an estimate at this time. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - July 13, 2006 - Page 3 MISCELLANEOUS. Trustee Blackhurst stated he received a request to add signage for the restrooms on Moraine Ave. Manager Sievers suggested putting a larger sign near the restroom that could be seen from the Elkhorn Ave./Moraine Ave. intersection. Staff will review the possibilities of placing an additional sign near the restrooms. Manager Sievers stated the Fish Creek Trail Phase 3 is currently out to bid. Bid opening will be held in two weeks. Manager Sievers reported the postal service has removed the box from the island on Ivy, near the Post Office due to safety issues. Public Works will remove the island and patch the asphalt. The postmaster is working hard to find other locations for drop boxes and has = installed a drop box next to the utility payment box on the corner of Park Lane /MacGregor Ave. Trustee Homeier recommended adding a sign in Town Hall that states whether Trail Ridge Road is open or closed. Staff will review possible locations and requirements. There being no further business, Chairman Levine adjourned the meeting at 9:18 a.m. Suzy Schares, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town o f Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 20,2006. Minutes of a Regular meeting of the UTILITIES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 20th day of July, 2006. Committee: Chairman Homeier, Trustees Newsom and Pinkham Attending: Chairman Homeier and Trustee Newsom Also Attending: Town Clerk Williamson, Finance Director McFarland, Deputy Town Clerk Schares, Acting Public Works Director Goehring, Public Works Supt. Mahany Absent: Trustee Pinkham Chairman Homeier called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None. LIGHT & POWER DEPARTMENT Funding/Discount for Aquatic Center - Request Approval. Town Clerk Williamson stated the School and EVRPD have requested financial assistance from the Town for operation of the Aquatic Center. The request for a discount on utilities and/or a cash donation was presented at the July 11, 2006 Town Board meeting and referred to this meeting for further action. The estimated cost of electricity and water for the Aquatic Center is approximately $30,000 annually. The School has budgeted $6,000 annually for water and past years usage of electricity was $28,561. Water usage can not be determined because the water is internally metered and the meter has not been working properly. Trustee Homeier stated this is an unexpected expense and he would like to see this as an action item at the next Town Board meeting. Finance Director McFarland stated the discount would be foregone revenue and the actual cost to the Town would be the cost of power. Town Clerk Williamson stated the subsidy requested is based on past usage to encourage the Aquatic Center to conserve energy and water. The Committee recommended presenting the discount options to the Town Board at the July 25,2006 meeting as an action item. Dutv Truck Replacement - Request Approval. Public Works Superintendent Mahany explained the Light & Power Department budget includes $42,000.00 for the replacement of vehicle 933120C, 2000 F350 4x4 Truck w/Utility Body. This vehicle is 6 years old with 64,800 miles and is within the Town's replacement parameters (Replacement Type 5,50,000 - 60,000 miles or 5-6 years). This truck has had rough usage and is currently costing approximately $.72 per mile to operate, rather than the normal rate of $.45. â€¢ Spradlev Barr - Ft. Collins, Co. 2007 Ford F3504x4 Truck w/Utility Body...........................................$39,079.00 TrAde-in: Truck 93320C - 2000 Ford F350 4x4 Truck w/Utility Body $ 8,000.00 Bid Price $ 31,079.00 â€¢ Transwest GMC - Henderson Co. 2007 GMC 3500 4x4 Truck w/Utility Body ........................................$40,838.00 Trade-in: Truck 93320C 2000 Ford F350 4x4 Truck w/Utility Body... ............................. .... ....$ 9,001.00 Bid Price: $ 31,837.00 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Utilities Committee - May 18, 2006 - Page 2 â€¢ Phil Long Ford - Colorado Springs, Co. 2007 Ford F3504x4 Truck w/Utility Body..........................................$40,847.00 Trade-in: Truck 93320C 2000 Ford F3504x4 Truck W/Utility Body .........$ 9,000.00 Bid Price: $ 31,847.00 â€¢ Weld County Garage - Greel@y, Co. 2007 GMC 3500 4x4 Truck w/Utility Body ........................................$41,735.00 Trade-in: Truck 93320C 2000 Ford F350 4x4 Truck w/Utility Body ... ........$ 6,000.00 Bid Price: $ 35,735.00 Staff recommends trading the 2000 F350 4x4 Truck w/Otility Body for a new 2007 Ford F350 4x4 Truck w/Utility Body from Spradley Barr in Fort Collins, CO for a cost of $31,079.00. The Committee recommends approval to purchase the budgeted truck as outlined above at a cost of $31,079.00 (Account# 502-7001-580.34-42). Town Clerk Williamson requested a presentation at the next Public Works Committee meetingto explain the vehicle replacement types. Vehicle Replacement - Request Approval. Superintendent Mahany explained the Light & Power Department budget includes $25,000.00 for the replacement of Vehicle 93319B, 1996 4x4 Jeep Cherokee. This vehicle is 10 years old with 88,000 miles and is within the Town's replacement parameters (Replacement Type 1, 80,000 - 90,000 miles or 10 years). â€¢ Weld County Garage - Greeley, CO 2007 GMC 1500 4x41?ickup $97 750 00 Trade-in: Truck 93319B 1996 4x4 Jeep Cherokee . ........$ 3,000.00 Bid Price: $ 19,250.00 â€¢ Transwest GMC - Henderson, CO 2007 GMC 1500 4x4 Pickup .....................................................Â·â€žÂ·. $22,368.00 Trade-in: Truck 93319B , 996 4x4 Jeep Cherokee ........$ 2,801.00 Bid Price: $ 19,567.00 â€¢ Spradley Barr Ford - Ft. Collins, CO 2007 Ford F150 4x4 Pickup............................................................. $21,665.00 Trade-in: Truck 93319B 1996 4x4 Jeep Cherokee........................-.. -,.,-,..-....- -..,*.........,, -,$ 2,000.00 Bid Price: $ 19,665.00 â€¢ Phil Long Ford - Colorado Springs, CO 2007 Ford F150 4x4 Pickup Â· ......................$22,350.00 Trade-in: Truck 93319B 1996 4x4 Jeep Cherokee .........$ 1,850.00 Bid Price: $ 20,500.00 Superintendent Mahany explained the cutoff date for the 2007 vehicle is Friday and he will need to do a verbal order. If the Town Board chooses to not purchase the vehicle, the Town will be under no obligation to complete the purchase. Staff recommends trading the 1996 F350 4x4 Jeep Cherokee for a new 2007 GMC 1500 4x4 Pickup from Weld County Garage in Greeley, CO for a cost of $19,250.00. The Committee recommends approval to purchase the budgeted truck as outlined above at a cost of $19,250.00 (Account# 502- 7001-580.34-42). Reports RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Utilities Committee - May 18, 2006 - Page 3 1. Light and Power Dept. Financial Report - At Trustee Homeiers request Director McFarland gave an in depth review of the financial report. He stated the Town is approximately $50,000 behind schedule on Light and Power revenue; however staff believes the Town will meet budget by the end of the year. Acting Public Works Director Goehring stated the budget only reflects a 1% rate increase and the actual increase in 2006 was 2.5%. He stated the short fall in revenue is due to having a warm spring, which should level out in the fall. 2. Wireless Internet Sites - Acting Public Works Director Goehring stated the Town has been contacted several times regarding possible usage of the Town's utility poles for wireless internet sites. The equipment used for the internet site is approximately 3.5 feet and would have to be attached to the poles at least four feet below the existing cable franchise equipment, approximately 15 feet off the ground. The current internet providers use fiber optic and wireless connections. Staff recommends waiting for technology to become more compatible with our system. Town Clerk Williamson IT suggested contacting Cingular Wireless and having the companies use their tower on Prospect Mtn. WATER DEPARTMENT Reports 1. Water Dept. Financial Report - Director McFarland reviewed the financial report. Water is currently ahead of budget. Director Goehring stated the increase in revenue should level out and end the year on budget. 2. Water Line Replacement Line In Bureau of Reclamation Subdivision -Director Goehring explained the Town has been contacted by the Estes Park Sanitation District requesting the Town's cooperation in separating the water and sewer mains in the Bureau of Reclamation Subdivision. The water and sewer mains were installed in the late 1930's and were intended to be used for approximately 10 years. The sewer mains would be replaced in the existing easements and the water mains would be relocated to the street. Staff will recommend budgeting $150,000 annually for the next 6-8 years to complete the project. 3. Safe Drinking Water Act Update -Director Goehring stated there are a large number of regulations the Water Department must follow. There are some fairly expensive regulations coming in the near future. The Water Department is currently able to meet the regulations, but upgrades are needed to meet upcoming regulations. 4. The Town experienced a brown out on June 4,2006 that lasted approximately 4 hours. 2 lines were lost in the Valley and there was not enough power to feed Estes Park. Platte River Power Authority has provided a report on how to prevent future brown out. The Town will incorporate some safety measures in the future. There being no further business, Chairman Homeier adjourned the meeting at 9:08 a.m. Suzy Schares, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DRAFT Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment July 11, 2006, 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Cliff Dill; Members Chuck Levine, John Lynch, Wayne Newsom, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Jeff Barker Attending: Chair Dill, Members Levine, Lynch, Newsom, and Sager Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: None Chair Dill called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the June 6,2006 meeting. There being no corrections or additions, the minutes were approved as submitted. 2. LOT 68, CARRIAGE HILLS 7th FILING, 2031 Monida Court, Applicant: David Habecker. Aqent for Harlalee and Sandra Wilson - Variance request from Estes Vallev Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow an addition to be located 5.4 feet from the front lot line in lieu of the 15-foot setbacks required in the R-Residentia/ zoning district Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. She stated this is a request to allow a sunroom addition to an existing single-family residence to be located 5.4 feet from the fropt property line. A deck, which was smaller than the proposed 10-foot-by-16.4-foot addition, was removed and the addition will be built in its place. There are special circumstances associated with the lot, in that the existing house and deck encroach into the setbacks. The residence was purchased prior to adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), when the setback was five feet from the front property line; the required setbacks were increased at the time the EVDC was adopted. The requested variance is not substantial given that only approximately ninety square feet will encroach into the setback. The essential character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered and the adjoining properties will not suffer a substantial detriment as the result of approval of the variance. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Town of Estes Park Public Works Department, Fire Chief Scott Dorman, Town Attorney Greg White, and Upper Thompson Sanitation District. Public Works requested that utilities in the right-of-way be shown on the submitted plan. Staff will review the resubmitted plan to ensure the delivery of public services is not affected. Eaves must be shown and may not encroach into the utility easement; some redesign may be required. No comments from neighbors have been received, either in support or opposition to the variance. Planning staff recommends approval of the variance. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 July 11, 2006 Public Comment: David Habecker of Habecker Designs, representing the property owners, addressed the Board. He requested that any member of the Board who objected to his religious convictions recuse themselves. None did. He stated the applicant's plans had been submitted to the Town building department, the location of the foundation forms had been verified by Van Horn Engineering, and the footings had been poured before any concerns were expressed about the placement of the sunroom addition in the setback. He objected to having to pay an additional $350-the additionalamount due for post- construction variance applications-stating that it was punitive in nature and that an honest mistake hAd been made. When questioned by Director Josoph, he agreed that the original plans submitted to the building department were inaccurate and had shown an incorrect setback. He contended the original setback distance of five feet should not have been changed with the adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code. He stated the applicant's willingness to comply with the suggested conditions of approval but requested that condition #3-which states in part, "A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes for the building foundation forms. After the footings are set, and prior to pouring the foundation, the surveyor shall verify compliance with the variance and provide a setback certificate.'Lonly require submittal of the setback certificate because one had already been prepared. Planner Chilcott agreed that the applicant should submit the existing setback certificate for the foundation rather than having it resurveyed. Because the residence is already encroaching into the setback, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Sager) to approve the variance request for Lot 68, Carriage Hills 7~h Filing, to allow an addition to be located 5.4 feet from the front lot line in lieu of the 15-foot setbacks required in the R-Residential zoning district with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and condition #3 amended.as noted above, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the submitted site plan, with the exception that eaves shall be shown on the site plan to verify that edves do not encroach into the five-foot utility easement. 2. Compliance with the comments in the Public Works' memo dated July 11, 2006. 3. A setback certificate shall be submitted. 3. METES and BOUNDS, 2220 Windcliff Drive, Applicant: Windcliff Village. Inc. - Variances from Section 4.3. Table 4-2. requiring a minimum 50-foot setback in the RE-Rural Estate zoning district, Section 6.3.C.1 & 2. Alteration/Extension of Nonconforminq Structures Prohibited & Limited, and Section 7.13.B.2. Areas for Outdoor Trash Collection and Compaction, to allow the expansion of an existing trash-compaction building Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request to allow the expansion. of an existing building. that serves as the trash collection point for all of Windcliff Estates; the expansion would provide room for a trash compactor. The applicant received approval for variances from the Board of Adjustment on June 1, 2005 to enlarge the building, but the approval has lapsed. The current application proposes a larger addition than formerly approved, and expansion to the west and south, rather than to the north, moving the addition farther from the front property line. Because the trash building serves the entire subdivision, andÂ·expansion of the existing building will have the least amount of impact on the neighborhood, planning staff recommends approval of the variance. . Public Comment: . . Don Darling, Windcliff property owner and general contractor for the proposed expansion, stated the applicant had not proceeded with plans submitted for last year's approved variance because of their desire to add a trash compaction unit, which RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 July 11, 2006 requires more space than was approved. He reiterated that the trash compaction building will serve all of Windcliff subdivision and will be less obtrusive than the formerly approved addition. Member Levine noted that part of the building addition will allow Windcliff subdivision to do more recycling and commended them for their efforts. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Newsom) to approve the variance requests for Metes and Bounds, 2220 Windcliff Drive, to allow the expansion of an existing trash-compaction building, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. Full compliance with applicable building codes. 2. Prior to pouring the foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor verifying compliance with the approved site plan. 4. METES and BOUNDS (PID: 2519100016), 1098 Havbarn Hill Road, Applicant: Arthur and Carol Goodall - Variances from Section 4.3. Table 4-2, and Section 5.2.d.7, to allow a 50-foot-tall ham radio tower to be installed in lieu of the 30-foot height limit for accessory structures Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request to allow the relocation an existing fifty-foot-tall ham radio antenna tower from its current location on Beach Lane to 1098 Haybarn Hill Road. The applicant proposes to locate the tower behind the cover of trees, which will help screen the structure from surrounding properties. The subject property is ten acres in size, and the proposed location for the tower is in the middle of the lot, approximately 680 feet from the south property line. Special circumstances or conditions exist, in that the radio tower must be tall enough to extend beyond the tops of the trees, which are forty to forty-five feet tall. In considering whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjacent properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance, Planner Shirk noted the nearest house will be at least 700 feet away; the tower will not be lit and will be painted a neutral gray tone. Lumpy Ridge will provide a backdrop for the structure, and the tower will not be silhouetted against the sky. Trees will conceal the majority of the structure. A shorter structure could be built that would meet the thirty-foot height limit, but it would need to be placed in a clearing to the south of the house, making it much closer and more visible to adjacent property owners. Planning staff recommends approval of the variance request. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Letters of support were received from the nearest property owner, Scott Joens, and from Milton Sebelik, President of the Estes Valley Amateur Radio Club. Letters of opposition were received from the North End Property Owners' Association and from five property owners in The Reserve Subdivision, including Sheldon Johnson, Lot 18; Jim and Sally Kile, 1025 Elk Trail Court; Barrie Lea Alioth, Lot 17; Rod and Sherry Unruh, Lot 20; and Juliann F. Smith, Lot 16. After phone conversations with Planner Shirk on July 10. 2006, Ms. Smith and Mr. Johnson withdrew their opposition. Mr Johnson further stated that Ms. Alioth and Mr and Mrs. Kile had asked that he convey their desire to withdraw their opposition to the request. Planner Shirk stated the property owners who had withdrawn their opposition had done so after he explained that the tower would be placed behind the cover of trees and that the applicant could erect a thirty-foot-tall radio tower in full view without need for a variance. ir-1 r-,r-1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4. July 11, 2006 Public Comment: Art Goodall, the applicant, stated his willingness to comply with all the recommended conditions of approval. Member Newsom suggested that painting the tower green would - make keven less noticeable; Mr. Goodall agreed to paint the tower whatever color the Board recommended. Discussion among the Board and planning staff followed regarding the color of the proposed radio tower. Member Lynch questioned whether Mr. Goodall would erect a smaller tower if the variance was denied. Mr. Goodall agreed that was a possibility but did not commit to do so. In response to questions from Member Neisom, hestated he chose the proposed location for the radio tower in order to provide the least impact to neighboring properiy owners while getting good reception and keeping the costs of transmission cable down. The land farther to the north on his property has dense trees and difficult terrain. Tom Pickering, 1504 Deer Path Court, stated his objection to the variance request and that homeowners who withdrew their opposition to the request were choosing the lesser of two evils. He noted there is only a single tree blocking the view of the tower from The . Reserve Subdivision and requested,the tower be placed as far away and at the lowest level possible. Lynn Weissenrieder, President of The Reserve homeowners' association, expressed his personal objections to the variance request, as well as those of the association, stating they did not want to the radio tower to be installed at all. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Lynch) to approve the variance requests for Metes and Bounds, 1098 Haybarn Hill Road, to allow the installation of a 50-foot- tall ham radio tower, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the specification that the tower be painted green, and the motion passed unanimously. ' CONDITIONS: 1. Full compliance with applicable building codes. 2. Evidence of federal license shall be presented with the building permit application. 3. No lighting shall be allowed on the tower. 4. The tower shall be painted with a flat, matte-finish, green paint to match the color of the surrounding trees as closely as possible and shall be maintained that color. 5. The tower and appurtenant equipment design shall be stamped by an engineer licensed to practice in the state. ; 6. There shall be no commercial use of the tower or antenna. 5. REPORTS Director Joseph stated the Board of Adjustment Alternate Member position, which had been vacant, has been filled. He introduced new-appointee Bruce Grant. There being no further business, Chair Dill adjourned the meeting at 8:51 a.m. Cliff Dill, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary Â¢ DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ]DR-AFT Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission July 18, 2006, 1 :30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Edward Pohl; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Ike Eisenlauer, George Hix, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, and Doug Klink Attending: Chair Pohl, Commissioners Amos, Eisenlauer, Hix, Kitchen, and Klink Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Commissioner Hull Chair Pohl called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence of the meeting. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated June 20,2006. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hix) that the Consent Agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. REZONING, Portions of S35-T5N-R73W of the 6th P.M. (Parcel ID numbers 3535400034, 3535400077, 3535400057, 3535400016, & 3535400038), 1750, 1840, 1850, 1854, & 1860 Mary's Lake Road, Applicant: Robin Smith representing M.L. & Marjorie L. Angle, Jr.; Robert & Deborah Briggs; Tony & Florence Bielat; Patricia Jo & James W. Smith Trust; and Ferrell & Merilyn Ingram & Janice Taylor Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated this is a request to rezone five properties from A-1-Accommoda#ons to RE-Rura/ Estate in order to minimize future development potential in this neighborhood, which has seen three subdivision proposals on neighboring properties Within the last two years. The proposed rezoning would reduce potential development on these lots from four units per acre to one unit per 2.5 acres. The Estes Valley Development Code requires that official zoning map amendments comply with relevant standards, orily one of which applies to this request-"the amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected." Given the number of recent subdivisions on the surrounding properties, the request complies with this standard, and planning staff recommends approval of the rezoning request. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Comments were received from Upper Thonipson Sanitation District and from neighboring property owners LaShelle Lyman, who wrote in support of the request, and Harland Ranney, who stated his desire to retain A-1 zoning for his property. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 July 18, 2006 Public Comment: Robin Smith, 1850 Mary's Lake Road, conveyed that it is the desire of all five property owners/applicants to have their properties rezoned. 3 It was moved and seconded (Klink/Eisenlauer) to recommehd approval of the Rezoning of Portions of Section 35, T5N, R73W of the 6th p.M. (Parcel ID numbers 3535400034, 3535400077, 3535400057, 3535400016, & 3535400038), to the Board of County Commissioners, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. I I 4. APPEAL OF REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT TO NATIONAL FOREST LANDS, All Section 16, T5N, R72W of the 6* P.M., less Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners MLD 93-EX0327; 2750 Notaiah Road, Applicant: Eagle Rock School / American Honda Education Corporation Commissioner Amos recused himself from this agenda item. f Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. He stated the Eagle Rock School property, which was formerly owned by the public and available for public use, was approved for a conditional rezoning in 1992 by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. The property was.previously zoned O-Open, which did not allow public schools. One condition of approval was that "an easement shall be described and granted for trails and trailheads to provide public access to adjacent National Forest lands." The purpose of this condition was to allow hunter access through the property to help manage the elk population, although it was not intended to mandate public hunting on the Eagle Rock property. The easement has not been dedicated. Additionally, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between American Honda Education Corporation (Eagle Rock School), Colorado Division of Wildlife, Arapaho Roosevelt National Forest, and Rocky Mountain National Park became effective in 1992, in which American Honda Education Corporation agreed to provid& up to two public trails across Section 16. Eagle Rock School recently requested building permits to add staff dwelling units, which prompted planning staff to review the original conditions of approval. The school's noncompliance with the conditibn of approval was discovered at that time. Eagle Rock School is requesting td amend the original conditions 6f approval to eliminate the condition to dedicate a trail easement through the property. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments opposing the request were received from the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Estes Valley Recreation and Park District, Estes Valley Trails Committee, and North End Property Owners Association. The U.S. Forest Service stated they had "qo strong objection" to the request. A.letter was received from , neighboring property owner Rex Ross Walker, President of Sombrero Ranches, Inc., stating he would not allow public access through his property. Based on the original conditions of approval, letters from reviewing agencies, efforts by Rocky Mbuntain National Park to reduce the elk population, and the fact this property' was formerly public property open t6 public access, planning staff recommends upholding the original condition of approval. Staff would support amending the condition to allow Eagle Rock School to facilitate an alternate trail easement through nearby properties (within one mile) to provide access to Roosevelt National Forest. The alternate trail easement would be subject to approval by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. 1 r-,rm RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 July 18, 2006 Public Comment: Wendell Amos, President of the Estes Valley Land Trust and property owner of 3333 Rockwood Lane South, addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of Eagle Rock School. He stated there is a protected area around the Eagle Rock School buildings that is in an Estes Valley Land Trust conservation easement. He related the general history of the acquisition of Section 16 by American Honda Education Corporation (Honda Corporation) from the Colorado State Land Board, and the history of access to the property via private road from U.S. Highway 34. He stated the condition of approval in question was established due to the concern over the growth of the elk herds. He stated the 1992 MOU had never been acted on by any of the participating parties and that, for safety reasons, access across the property for hunters and other trail users via the former trail is not appropriate. He stated Eagle Rock School officials are willing to work with other agency representatives to provide a location for the trail other than across the Honda property, although it would be difficult to determine an alternate location given that it is surrounded on three sides by private property and the owners of those properties are adverse to providing a public access easement. Eagle Rock School officials don't understand why planning staff will not approve certificates of occupancy (COs) for the new residential buildings until the original conditions of approval are met. He requested that the COs be granted because trail negotiations will be too lengthy. , Gary Matthews, President of the Estes Valley Trails Committee and property owner of 139 Stanley Circle Drive, explained the role of the Trails Committee, emphasizing the importance of inter66nnections between trails and their value to community residents and visitors. He stated the Trails Committee's objection to this request, noting that a trail through the area would provide an important link to the Glen Haven area. He stated that many people had access to the Section 16 property prior to its purchase by Honda Corporation; there was a large public outcry when it was sold into private ownership. The original conditions of approval were intended to address public concerns about the loss of access to this property. He stated that the small section of National Forest land that reaches Highway 34 is too steep to construct trail. He requested that the original condition of approval be retained or Eagle Rock School be required to provide an alternate access easement. Vincent Quartararo, 2766 Notaiah Road, stated he owns a forty-acre parcel nearby and would not be willing to provide a public access easement for trail across his property. Chair Pohl stated the request is to eliminate a requirement under which the project was approved but nothing had been presented to indicate that granting revocation of condition would result in public good. He stated it would be more practical for the applicant to bring forward an alternate plan for consideration. Mr. Amos acknowledged that it would have been helpful for Eagle Rock School to have convened the group of cooperatlng agencies to decide on the trail easement at the time the MOU was signed but requested again that issuance of the certificates of occupancy not be tied to completion of the original condition of approval. He stated Eagle Rock School would negotiate the trail easement in good faith and see that it was provided if possible. Commissioner Kitchen noted the MOU provided for up to two public trails. She stated that current development projects are required to provide trail easements under the Estes Valley Development Code, regardless of whether connections are in place or not, and that the lack of current connections does not provide adequate reason to eliminate the condition of approval. In response to Director Joseph's question regarding what length of time would be reasonable to allow for negotiation of a comparable alternate access easement, Eagle Rock School Head Robert Burkhardt stated that perhaps a year would be DR-AFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 July 18, 2006 reasonable but noted he couldn't speak for other agencies. He stated Eagle Rock School officials would work assiduously toward this goal but noted that the school property is an "island" and that adjacent landowners, including MacGregor Ranch and Rex Walker, are opposed to public access across their properties. He stated the Eagle Rock School property had not been open to public access prior to its acquisition by Honda Corporation; it was leased to Mr. Walker for cattle grazing. The state discontinued the lease in order for the property to be used for a higher and dreater purpose. A series of publicmeetings regarding the issue of public trails had been held but no solution.had been reached. He stated his concern for the safety of the students. He acknowledged that the northwest corner of the property was within 160 yards of a public road but stated that access would have to cross MacGregor Ranch property. In response to questions from Commission Klink regarding public. hunting on the property, including pre-approved access by disabled hunters as provided for in the MOU, Mr. Burkhardt stated that hunters had been allowed on the property one time in 1993 but they were rude and disrespectful; no hunting has been allowed on the property since that time, including hunting by disabled persons. He stated the MOU expired in 1997. Mr. Burkhardt stated that when the school was initially conceived "pdople wanted a bunch of conditions and wanted to hold Honda up for a whole lot of money" and indicated that conditions had been agreed to without the intent to Abide by them. He reiterated his concern for student safety. Commissioner Kitchen pointed out that HondA Corporation had agreed to provide public trails in the-MOU yet Eagle Rock School does not want anyone who is not involved with thd school on the property. Mr. Burkhardt stated there are certain times of year when a hiking grpup is allowed access with prior permission from the school. Director Joseph noted there may be an historic prescriptive right of public access already existing .on the northwest corner of the property. Mr. Burkhardt stated there had not been public use of the property in recent years. He reiterated that neighboring landowners are hostile to providing eas@ments across their land. Planner Shirk stated that althoughthe MOU expired in' 1997, the original conditions of approval have not. Lack of public access on adjacent properties should not affect the decision to provide an access easement on the Aonda property, as is required for other developments in the Estes Valley. Town Administrator Randy Repola stated that a public access easement on the Honda property will provide a building block for eventual trail development in the area. At a recent inter-agency wildlife meeting he had been asked what the Town is doing to facilitate the elk management plan. He stated the school property had previously been open to and used extensively for public hunting, even though it was leased. Losing the access across this property will result in the loss of an additional tool to address the elk overpopulation problem. He stated the original conditions of approval provide the only piece of leverage available to bring about resolution of the development agreement. He noted the change in use on- the property and loss of community access to Crosier Mountain from that area were highly controversial. He stated the Town would offer assistance to make acquisition of the public access easement as painless as possible. He commended Mr. Burkhardt and Eagle Rock School for their contributions to the community and society. Chair Pohl noted the school ha81 had opportunities to resolve the situation without changing the original conditions of approval. He stated the public interest must be considered and reference'd the written comments from four public agencies in opposition to the applicant's request. He encouraged Eagle Rock School to rneet with other agencies and property owners to develop a plan for an alternate access easement and reapply for amendment to the original condition of approval at that time. 1 6 .L -21 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 July 18, 2006 It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Klink) to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the original condition of approval that "an easement shall be described and granted for trails and trailheads to provide public access to adjacent National Forest lands" be retained for the property described as All of Section 16, T5N, R72W of the 6~h p.M., less Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners MLD 93-EX0327, and the motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Amos abstaining and one absent. Chair Pohl called a ten-minute recess at 2:57 p.m.; the meeting was reconvened at 3:07 p.m. 5. MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT, Gravelle Minor Subdivision, Lots 7 & 8, Acacia Acres Addition, 950 & TBD Acacia Drive, Applicant: Joanne Gravelle Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a request to divide two lots zoned E-Estate into three lots ranging in size from 0.50 to 0.752 acres. No change in zoning is proposed and no development is planned at this time. The proposed lot sizes, dimensional standards, and configurations meet Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) requirements and are appropriate for area. Adequate public facilities standards must be met and the facilities must either be installed or financially guaranteed prior to the creation of the plat. The dedication of a wider utility easement on proposed Lot 2 may be required to protect existing significant vegetation, including tree roots. A sewer main extension will be reciuired to Lot 2. Water and sewer service lines must be stubbed to proposed L6ts 2 and 3; provision of the water service will require a road cut and repaving on Acacia Drive. The submitted drainage redort must be revised and rerouted to the Public Works Depfirtment for review; provision of an easement may be rdquired for drainage. Any new electric service must be placed underground. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has reviewed the application and does not require reevaluation of the Acacia Drive/Highway 7 intersection due to the limited increase in traffic. In order to locate the driveway for proposed Lot 3 as far from the intersection as possible, the western property line of Lot 2 should be redrawn at an angle from northeast to southwest or the following must be provided: an access easement on Lot 2 to serve Lot 3, a shared curb cut, and a driveway maintenance agreement. Direct access to Highway 7 is not permitted. Although the EVDC requires curb, gutter, and sidewalk for new subdivisions, Planner Chilcott stated the Planning Commission should decide whether the addition of only one lot warrants upholding the requirement or whether sidewalk should be required along the entire subdivision street frontage or only a portion of it. Requiring these improvements would provide connectivity if sidewalk is developed by the Town in the future, but the applicant is opposed to meeting this requirement. Commissioner Kitchen noted that the addition of sidewalk may complicate drainage issues on the property. Planner Shirk commented that curb and sidewalk would provide a measure of safety for pedestrians on a road that has heavy truck traffic. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Town of Estes Park Department of Building Safety and Public Works Department, Town Attorney Greg White, Fire Chief Scott Dorman, Upper Thompson Sanitation District, and Colorado Department of Transbortation. Emails were received from neighboring property owner Jeannie Harms, 1865 Twin Drive, who DRAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 July 18, 2006 expressed comfort with the proposal after her questions were answered by Planner Chilcott. No other comments received in opposition or support. Another adjacent property owner expressed concern about the accuracy of the site staking; Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying and Planner Chilcott will recheck the Making prior to review of the final subdivision plat. No change to the platted open space in the Carriage Hills subdivi@on is proposed. 4Comerstone Engineerin~ verified that the northern property line of Outlot C, as shown on the Carriage Hills f filing plat, is the southern property line for the Gravelle Subdivision and that there is no discrepancy between these two plats. Public Comment: Brad Larsen of Cornerstone Engineering and SurveyiAg requested waiver of the requirement to provide curb, gutter, and sidewalk because it will concentrate runoff on the site. He stated the applicant is in agreement with all other conditions of approval. He stated preliminary staking of the property had been done without the *use of surveying equipment; the proposed lots will be properly surveyed prior to the final plat. A Adjacent property .owners Frank and Joan Costello of 1891 North Morris Court expressed their concern about the inaccuracy of the preliminary site staking. Mr. Costello questioned whether the lots could be further subdivided; Planner Chilcott stated they could not under the current zoning. Mrs. Costello also expressed condern about drainage on the site, noting that water from the property flows into their patio when it rains. Planner Chilcott stated the new drainage reporl will be required to account for off-site drainage. Ron Dobbins, 1901 North Morris Court, stated his concern over increased density. Director Joseph stated the' applicant's request is to exercise the right to subdivide bas@d on the zoning of the property; it is not a request for rezoning. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Kitchen) to recommend approval of the Gravelle' Minor Subdivision Plat, Lots 7 & 8, Acacia Acres AdditioW, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff except that curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall not be required unless necessitated by the new drainage study, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the comments in Public Work's memo dated July 18, 2006, with clarification that curb, gutter, and sidewalk be provided up to the proposed eastern property line of Lot 2 if the revised drainage study shows it is required to manage drainage. The revised drainage study shall be ,submitted ~to planning staff for review and approval prior to Town Board review of the plat. 2. Compliance with the' comments in the Town Attorney's memo dated June 19, 2006. 3. Utility extensions shall be planned so as not to remove or damage existing significant vegetation. This may require dedication of a wide'r utility easement on proposed Lot 2 to route dtilities around trees and minimize disfurbance to root iystems. 4. An engineer's cost estimate for the cost of required improvements shall be submitted prior td Town Board review of the plat. 5. Water service for proposed Lots 2 and 3 shall be shown on the plat and the plat shall be rerouted by Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying to Public Works for their review and aeproval prior to Town Board review. Street cuts and patching will be needed to stub water to the property. 6. The sewer main extdn'sion and required sewer service stubs to proposed Lots 2 and 3 shall be shown on the preliminary plat and final construction drawings shall be submitted to the Upper Thompson Sanitation District. The plat and final sewer ID-RAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 July 18, 2006 construction plans shall be rerouted to the Upper Thompson Sanitation District by Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying for their review and approval prior to Town Board review. 7. The off-site drainage discharged onto the property shall also be addressed in the drainage report. The drainage report shall be revised to include the certification block found in the Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards Manual. The revised plat shall be routed to Public Works for their review and approval prior to Town Board review. 8. Drainage easements shall be provided for detention facilities. Utility easements shall not be dedicated for drainage facilities and the dedication statement shall be revised to reflect this. 9. Underground electric service to the new lots shall be shown on the plat and the plat shall be routed to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to Town Board review. 10. Utility easements should be dedicated along all property lines. 11. A driveway maintenance agreement shall be recorded with the plat, in addition to provision of the access easement. The draft maintenance agreement should be submitted prior to Town Board review. 12. Setbacks shall be labeled on the preliminary plat. The building envelopes shown on the plan reflect the required setbacks. As noted by the Town attorney, references to building envelopes and setbacks shall only be included on the final plat if platted building envelopes are proposed. 13. The dedication statement and surveyor's certificate shall be revised to reflect the plat name centered on the top of the preliminary plat, e.g., Gravelle Minor Subdivision. 6. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, Aspen Winds Condominiums, Lot 1 of the Replat of Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 3 of the Replat of Lots 1 & 2, Block 3, Fall River Estates, 1051 Fall River Court, Applicant: Rohrbaugh Properties, LLC Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. This is a request to convert the existing sixteen accommodations units and the manager's residence to condominium units. No additional development is proposed; the declarant is not reserving the right to build any additional units. The lot is 1.49 acres and is zoned A-Accommodations. Accommodations use, with limited use by unit owners, is proposed. Adequate public facilities requirements must be met and will require upgrading the existing water service line. Sanitary sewer upgrades are also required. The property meets the current fire-protection standards and drainage standards. Utility ease- ments will be dedicated along the west and north property lines. The Aspen Winds sign is currently located in the pedestrian/bicycle path easement; vacation of the portion of the easement occupied by the sign or relocation of the sign will be reviewed with the final condominium map application. The pedestrian/bicycle path easement should be rededicated as a non-motorized access easement and ten-foot- wide trail should be constructed; the proposed trail design must be submitted with the final condominium map. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Town of Estes Park Public Works Department, Fire Chief Scott Dorman, Town Attorney Greg White, and Upper Thompson Sanitation District. No comments were received from neighboring property owners. Public Comment: Paul Kochevar of Estes Park Surveyors and Engineers stated the applicant agrees to the recommended conditions of approval and requested clarification on two items. In response to his question about the drainage pan, Planner Chilcott stated the 3 - - LAFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 July 18, 2006 drainage pan is shown in the preliminary condominium map and does not need to be shown on the final map. In response to his question about the driveway maintenance agreement staff requested, Town Attorney White stated that in lieu of the maintenance agreement the responsibility for driveway maintenance should be assumed by the homeowners association in the condominium declarations. In response to questions from Chair Pohl, Planner Chilcott stated the Building Department had commented about the existing sign on Outlot F-although it is currently nonconforming, there is no need to remove the sign unless the size or text of the sign is changed. If a change is proposed, the applicant would need to apply for a variance. It was moved and seconded (Kitchen/Klink) to recommend approval of the Preliminary Condominium Map, Aspen Winds Condominiums, Lot 1 of the Replat of Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 3 of the Replat of Lots 1 & 2, Block 3, Fall River Estates, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions 'recommended by staff, and the motion pass*d unanimously with one absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the comments 1 through 8 and 10 in Public Works' memo dated March 28,2006. 2. Physical evidence of the parking space(s) on Outlot F shall be removed prior to recordation of the final condominium map. 3. The ten-foot-wide pedestrian/bicycle path easement shall be rededicated as a non-motorized 'adcess easement. Construction of a ten-foot-wide trail st,all be reqdired with the #16posed design submitted to staff whdn the final condominium map application is submitted. 4. Vacation of the section of easement occupied by the sign shall be reviewed and approved with the final condominium map application. Or relocation of the sign shall be reviewed and approved with the final'con'dominium inap application. 5. All metered services 'shall be checked and verified by an electrician and each service shall be permanently marked with the address or unit number prior to recordation of the final condominium map. 6. Compliance with the comments in the Upper Thompson Sanitation District's letter dated June 18, 2006. Sewer services need to be upgraded or guaranteed prior to recordation of the condominium map and declaration. 7. Compliance with the- comments in the Town Attorney's memo dated June 21, 2006 with the submittal of the final condominium map application. 8. Handicapped parking shall be provided as required by the Town Building Department. . 7. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06-02, Stanley Park Fairgrounds Rehabilitation, Metes & Bounds (PID: 2530405943) and Lot 1, Little Prospect Addition, 1209 Manford Avenue & 220 4~~ Street, Applicant: Town of Estes Park Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a location and extent review of the Stanley Park Master Plan Concept in order to provide an opportunity for public input on the conceptual site layout, as well as to request a waiver from the Planning Commission to allow planning staff to review spdcific development plans for individual. buildings as they are proposed. None of the proposed buildings exceed 10,000 square feet; staff-level review of development plans for buildings under 10,000 square is allowed under the Estes Valley Development Code. The Stanley Park Master Plan Concept was approved by the Town Board in February 2005 and was the result of a Town Board goal; development of the current plan began in March 2003. DR-AFT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 July 18, 2006 The overall concept is to rehabilitate the fairgrounds. Implementation of the plan is underway, with drainage and resurfacing improvements. The northern portion of the property will be primarily open space; sports fields are planned in that area as well as drainage for the site. RV parking will be relocated to the southwest corner and barns will be relocated to central portion of site. The southeast corner of the property may be used as the location for a community theater or for another arena. Any portion of the project that results in a significant increase in use will require a traffic impact study. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Staff received one phone call from a nearby property owner who requested, and was provided, a copy of the Master Plan Concept. No further comment was received from that property owner or from any other neighboring property owners. Public Comment: Steve Nagl of 281 North Court expressed his concerns over the location of the bulk water,distribution site, which is on the fairgrounds property near his residence. He stated there is a great deal of noisy diesel traffic there as early as 5:30 a.m. and requested the bulk water distribution be moved to a location away from residential properties as part of the fairgrounds rehabilitation. Director Joseph agreed to convey Mr. Nagl's concerns to the Community Development Committee and the Town Board of Trustees, noting that individual requests for portions of the redevelopment will be heard by the Community Development Committee as they are conceived. In response to a question from Commissioner Klink, Planner Shirk stated if the community theater project is larger than 10,000 square feet, the request for approval of that building would be reviewed by the Planning Commission. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hix) to approve Development Plan 06-02, Stanley Park Fairgrounds Rehabilitation, Metes & Bounds (PID: 2530405943) and Lot 1, Little Prospect Addition, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, with the waiver of the requirement for Planning Commission review of future development plans for the property which are less than 10,000 square feet, and with recommendation for relocation of the existing paid bulk water service to an area with less impact on residential neighborhoods, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. CONDITIONS: 1) Compliance with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code. 2) Compliance with the approved Master Plan Concept. 3) Compliance with memo from Public Works dated July 18, 2006. 4) Compliance with memo from Estes Park Sanitation District dated June 15, 2006. 5) Compliance with memo from Upper Thompson Sanitation District dated June 20, 2006. 8. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE: FAMILY HOME DAY CARE AND DAY CARE CENTER-Use Standards, Permitted Principal and Accessory Uses, and Definitions Planner Chilcott stated the proposed amendments address family home day cares, day care centers, and home occupations. She reviewed changes in the proposed amendments that have been made since the Planning Commission reviewed the matter at the June 20,2006 meeting, which include: L FLA-FT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 10 July 18, 2006 â€¢ Day care centers will be permitted by special review in the RE-1, RE, E-1, and E zoning districts. â€¢ Day care centers will be permitted in the CH zoning district as a use by right. â€¢ Day care centers in residential zoning districts will be allowed only on arterial streets and only by special review. â€¢ Home occupations on lots with shared private water systems will require written approval of the water association if the home occupation will increase demand on the water system. â€¢ Home occupations will be reviewed by the decision-making body to ensure safe and adequate access for customers. At a minimum, the street or shared driveway providing access shall have a minimuni width of eighteen feet if i. serving more than ten customer trips per day. â€¢ Home occupations accessed via roads managed by a' private road maintenance association will require written approval of the association to permit the customdr trips generated by the home occupation. Public Comment: Janice Newman, President of Estes Valley Investment in Childhodd Success, thanked Planner Chilcott and the planning staff for their work, stating they had resolved many issues together and that th-e proposed amendments willrimprove the' situation for daycare providers while ensuring neighborhood residences are pot negatively impacted. She recomme'nded approval of the amendments. , It was moved and se6onded (Klink/Eisenlauer) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block 8, Family Home Dby Care, Day Care Center, and Home Occupations to the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 9. REPORTS Given the lateness of the hour, the Commissioners and planrling staff agreed to postpone the scheduled discussion of accessory kitchens untilthe August 15, 2006 meeting. 1 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. 4 Edward B. Pohl, Chair' Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary DRAFT Town Clerk's Office Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: July 18, 2006 Subject: EVDC Block 8 Amendments - Ordinance Background. The Town Board approved the Block 8 amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code at their meeting June 27th. At that meeting, Ordinance # 02-06 was read and approved. Following the meeting and publication of the Ordinance in the Trail, it was discovered the public hearing was not published. Therefore, under the guidance of Attorney White, Ordinance #4-06 has been placed on the July 25th Town Board Agenda (consent agenda) to officially ratify previous Town Board approval. ORDINANCE NO. 4-06 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK EIGHT AMENDMENTS WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block Eight; and WHEREAS, said amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code are set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Block Eight set forth on Exhibit "A" and recommended for approval by the Estes Valley Planning Commission be approved. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully set forth on Exhibit "A". 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 ,2006. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2006 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2006, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk j EXHIBIT 'A" Amendments to the Estes Valley E~t~svp~rikoc~m~m~"~I~~10~len~i~~p~r~m~t h t Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue ~â€ž..id PO Box 1200 --Ii.- Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com 4.4.D. Additional Zoning District Standards. 1. Operational Requirements. a. Outdoor Sales, Use, Storage and Activity in the CD Zoning District. (1) Except as may be allowed in paragraph (3) below, all retail sales, displays and activities and all other uses, storage and activity shall be wholly contained within the interior of a building or permanent structure. (2) Retail merchandise shall not be displayed in any way on doors that provide customer access to a building or on windows that open out onto or over public ways including sidewalks, pedestrian paths/trails or permitted outdoor eating/serving area. (3) Exceptions. Notwithstanding paragraph (1) above, the following outdoor uses, storage or activity shall be permitted within the CD zoning district: (e) Automated Teller Machine (ATM) and/or Interactive Kiosks intended to serve walk-up customers only. ATMs or Kiosks shall not obstruct the movement of pedestrians through plazas. along adjoining sidewalks or through other areas intended for public usage. 13.3 Definitions /nteractive Kiosk shall mean a device that allows the public to access the internet. send and retrieve e-mail. or provide wayfinding or other information. These may be incorporated within an existing structure, or be free-standing. These shall not be used to provide off-premise signage for other businesses. The display shall comply with the adopted sign code. Display of off-site content shall be user activated. Content shall be restricted to comply with Title 9 "Public Peace, Morals and Safety" of the Municipal Code. 1 ..ENTOP.. United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Rocky Mountain National Park Estes Park, Colorado 80517 IN REPLY REFER TO: Extension of Memorandum of Understanding Between National Park Service (Rocky Mountain National Park) And Town of Estes Park) (Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department) MOU Agreement #MU1520-3-9002 between the National Park Service, Rocky Mountain National Park and the Town of Estes Park, Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department, expired on July 20,2003. One-year extensions to this agreement have since been in place. While discussions continue between the park and town regarding a new agreement, a final agreement will not be available again this year. In order to continue to provide for personal services and equipment required for both structural fire and wildland fire suppression, the National Park Service and Town of Estes Park agree to extend tile existing agreement for the period of one year, Â·July 20,2006 through July 20,2007. Planning for a new fire station within the Park is complete and a construction contract has been awarded. Work is scheduled to begin in fall of 2006 with occupancy as early as 2007. In the interim, no new proposals are adopted or changes made to the existing agreement. When the fire station is ready for occupancy by the Town of Estes Park, a new agreement for structural and wildland fire suppression will be negotiated. Chief, Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department Date Mayor, Town of Estes Park Date 41 %1 7-11-06 Superig@kdent, Rocky-Mountain National Park Date TAKE PRIDEÂ®*EQj INAMERICA- Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: David Shirk, Planner'>4 Date: July25,2006 Subject: Amended Plat of Lot 22 and Outlot B, Stanley Hills Subdivision Background. This is a request to , adjust the common lot line between a ~\ Site lot containing seventeen condominium ~ . 1 :NE units and an adjacent outlot. The \~ purpose of the amended plat is to -----2-4 correct a lot line encroachment that .- 9 K occurred in the field due to a - - - surveying error; a comer of one of the . IJ units extends over the lot line. Both Statiley Hotel 2~ A#~1 lots will remain the same size with only -- ====1.2 a slight change along the south line of .Â«940 lot 22. Budget. N/A T / N / Action. At their regularly scheduled June 20, 2006 meeting, the Estes Valley Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend APPROVAL of the Amended Plat of Lot 22 and Outlot B, Stanley Hills Subdivision CONDITIONAL TO: 1. Reformat plat for recording (remove improvements). 2. Compliance with memo from Town Attorney White to Dave Shirk dated May 24, 2006. 3. References to "proposed lot line" shall be labeled "lot line" and "existing lot line" shall be labeled "former lot line." (these are all minor technical corrections) Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: David Shirk, Planner I~/3 Date: July 25,2006 Subject: Amended Plat; Timberlane Subdivision and Brookside Annexation Background. In December / 1 2004, the Town Board approved ///Pole the Trendwest Planned Unit ~7,/ Development. That approval provided for sixty-six i i:. :Â· iii Â·:Â· accommodation units, which are nearing completion, and included a condition that the existing four 1~ M ... : f::/. lots be combined through the ~ amended plat process. This plat 1. is intended to fulfill that condition 4- 3 of approval. / Typically, this plat would have been recorded with the planned unit development. However, due to the corporate structure of Worldmark (operations) and Trendwest (development), the applicant requested to delay the filing of the amended plat until the units had been completed. The units are substantially complete, and only a few site development issues remain (landscaping, corrections to drainage infrastructure and lighting, etc). This request also includes vacation and dedication of right-of-way along Riverside Drive. The ROW being vacated is excessive width that is not necessary, and the ROW being dedicated will provide the necessary right-of-way width. Altogether, the new right-of-way alignment will provide a smooth curve, whereas the current alignment is "crooked." Budget. N/A Action. Staff recommends APPROVAL of the Amended Plat of Lots 1 and 2 and Outlot A of the Timberlane Subdivision and Tract 1 bf the Brookside Annexation CONDITIONAL TO compliance with memo from Greg White dated July 14, 2006 (minor change to a plat note). â€¢ Page 2 Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: July 20,2006 Subject: MLL-2 (Marys Lake Lodge 11) Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #2, Units 40A, 40B, 41 A & 41 B, Lots 3A and 3B, Mary's Lake Replat of Mary's Lake Subdivision, Don Debey/Applicant Background. This is a request for approval of a supplemental condominium map application for property located at 2625 Marys Lake Road. The property is located on two lots, Lots 3A and 3B of the Mary's Lake Replat. Both lots are zoned "A" Accommodations/Highway Corridor. This map condominiumizes four units in one building on Lot 3B, Units 40A, 40B, 41A, and 41B. On May 23, 2006, Town Board approved the first supplemental condominium map application. Development is consistent with approved Development Plan #00-07B. ' 3 ,; c Pretiminary Alary' s Loke RePtut Â·nan.. -u ..... Budget. 2 1 a PDrhon of Semon 2 Tot-/p 4 ~ / . i â€¢ 04 101. 2. 4. 5 & 0./01 4 .f aM-~-9*-v- I %2& F .- 1~ M~|~:' 2 14.V s takÂ¢ 42â€¢6*Ma 11 k ./ None. -~ i '0~ /"w~~f :'Mie op~28*05~"12 61 -Â»rnK21.-- I ,* North. RIng, 73 Irest 0/ the *th Â· - *~S:MLE,w. AlS-Â¥07. 4 .Â·Or-1;:14;ki.,ar â€¢Â·'4 ~fr* *ik466;~EEFF.â‚¬I ar,u u m, "f n, r. Action. . Â·- vul*.6/&/Â·/*110/Ir -7,1.â„¢: * 8#kmailb-*ME- - 4.4 9..:-------0 -------- .-: - ny,~ -'-,U,~ y.Â·*27& 'T.t Approval of the condominium map *ing--4 - 0- 1~ 1~ -.#v 17ri.- :52 E= 9..'84 F- p . .V Lot 2 X application conditioned on compliance with â€¢F 7-c, : Â· ~ I .. .tr . the comments in Greg White's memo 141% -4 *tr dated July 14, 2006. <,4 1 U.â€ž Jâ‚¬,Â· 9,2 1 4-12/7 266 :X 7 '. -- O en *pac: i =11 ~r I = -- ../- =2 22=U- . Lot 4.24 71 1'1 ' :i:~ -71'1 ,-iTiB ~:lf- , 5 LOT SA : ~ *iRgi.I~n'lly 1-, ? N' 11.t] 11;91 11'14 1,11 - . h. 4 l Klow. Ridge ' 3 Subdivision - .114 0 IUSL 1 hi~~'12:m ./ Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Repola From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: July 20,2006 Subject: The Promontory Condominiums, Lot 6, Mary's Lake Replat of Mary's Lake Subdivision, The Promontory, LLC/Applicant Background. The applicant has submitted a final condominium map application for The Promontory. The property is located on Lot 6 of the Mary's Lake Replat and is zoned "A" Accommodations Highway Corridor. A total of twenty-two detached accommodations/residential units are proposed on the 8.6-acre lot. The preliminary condominium map and first final condominium application were approved at the March 22, 2005 Town Board meeting. Three of the units, Units 2, 18, and 22, are condominiumized with this application. Budget. 1 4 Lots 2. 4. 5 & Outlit A 4 4 4 pÂ¥~timinary Man" s I.uke AIRâ€žt Uary s L.ke Subd~.ster. %,Â·~ None. -~t ' nA~â€ž iyÂ£â€žespark. Coun~Â¥ ..~ ipM-,=- - se, 4 ~ Â¢ POrtioâ€¢ Of Seâ‚¬â€ž04 2. Towmhlp 4 ~ :GRENWab A'*rÂ¢4 4.9, 73 1â€¢vit of the Ed * --- of J.aim,r Ser,i, 0/ CRian,/ 1/ iwf~US Â£L..Zaw.Â·C.air %75: Â· Â·Â·Â·Â· - \Â£5*%-a:V: 711Â£'i-&21:91*11 / U~.77,4 Action. . . i.e -1...97 r./.Â·.44.1-- ... -rliX.M. Approval of the final condominium map Single.Fmlly - 60 -a: I . 3=:G lvE'S' irl@;k application with the following conditions: 1 SF I -,1 * 2 - 7.5, Lot 2 rk ...L-, ..,â€ž. AO' EMÂ·-a k= (1) compliance with Greg White's Lots ,/*- . LZE. V' 6= 7 comment #1 in his July 14,2006 memo, _ 10 41/9 Â·Â· Utlet (2) compliance with the comments in i 677- got 7 Mike Mangelsen's memo dated July 12, - 1:n.. ...p..... 2006, and (3) the southern deck on Unit .7 . 1 4 Single.Family 18 shall be revised to reflect as-built i g-= - 7.74 conditions. RIal;9 - 2 Administration Memo To: Mayor Baudek and Town Trustees From: Randy Repola..z~= Date: 7/21/2006 Re: Aquatic Center Request for Financial Assistance Background: The School and Recreation districts have requested financial assistance from the Town for operation of the Aquatic Center. Their request was presented at the July 11, 2006, Town Board meeting and referred to the Utility Committee for further action. The Aquatic Center water and electric costs are estimated by the School District to be approximately $30,000 annually. Water is internally metered at the elementary school and cannot be itemized from Town records though the School budgets $6,000 annually for this item. The electric usage is separately metered and was $28,561 from July 2005 through June 2006. Staff is forecasting 2007 electric usage fees at the Aquatic Center to be approximately $29,659 (includes 2007 rate increase of 2.80%). This matter was discussed at the July 20 Utility Committee. The below discounts were discussed and are referred back to the Board of Trustees for a final decision. Budget: The table below provides discount options for the Aquatic Center utilities. If this approach is acceptable, the Finance Department will calculate the discount monthly and apply it to the utility invoice. The 2006 electric values are an estimate based upon the past 12 months' actual bills. % of Actual Utility Bill Fiscal Year 60% 70% 80% 90% 2006* Electric $ 8,568 $ 9,996 $ 11,424 $ 12,852 Water $ 1,800 $ 2,100 $ 2,400 $ 2,700 Total $ 10,368 $ 12,096 $ 13,824 $ 15,552 2007 Electric $ 17,795 $ 20,761 $ 23,727 $ 26,693 Water $ 3,600 $ 4,200 $ 4,800 $ 5,400 Total $ 21,395 $ 24,961 $ 28,527 $ 32,093 * 2006 is for six months 1 of 2 Since water use is not metered separately, staff proposes to take the water subsidy from the Aquatic Center annual budget estimate and simply apply a discount and then credit that to the School District's total water usage charge. The electric credit will be calculated based upon actual usage at the pool and applied monthly. Therefore, the water credit will be a fixed amount once the discount iÂ§ determined while the electric credit is an estimated amount. Ultimately, any credit can have a maximum value if the Committee and Board of Trustees so choose. This approach will not require an additional budget appropriation in either utility account and can be treated as foregone revenue. Action: Staff requests approval of an amount and discount rate for the pool subsidy. I . 1 Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION #14-06 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FUNDING FOR THE AQUATIC CENTER WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District and the Park R-3 School District have an operating agreement for the Aquatic Center that expires December 31, 2006; and, WHEREAS, the Recreation District's mill levy for operations failed in 2005 and the Park School District faces declining enrollment and aging facilities, the two entities are unable to fund the operational costs of the Aquatic Center; and, WHEREAS, the two entities are committed to elections in the fall of 2006 (school) and the fall of 2007 (EVRPD) for a bond and mill levy increase to provide funding for expenses that include the Aquatic Center; and, WHEREAS, the Aquatic Center is an important community asset; and, WHEREAS, the two entities have requested assistance from the Town with operation cost for the Aquatic Center for an eighteen-month period from July 2006 through December 2007; and, WHEREAS, the Town desires to assist the two entities with the operational costs for the Aquatic Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The Board of Trustees hereby consents to provide water and electric subsidizes at a rate of for water and for electric for the remainder of 2006 and for water and for electric in 2007 for a total subsidy not to exceed annually. INTRODUCED, READ, and ADOPTED this day of ,2006. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 1 Administration Memo To: Mayor Baudek and Town Trustees From: Randy Repola ~ Date: 7/21/2006 Re: Request to amend Master Plan Lot 4, Stanley Historic District Background: The Town of Estes Park purchased Lot 4 for "potential future public use" in 1998. The purchase was executed based upon a 1997 lease option that was entered into when the Town was considering a possible sale of the Municipal Building to National Geographic/Destination Cinema. That sale did not materialize and the Town instead began remodeling the current Municipal Building/Town Hall. The Town of Estes Park is under contract to sell Lot 4, Stanley Historic District ("Districf') to Estes Winds, LLC, for $1.25 million. The contract was entered into following a process which started in April 2005 that included a request for proposals, interviews with two developers and subsequent negotiations. The Estes Winds, LLC, concept was selected based upon its fit with the Stanley Historic District Master Plan ("Master Plan") as well as the value of the project both in terms of initial purchase price and the anticipated sales tax based upon the project pro forma. Estes Winds, LLC, and their architect, Basis Architecture, presented their detailed site plans to the Town in May of this year. Under the Master Plan any development within the District shall be reviewed by a Technical Review committee comprised of Town staff plus two independent professionals from disciplines such as engineering or architecture. The technical review of the Estes Winds, LLC, proposal was initiated on June 27, 2006. The review was not completed during that initial three-hour review; however, the Committee did advise the developer that there were two aspects of their proposal that did not comply with the Master Plan. The non-compliant elements were the total commercial square footage (approximately 39,000 requested versus 30,000 permitted) and the building footprint square footage, or base plate (approximately 41,000 requested, vs. 30,000 permitted). The Technical Review Committee can grant certain variances from the Master Plan, however, total square footage of commercial space and footprint variances cannot be granted by this committee. The review was not completed and a second session was scheduled. However, prior to the second session the attached letters were received from Basis Architecture withdrawing the 1 proposal and requesting an amendment to the Master Plan to expand both the footprint and amount of commercial space to 45,000 square feet. Thd 1994 development agreement between the Town of Estes Park and FHK Company does permit amendments to the development agreement if approved by both parties (Town and property owner). The Master Plan is incorporated into the development agreement as "Exhibit B." Therefore, the Town Board can amend the Master Plan if it so chooses. Representatives from Estes Winds, LLC, will present their request at the meeting. Budget: There is no specific budget impact to the Town's current budget. The proceeds from the sale of Lot 4 have been verbally committed to improvements at Stanley Park Fairgrounds with the priority being a theatre if such a project can be completely funded. Action: Staff requests consideration of the request by Estes Winds, LLC, to amend the Stanley Historic District Master Plan as it pertains to Lot 4. $ I â€¢ Page 2 6 1 ~TIA'-AFTIT-RT July 5,2006 Bob joseph Community Development Director Town of Estes Park 1200 MacGregor Ave Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Re: Stanley Maiketplace Lot 4, Stanley HiStOIiC Disttict Bob: On behalf ofEstes Winds, LLC, please accept this founal *equest to withdraw the submitted application for Technical Review approval as outlined in the Stanley Histoxic District Master Plan. An accompanying letter requests that the Town amend the development agreement associated with this ptoperty. If this amendment is granted, the application I,ill be immediately re-submitted with the identical materials. Our hope will be that little time will be required to put the review process back in motion if that, in fact occurs. Please feel free to contact me ~with any further questions. RTnrt..9 oiL FRi-@"6-2-09*rN 1 %1 lin t, Stevk Lane, AIA Â¢1 JUL - 5 2006 igli lu li .6...j 'A 1 1 . 21 1692 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE, SU]TE 109 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 VOX: 970.586.9140 FAX: 970.586.9149 ARCHITECTURE p. C - ;:..Â·.: 4Â· BWS XS July 5,2006 Randy Repola Town Administrator Bob joseph Community Development Director Town of Estes Park 1200 MacGregor Ave , Estes Paik, Colondo 80517 Re: Stanley Marketplace Lot 4, Stanley Histoiic District Randy & Bob: This is a request on behalf of Estes Winds, LLC, that the Town of Estes Park make amendments to the development agreement governing Lot 4 of the Stanley Historic District. The specific request is two-fold: fiEst, that the maximum allowable development of commercial space be listed as 45,000 square feet second, that the *ngY#rnum building ec>vexage be changed to 45,000 square feet- The overall maximum floor area would remain at 60,000 square feet, but perhaps should be clatified along with this change, if accepted. Tbis new limit would not exceed the area allowed for residential use in the existing code and wouldbe consistent with the Town's request to emphas;ze thecommemial development of this property. This amendment is necessary because the Master Plan does not grant the Technical Review committee the authority- to grant variances with respect to square footage. Representatives of the developer would like to make a presentation in support of this amendment request at the July 25 Town Board meeting. Please let me know if this request will be considered and of course, feel free to contact me with any further questions. Thank you for your time and considetation. 4,04, / O R px Ur - Stevp Lane, ALA 1 - ~ Adi ' JUL -5 2006 42 Ji U lEtS,~ te., . R 1692 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE, SUITE 100 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 VOX: 970.586.9140 FAX: 970.586.9149 A R C H I T.:EC T U R FOE P. C. - 1. 4. I. 9 I.'ll; 11 .4ili.09/9/'Pr / , ... / ./ e , Â·r 1 j..ue *th L 0, 4.11 k + Wk'INI .il :iâ€¢ h th' 1 4. --Ski' -4 N. 2. I L ,Â· ,- I . 5.4 1.4~ 14, 4 - A'-Â·WtÂ·h . I. I: 1 ~./. ./.1 ./ -. 1 1,4.-44 4'1.Â· f 4 7~ I M I 2 W , m.... aÂ·.. -' -=Er . .,..95:. 4'k-L-&~ibillkE~~ Â¥ i I I 15 ti 15 78 or) 0 0 0 0 4-4,- 4- 4.- r r 10 5 0 0 CO (\1 00 00 01 O 4-4- rt CO 410102 4 00 03 (9 00 N 1 4Â· LO CD h h 4 G UD 3 -0 1. I -17. :"%1,\ =3 00 - 2 mmo@WLL g Â«mmOLL 27 (3) CI) O) CD U E .9 .9 .9.Gic .g 1.. C .C CC EvENDET 51 93 73 4% 93 71 33303JJ 3 Â£1 -3 .3 .3 .3 - mmaimmalm a. mmwme Estes Marketplace Building Area 5,200sf f23 -â€ž.... I. . 4 Js L LZ'89 :Imol 5,200sf 38sf 15849'2 L :le jolq n S Main Floors (footprint) 'A' 8,966sf 360sf - 'W .fi'.1. 1,- - Wi - ... U :t: - - 0,1. ~- ..4.1 1. 7.Â·.. - U m Â¢# 1041#446 i 0 A. m.Â· 4.1.* MIr. 11 r. 4 Â¢4... M - *:- F- , , .Â·4'A'kil;, -- , 2,9-:C? 141111 1 1 1#; :/11. I. i 4 .. ~. teÂ«. 2 ..L 1 -E: Â· j/6 i f 4*-=' 4 ./ ,Â»fn:p. 1% -- t. 53<iiÂ·, r = mt -1,1.. 49 . . -2.. MA: l 1 1 13 4- 47 4- U) 0 0 O 0 N r- - 16 k. 2 8 R CO O (0 0 M. m 00 LO 2 552 Cl (9 - 0) -=S- h r- 3 CD r- r- 01 1~ 9- 02 11 4-/ C C.4 X 11 03 (1 8 N? O 0 0 JO LO 0~+ 2 EL 2 " m 08 05 W@2 2 15 25 5% 0 4 -V (D - - 6- 04 C b 1- 10 .9 Q o LO DE Â·- O+ 2 - 32 + 3 52 ./. 9 57 2 2 Am $9- 2 4, RE (D -= 03 r. O == CL ev 3 CE -3 :E 2 20 m m Restaurant/Banquet: 9,804sf -Â·*1491 :r':93*3**f?Â»" Â·4~9Z via*i'Ni~*~9'9'3:ft:' 2 3Â·-e,Â· Â· Â·r -Â».â€ž*...% Areas by use Building 'A' Buildings 'Bl' Residential: = ilding 'C' :80!go eJe SJOOU 9 Il, MI! Jel,ULL!00 lejol John H. MeMillan, M. D. 7502 El Monte Circle ;Â£Â£ JUL 2 1 Prairie \1]lage, Kansas 66208-4300 ; L - July 18, 2006 ..... i 3 Mr. John Baudek, Mayor Town of Estes Park 170 Macgregor Avenue P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mr. Baudek: My wife and I own a condominium in the Mountain Creek development at the southwest corner of the Stanley Hotel grounds. Long before we purchased that property, we visited Estes Park with our children every year. We have always considered The Stanley Hotel to be the single most defining structure in Estes Park. Indeed, the town of Estes Park owes its continued existence to this important historic landmark. lt was with great disappointment that we read of your intention to allow the construcdon. of six buildings on Lot Four.on the Stanley grounds. Not only is the proposed commercial/residential development to be considered for a variance to the longstanding Historic District Master Plan, and will forever ruin the spectacular view from the Stanley Hotel, it is to contain a business that will directly compete with the Hotel. Moreover, the increased traffic and buildings will no doubt ruin the well known elk runs in which local residents take pride. While we encourage efforts to buiid a performing arts center, any development of Lot 4 is not only unwarranted but is also an insult to the sensibilities of any rational citizen. Please consider the possibility that an interruption of the revenue to the Stanley Hotel could seriously impair renovation efforts and lead to further deterioration of numerous surrounding structures. This would reflect very poorly on the reputation of Estes Park. We ask that you do not support ANY development of Lot Four. Sincerely, \Ljlk,43/kL k.0 / 4 *hn H. MeMillan, M.D. Jane MeMillan STANLEY VIEWS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION July 21, 2006 TO: Board of Trustees, Town of Estes Park RE: Opposition to an Amended Development Agreement Request pertaining to Lot 4 in the Stanley Historic District Dear Town Trustees: 1. The members ofthe Stanley Views Homeowners Association unanimously urge the Board of Trustees to deny the request to amend the Development Agreement for Lot 4 of the Stanley Historic District. Every lot owner in Stanley Views has been subject to the Master Plan and Development Agreement. We have respected it and believe fervently that others should be required to follow the same development requirements: equal treatment and protection under law. 2. The Stanley Historic District is a valuable asset to our Town and should be protected and developed carefully and thoughtfully. A 50% increase in commercial space would do serious damage to the character ofthe Historic District to the disadvantage of all. 3. The proposal before you would result in an unacceptable and dangerous increase in traffic on Steamer Parkway where congestion at the Stanley Hotel entrance already exists. 4. We've been informed that another local party is prepared to purchase the land and develop it in conformance with the Stanley Historic District Master Plan. This would be an attractive alternative to the current situation: a possibly protracted legal battle with the land lying fallow for an indefinite period of time. We urge the Town Board to stay the course on the Stanley Historic District and to deny the petition. Sincefely, f&) GÂ»11 6/Ed Campbell/ President, Stanley Views HOA 620 Findley Ct. Estes Park, CO 80517 4 1% O E 8 9 21 V 17}'l \\ rh al %1 JUL 2 1 2006 5 li 11 Â£1 1/ UU i .mÂ». Jackie Williamson From: Randy Repola Sent: Monday, July 24,2006 7:46 AM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: FW: Lot 4, Stanley Historic District Amendment Please copy for the board. I suspect we will have more to hand to them Tuesday night. Thanks, rr -----Original Message----- From: Lola Brett [mailto:rlbrett7@earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, July 23,2006 7:20 PM To: Randy Repola Subject: Lot 4, Stanley Historic District Amendment Dear Manager Repola, Please do not approve Estes Winds, LI-Cls request to amend the agreement governing the development of Lot 4 of the Stanley Historic District. We are homeowners in that District. We understand that the Districtls Master Plan specifies that Lot 4 is meant to be developed. We also understand, however, that the Plan dictates the parameters of any such development. Our objection lies with any proposal that would compromise the intent of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan, which the Estes Windsl request does. The Town has consistently protected the District in the past and we think the Town is obligated to continue to do so. We think the Townls ultimate responsibility is to insure that any development within the District honors the history and intent of those who authored the Plan. Sincerely, Richard A. & Lola I. Brett 472 MacGregor Avenue 577-0712 1 Letter to Town Manager & Community Development Director Dear Randy, The request being made by Estes Winds, LLC to amend the development agreement governing Lot 4 of the Stanley Historic District is a bad idea. Why would the City even consider making such a change? The Stanley Historic District Master Plan was drafted to protect the community from unwise development. It provides exact specifications of how property within the District is to be used in order to preserve the integrity of the historic district. The proposed increase in commercial space would be detrimental to the character o f the Stanley Historic District. As a property owner in the District, I am strongly opposed to this amendment and I would like to point out that the Master Plan does not grant the Technical Review Committee the authority to grant variances for a good reason. Sincerely, Ron & Debbie Kohl 486 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park 586-4114 July 24,2006 Town Board of Trustees Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Amended Development Agreement Request Lot 4, Stanley Historic District Dear Trustee Pinkham: The members of the Stanley Views Home Owners Association voted unanimously to urge the Board of Trustees to deny the request to amend the Development Agreement for Lot 4 of the Stanley Historic District. As members of this HOA, we strongly support this position. Our main concerns are: 1. 50% increase in commercial space; the density is in direct opposition to the intent of the Development Agreement. 2. Unacceptable increase in traffic on an already busy Steamer Parkway. The increased traffic would create additional problems with the proposed intersection at Findley Court as well as the other access points. We accept development of Lot 4 using the current Master Plan and Development Agreement - as has been done with all development in the Stanley Historic District to date. A decision regarding amending the Development Agreement certainly seems premature in light of a pending Lot 4 lawsuit on the legality of such action. 32Â«00/9 / 1.$ David and Linda Cleeland 650 Findley Ct. Estes Park, CO 80517 Â· -r=, \d/ C= 0 12 11,4 1 ' i i Â·Â·Â· Â·jl JUL 2 4 2006 iii Ji David Prawdzik /1 11 ~ lj=~111 i Frances Marshall 420 Overlook Ct. Estes Park, CO 80517 Board of Trustees Town ofEstes Park, 170 Macgregor Avenue, PO Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Re: Proposed Increase in Development Density ofLot #4 ofthe Stanley Historic District. July 21, 2006 Board of Trustees, Town of Estes Park We strongly oppose the proposed increase in development density of Lot #4 of the Stanley Historic District. The Historic District Master Plan ("The Plan") exists and should be followed without exception. Erosion ofthe precepts contained in The Plan by the current proposal constitute significantly more commercial development than was logically planned for, a position supported by the City Attorney, and can only serve to reduce the historic value of Estes Park with progressively degrading long term effects. The Stanley Historic District is the most significant tourist attraction in Estes Park outside of Rocky Mountain Nation Park itself and must be preserved to continue its economic benefit to the city. Hence The Historic District Master Plan was devised. Please follow it to the letter. Additionally, the state law was violated by not having a City- election to approve the sale ofpublic property. Ifthe city does not follow the State laws, ordinary citizens have no incentive to follow the city laws of Estes Park. Clearly the example set by the city is not a proper one and the current intent constitutes questionable legal activity. This is not an issue ofeminent domain such that the city is authorized to act in a manner as intended. S71-74Â» Dear Mayor Baudek and members of the Estes Park Board of Trustees, The Canyon Creek Townhome Condominium Association Board of Directors respectfully asks you not approve the request made by Estes Winds, LLC to amend the development agreement governing Lot 4 of the Stanley Historic District. Our association opposes any changes that would violate the covenants of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan, which provides detailed specifications for the scope and review for development of every lot within the district. Estes Winds' proposed increase in commercial space deviates from those specific guidelines. We bought into the Canyon Creek development (12 condominiums in the district at the corner of Wonderview and MacGregor Avenue) because of the integrity and character of the Historic District and its importance to the Estes Park community. We believe that the Estes Park Board of Trustees is obligated to require that any new District development adhere to the same rules required of those in the past. We think any deviations from the Plan as written will set a dangerous precedent. With respect, Board of Directors, The Canyon Creek Townhome Association 0-, rrF E R fy i' t' 2' JUL 2 4 2006 4 Â¢ 1 1 1 1.1./ U ; 'it ---J E D ' I.--I---1 l : f .4 3 --2 9 n 2 7. David Prawdzik ~ JUL 2 4 2006 Frances Marshall. 420 Overlook Ct. -- Estes Park, CO 805:11 t ..3 Mayor, Mr. John Baudek Town of Estes Park, 170 Macgregor Avenue, PO Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Re: Proposed Increase in Development Density of Lot #4 ofthe Stanley Historic District. July 21, 2006 Dear Mayor Baudek, We strongly oppose the proposed increase in development density of Lot #4 of the Stanley Historic District. The Historic District Master Plan ("The Plan") exists and should be followed without exception. Erosion ofthe precepts contained in The Plan by the current proposal constitute significantly more commercial development than was logically planned for, a position supported by the City Attorney, and can only serve to reduce the historic value of Estes Park with progressively degrading long term effects. The Stanley Historic District is the most significant tourist attraction in Estes Park outside of Rocky Mountain Nation Park itself and must be preserved to continue its economic benefit to the city. Hence The Historic District Master Plan was devised. Please follow it to the letter. Additionally, the state law was violated by not having a City election to approve the sale ofpublic property. Ifthe city does not follow the State laws, ordinary citizens have no incentive to follow the city laws of Estes Park. Clearly the example set by the city is not a proper one and the current intent constitutes questionable legal activity. This is not an issue of eminent domain such that the city is authorized to act in a manner as intended. Sincerely, <. 0Â»911\ *g,t*+4,07 .,--:a r=*i AP./7 rn--Â· :"Â· I 4-47 139 0 \9/ 3 2 . Â£ 5-3. 4,=I.-I a J t.Â·V-: JUL 2 4 2006 ~ ( ji. David Prawdzik j itfj Frances Marshall 420 Overlook Ct. Estes Park, CO 80517 Board of Trustees Town of Estes Park, 170 Macgregor Avenue, PO Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Re: Proposed Increase in Development Density of Lot #4 ofthe Stanley Historic District. July 21, 2006 Board of Trustees, Town of Estes Park We strongly oppose the proposed increase in development density of Lot #4 of the Stanley Historic District. The Historic District Master Plan ("The Plan") exists and should be followed without exception. Erosion of the precepts contained in The Plan by the current proposal constitute significantly more commercial development than was logically planned for, a position supported by the City Attorney, and can only serve to reduce the historic value of Estes Park with progressively degrading long term effects. The Stanley Historic District is the most significant tourist attraction in Estes Park outside of Rocky Mountain Nation Park itself and must be preserved to continue its economic benefit to the city. Hence The Historic District Master Plan was devised. Please follow it to the letter. Additionally, the state law was violated by not having a City election to approve the sale ofpublic properly. Ifthe city does not follow the State laws, ordinary citizens have no incentive to follow the city laws of Estes Park. Clearly the example set by the city is not a proper one and the current intent constitutes questionable legal activity. This is not an issue of eminent domain such that the city is authorized to act in a manner as intended. '7 Sincerely, r /3 / f: 21Â» l ) \4 IA OTTENJOHNSON ROBINSON NEFF + RAGONETTI. July 25,2006 AMY HANSEN 303 575 7563 AHANSEN@OTTENJOHNSON.COM Town of Estes Park Board ofTrustees Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Re: Proposed Amendment to Development Agreement for Lot 4, Stanley Historic District Ladies and Gentlemen ofthe Board ofTrustees: This firm represents the owner of the Stanley Hotel (the "Hotel"), New Stanley Associates, L.L.L.P. ("New Stanley"), with respect to its opposition of the proposed amendment to the development agreement for property immediately adjacent to the Hotel, the consideration of which is pending before the Board of Trustees (the "Board") at this evening's Board meeting and public hearing. Estes Winds LLC ("Estes Winds") has requested that the Board amend that certain development agreement dated January 17, 1994 between the Town of Estes Park (the "Town") and FHK Company (the "Lot 4 Development Agreement"), which pertains to Lot 4, Plat of Lots 3,4,5,6,7, 8 and 9 of the Stanley Historic Subdivision of a Portion of Tracts 4 and 5, Stanley Addition to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, County of Larimer, State of Colorado ("Lot 4"). Estes Winds had submitted an application for development approvals relating to Lot 4, which application was opposed by New Stanley. A copy of the written comments to that application submitted on behal f o f New Stanley is included for your reference. When it became clear that the Technical Review Committee formed pursuant to the Stanley Historic District Master Plan (the "Master Plan") did not have the authority to grant variances under the Master Plan with respect to certain development criteria, Estes Winds withdrew its application and asked that the development criteria applicable to Lot 4 be amended. Our understanding is that i f these development criteria are amended, Estes Winds will resubmit its application for development approvals for Lot 4. Should that occur, New Stanley will continue to actively oppose the development on Lot 4 as proposed by Estes Winds. For that reason, we ask that the official record for the Technical Review Committee proceedings be made a part of the official record for tonight's meeting. The purpose of this letter is to object to the proposed amendments to the Lot 4 Development Agreement and the Master Plan on behalf of New Stanley and to request that the Board reject the same at its meeting. We ask that this letter (including the enclosures) be made a part o f the official record of tonight' s meeting. 950 SEVENTEENTH STREET SUITE 1600 DENVER COLORADO 80202 P 303 825 8400 F 303 825 6525 W OTTENJOHNSON.COM DENVER ASPEN STEAMBOAT SPRINGS Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees July 25,2006 Page 2 The Lot 4 Development Agreement provides for, among other things, density and floor coverage limitations applicable to Lot 4. As we understand it, Estes Winds has proposed that the Town amend the Lot 4 Development Agreement to (i) increase the maximum allowable commercial floor area from 30,000 square feet to 45,000 square feet (a 50% increase), and (ii) increase the maximum allowable lot coverage from 30,000 square feet to 45,000 square feet (a 50% increase). Based upon our conversation with Greg White, we understand that as part o f the proposed amendment to the Lot 4 Development Agreement, the Town will consider amending the Master Plan. The density and floor coverage limitations found in the Lot 4 Development Agreement are based on the limitations found in the Master Plan, which is attached to and incorporated into the Lot 4 Development Agreement. As a preliminary matter, the Hotel and Lot 4 are located within the Stanley Historic District (the "Historic District"). Any development within the Historic District is governed by the Master Plan and the Stanley Historic District Ordinance, codified at Chapter 17.44 ofthe Town Code (the "Historic District Ordinance"). In addition to the Lot 4 Development Agreement, two additional development agreements were executed with respect to all o f the property located within the Historic District. One o f those development agreements pertains to the property upon which the Hotel is situated, and New Stanley is the successor-in-interest to that development agreement (the "Hotel Development Agreement"). Both the Lot 4 Development Agreement and the Hotel Development Agreement incorporate the Master Plan into their terms. The Town previously has incorporated the Lot 4 Development Agreement and Hotel Development Agreement (again, both including the Master Plan) into the Historic District Ordinance by reference. New Stanley objects to the proposed amendments to the Lot 4 Development Agreement and the Master Plan for a variety of reasons, as outlined below. 1. The Proposed Amendments are Contrary to the Purpose and Intent of the Master Plan The Lot 4 Development Agreement, Master Plan and Historic District Ordinance all limit development on Lot 4 to a maximum of 30,000 square feet of commercial space and a maximum of 30,000 square feet of lot coverage. These development limitations are what Estes Winds now seeks to have amended, as outlined above. The central purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Historic District Ordinance are to provide for the preservation of the Hotel, both in terms of architectural significance and economics. As outlined in the Historic District Ordinance, its purposes include: A. To administer the historic resources of the Stanley Historic District in a manner that will preserve the integrity of their location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and visual character; B. To ensure that development in the foreground of the Hotel does not destroy its essential historic character, or lessen its ability to conduct an economically viable operation; and C. To establish certain requirements that must be met before development within the Stanley Historic District is to be permitted. The Master Plan specifically states that "[1]he primary design direction for the Historic District was to develop the Stanley Hotel and surrounding development into a campus. ... The Stanley Hotel is the centralfocus for Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees July 25,2006 Page 3 the project, and is to maintain its dominance as the largest, most prominent structure on the site." Adoption of the development limitations specific to each site within the Historic District was designed to further the stated purposes and intents o f the Master Plan, the Historic District Ordinance and the Lot 4 Development Agreement. The Master Plan even states that "[flloor plates that are too large will simply bring the encroachment of contemporary commercial development closer to the [Hotel] . . . [t]herefore, land use transition, building scale, view corridor preservation... must become foremost consideration." Allowing 150% of the density currently provided for in the Master Plan on Lot 4 cannot be reconciled with the terms of the Master Plan itself. The limitations on development were intended to support the Hotel. The Master Plan does not provide for an amendment process and in fact, provides no variances may be granted with respect to certain key development standards, including density and square footages, which is further evidence of the significance of these development standards. Any such amendment flies in the face of the entire purpose ofthe Master Plan and the Historic District Ordinance and the request for such amendment should be denied by the Town. 2. The Impact on Wildlife Has Not Been Thoughtfully Considered In addition to considerations related to preservation of the Hotel, the Master Plan requires that wildlife considerations be addressed during the development process. The Master Plan states that the entire Historic District falls within elk and mule deer winter range and migratory routes, creating the need to consider wildlife in the overall design and development within the property. The Master Plan specifically acknowledges that such native wildlife is a major asset of the Town and that "every effort shall be taken to preserve the wildlife which currently migrate through the site." It does not appear that Estes Winds has undertaken any efforts to preserve wildlife in its plans for development or address the impacts that a 50% increase in density will have on wildlife winter range and migratory routes. This is clearly an issue the Town must consider and adequately address before taking action on the proposed amendments. It is New Stanley's position, however, that the proposed amendments to the Master Plan and Development Agreement should not be approved due to wildlife considerations. 3. Amendment of the Lot 4 Development Agreement and Master Plan Constitutes a Breach of the Town's Contractual Obligations to New Stanley The Master Plan is an agreement between the Town and the owners of the property within the Historic District, including New Stanley, as set forth in the Master Plan introduction-" the private ownership interest and the public authorities have jointly prepared and agreed to the overall Master Plan and Development Standards and Design Guidelines." The Master Plan further provides that the Development Standards and Design Guidelines are an "integral part of the Master Plan and reflect a mutual agreement and desire to plan and develop the Stanley Historic District accordingly" with the intent that the same provide "predictability" and be used to review potential development. The development standards specific to each parcel within the Historic District further the stated goal of predictability with respect to future development. New Stanley and the Town are both bound by the terms of the Hotel Development Agreement, which incorporates all o f the provisions of the Master Plan. As a result, in addition to being bound directly by the Master Plan, the Town is contractually bound to New Stanley to honor the terms of the Master Plan pursuant to Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees July 25,2006 Page 4 the Hotel Development Agreement, and any amendment to the Master Plan is an amendment to the Hotel Development Agreement requiring New Stanley's consent. If the Town fails to uphold the development criteria in the Master Plan, it will constitute a breach of the Town's contractual obligations to New Stanley under the Master Plan and the Hotel Development Agreement. In making significant investments in and improvements to the Hotel and associated structures, New Stanley has relied on the terms and conditions in the Master Plan as the same apply to all property within the Historic District. Any breach of contract by the Town in this regard could result in sizable damages incurred by New Stanley. As outlined in the enclosed letter from John Mill, New Stanley is prepared to pursue its legal remedies should the Town breach its contractual obligations to New Stanley. In summary, the Lot 4 Development Agreement, Hotel Development Agreement, Master Plan and Historic District Ordinance clearly, repeatedly and consistently limit development on Lot 4 to 30,000 square feet of building coverage and 30,000 square feet of commercial floor area. The documents also clearly set forth why these limits are important - preservation of the Hotel and wildlife - and therefore cannot be varied. On behalf of New Stanley, we request that you reject the Estes Winds' request that the Town amend the Master Plan and Lot 4 Development Agreement. While New Stanley opposes the development proposed by Estes Winds (complete with a competing wedding facility), as well as the proposed amendment to the Lot 4 Development Agreement and Master Plan, New Stanley is aware that the Town hopes to use the proceeds from the sale of Lot 4 to help finance the proposed Performing Arts Center. New Stanley supports the Performing Arts Center in concept and is very interested in assisting the Town in finding ways to keep tourists in the area for extended visits. However, New Stanley cannot support the currently proposed means to that end for the reasons specified above and in the enclosed letters. As outlined in John Mill's letter, the proposed development would have a significant negative impact on the Hotel's bottom line. New Stanley feels so strongly about its opposition to this development that it has offered to purchase Lot 4 in an effort to keep Lot 4 from being developed as currently proposed by Estes Winds. New Stanley will continue to be a generous member of the community so long as it has the economic ability to do so. I thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, ~ A RAL-*Â«----- Amy Van en for the\fir}n AKH/mb 693657.3 Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees July 25,2006 Page 5 CC: Bob Joseph Greg White, Esq. John Cullen Robert Simon, Esq. John Mill, Esq. b a OTTENJOHNSON ROBINSON NEFF +RAGONETTI. June 26,2006 AMY HANSEN 303 575 7563 AHANSEN@OTTENJOHNSON.COM VIA FACSIMILE (970) 586-2816 and Messenger Stanley Historic District Technical Review Committee c/o Community Development Department Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Re: Stanley Historic District Lot 4 Development Proposal Ladies and Gentlemen ofthe Technical Review Committee: This firm represents the owner of the Stanley Hotel (the "Hotel"), New Stanley Associates, L.L.L.P. ("New Stanley"), with respect to its opposition of a development proposal for property immediately adjacent to the Hotel, the approval of which is currently pending before the Technical Review Committee (the "Committee"). Estes Winds LLC (the "Applicant") has filed a development proposal (the "Proposal") for Lot 4, Plat of Lots 3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 of the Stanley Historic Subdivision of a Portion of Tracts 4 and 5, Stanley Addition to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, County of Larimer, State of Colorado ("Lot 4"), which calls for a mixed-use project including commercial and residential uses (the "Project"), as more specifically described in the Proposal. It is our understanding that the Committee will consider the Applicant's final package for the Proposal at its meeting on Tuesday, June 27,2006. The purpose of this letter is to object to the Proposal and the Project on behal f of New Stanley and to request that the Committee deny the same at its meeting. We ask that this letter be made a part of the official record of the June 27,2006 meeting. We also would like an opportunity to address the Committee at its meeting to discuss New Stanley's concerns and objections related to the Proposal and the Project. THE APPLICANT MUST PROVE THAT THE PROPOSAL COMPLIES WITH THE STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT DOCUMENTS. The Hotel and Lot 4 are located within the Stanley Historic District (the "District"). Any development within the District is governed by the Stanley Historic District Master Plan (the "Master Plan"), the Stanley Historic District Ordinance, codified at Chapter 17.44 of the Code of the Town of Estes Park (the "Ordinance") and the Estes Valley Development Code (the "Development Code"). In addition, in connection with the adoption of the Master Plan, site specific development agreements were executed, including that certain development agreement between the Town of Estes Park ("Town") and FHK 950 SEVENTEENTH SlREET SUITE 1800 DENVER COLORADO 80202 P 303 825 8400 F 303 825 6525 W OTTENJOHNSON.COM DENVER ASPEN STEAX,lbOAT SPRINGS 1 Stanley Historic District Technical Review Committee June 26,2006 Page 2 Company dated January 17,1994 (the "Development Agreement"), which pertains to Lot 4. The Proposa] must be evaluated in light of the purpose, intent, criteria and requirements of these governing documents. The Master Plan clearly puts the burden of establishing compliance with the specific provision of the Master Plan on the Applicant. (Master Plan, Page 5) The Master Plan provides that the Committee can grant variances or modify the Guidelines based on the Applicant's ability to demonstrate innovative approaches, design solutions or future market conditions which the Committee feels are "advantageous to and in conformity with, the intent of the Master Plan." (Master Plan, Page 4) (emphasis added) However, as discussed below, the Master Plan provides that the Committee cannot grant a variance regarding some of the site specific standards. (Master Plan, Page 4) The Applicant has failed to establish that the Proposal complies with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and with the specific requirements. For these reasons and based directly on the text of the Master Plan, the Committee cannot grant a variance from the requirements of the Master Plan and must deny the Proposal. THE PROPOSAL IS CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE MASTER PLAN. The central purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Ordinance are to provide for the economic sustainability of the Hotel and to secure its historically significant position in the Town in perpetuity. The Master Plan specifically states that the Hotel is to remain the "Crown Jewel" of the District with the "surrounding adjacent development providing the necessary support for this overall concept." (Master Plan, Page 2) Setting forth this intent, the Master Plan declares that the Hotel is to be the "central focus" and "center of activity" within the District. (Master Plan, Page 12) The other uses within the District are intended to support the Hotel. (Master Plan, Page 13) Although addressing development of the Hotel parcel itself, the Master Plan states that "recognition must be granted to the fact that the economic viability ofthe hotel complex is a core issue in the preservation of the historical structures that the Historical District has been established to protect." (Master Plan, Page 27) (emphasis added) In addition to the many references in the Master Plan to the economic viability of the Hotel, the Ordinance specifically provides that one of its intents and purposes is to ensure that "the development in the foreground of the Hotel Complex does not . . . lessen its ability to conduct an economically viable operation." lemphasis added.) Contrary to the intent and purpose of the Master Plan and Ordinance, certain components of the Project will materially adversely impact the economic viability of the Hotel. A portion ofthe Project (to be known as Building A - Wild Elk Lodge) includes a nearly 10,000 square foot banquet hall and meeting facility, which includes a groom's lounge and two bridal suites. According to the Proposal, the Applicant projects annual gross sales of $ 1.5 million from the proposed banquet facility. The Hotel's banquet business is key part of its economic core. The total banquet revenues, including food and beverage revenues for banquets, meetings, weddings and other events, rental o f meeting space, and other miscellaneous fees charged in connection with the same, are quite significant. The range of revenues realized in recent years by the Hotel from banquets is included in the Confidential Statement of Financial Information included with this letter. A significant portion of these total banquet revenues relate directly to the Hotel's wedding business, the details of which are included in the Confidential Statement of Financial Information, as the Hotel hosts a significant number of weddings each year. Stanley Historic District Technical Review Committee June 26,2006 Page 3 The proposed Wild Elk Lodge banquet facility will directly compete with the Hotel's banquet business, including its wedding business. Weddings appear to be a key segment o f the business that the Applicant hopes capture, as the construction plans include two bridal suites and a groom's lounge. As noted above, the Applicant is estimating that it will realize revenues of $1.5 million annually from the banquet facility. New Stanley's believes strongly that there is not an additional $1.5 million in banquet business to be captured in Estes Park and that it is almost a certainty that the proposed banquet facility on Lot 4 would draw a considerable amount of its projected business away from the business currently enjoyed by the Hotel. The economic impact of the proposed banquet facility on Lot 4 goes further than just impacting the Hotel's total banquet revenues. Many Hotel rooms are rented in connection with weddings held at the Hotel, as detailed in the Confidential Statement of Financial Information. Each time a Hotel room is rented, there are two types of revenue generated, the nightly room rate and other dollars spent by the guests staying in that room on other goods and services at the Hotel. The amount ofrevenue generated by these nightly stays in connection with weddings is very important to the Hotel operation. The details of these figures are included in the Confidential Statement of Financial Information. Conversely, for those weddings not held at the Hotel, it is more likely that such wedding parties and their guests will stay elsewhere. If the Hotel is not hosting as many weddings as it has in the past, the number of rooms rented in connection with the Hotel's wedding business will also decline, as will the related incidental spending. The banquet facility that is included as a part of the Proposal will most certainly have a direct, negative impact on the banquet business at the Hotel and will result in decreased revenues in other areas of Hotel operations. The magnitude ofthese impacts will jeopardize the economic viability of the entire Hotel operation. This impact is wholly contrary to the intent and purpose of the Master Plan and Ordinance, and, as such, we ask that the Committee deny the Proposal. THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT COMPLY WITH SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT REOUIREMENTS IN THE MASTER PLAN. With the intent that the Hotel remain the focal point of the District, the Master Plan provides for certain density and dimensional limitations specific to Lot 4. The Master Plan specifies that no more than 30,000 square feet of fioor area for commercial and office uses and no more than 20 second-floor residential units may be constructed on Lot 4. (Master Plan, Page 42) The Master Plan further limits the total building lot coverage to 30,000 square feet. (Master Plan, Page 42) Notably, the Development Agreement sets forth the same density and dimensional limitations, further evidencing the thoughtful consideration and importance given to these criteria. In addition, there are other site specific development requirements contained in the Master Plan, including parking requirements and vehicular access. The Proposal Includes Too Much Commercial Square Footage and Too Much Site Coverage. Notwithstanding the very clear language o f the Master Plan and Ordinance, the Proposal for Lot 4 exceeds these specific limitations. The Proposal would allow for development of 39,631 square feet of commercial and "lodge" uses, which is 32% more floor area than the 30,000 square feet allowed under the Master Plan. Further, the Proposal provides for 41,063 square feet of lot coverage, which is 37% more than the 30,000 square feet set forth in the Master Plan. In addition, while the Master Plan provides for only second-floor residential uses, the Proposal includes two buildings that would contain only residential use, both on the ground 4 , Stanley Historic District Technical Review Committee June 26,2006 Page 4 floor and the second floor. For these reasons, the Committee must deny the Proposal as it has no authority to grant variances on these matters, as discussed below. Some of the Proposed Uses are Not Permitted under Zonine. In addition to the fact that the Proposal does not comply with the density and square footage requirements in the Master Plan as noted above, the uses proposed do not comply with the Development Code. Lot 4 is included in the "CO Outlying Commercial" ("CO") zone district. Pursuant to the Ordinance, the only uses that are permitted in the District are those uses permitted by right and by special review in the underlying zone district pursuant to the Development Code. In other words, the documents governing the District, including the Master Plan, cannot add new permitted uses for Lot 4. Section 4.4 of the Development Code, which sets forth permitted uses for the CO zone district, does not allow multi-family residential or banquet/meeting hall uses. Section 5.2 of the Development Code, which sets forth accessory uses in the CO zone district, provides that "meeting rooms, banquet halls and similar group gathering spaces and uses" are an accessory use in that zone district. Of significance, although banquet halls are an accessory use, they are accessory only to a principal "accommodations use," which, according to Section 4.4 of the Development Code, is limited to bed and breakfasts in the CO zone district. Moreover, the banquet hall use must be located in the same building as the principal accommodations use and must be operated primarily for the convenience of guests, customers or visitors to the principal use. Accordingly, because Lot 4 has underlying zoning of CO, because the banquet hall use is not permitted in the CO zone district except in connection with a bed and breakfast principal use, and because the Proposal does not contemplate such a use, banquet/meeting halls are not permitted on Lot 4. Therefore, the Committee must deny the Proposal, as it has no authority to grant a variance with regard to permitted uses, as noted below. Further, the CO zone district is a non-residential zone district that does not permit multi-family residential uses as contemplated by the Proposal. While the Master Plan "anticipates" that multi-family residential use will be made of Lot 4 and notes that "recommended land uses" include multi-family residential use, Section 4.4 of the Development Code does not allow for such use in the underlying CO zone district. Again, because this residential use is not permitted on Lot 4 and because the Committee has no authority to approve a use not permitted or to grant a variance for such use as discussed below, the Committee must deny the Proposal. Parkil,2 Ratio and Access Requirements are Not Met, In addition to the issues outlined above, the Proposal is deficient as it pertains to parking. The Master Plan clearly states that five off-street parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet of commercial space are required. Including the banquet facility, there is a total of 39,631 square feet of commercial area, which, under the Master Plan, requires 198 parking spaces. The Proposal is not clear regarding the number of bedrooms contained in each residential unit. The Master Plan states that one off- street parking space is required for each one-bedroom unit and two off-street parking spaces for each two- bedroom unit. Assuming that all halfof the units proposed are two-bedroom units and the other halfare one- bedroom units, a total of 30 parking spaces would be required for the residential uses, bringing the total required off-street parking to 228 parking spaces. The Proposal only calls for 172 parking spaces, which is approximately a 25% reduction in the required parking. Due to the insufficient parking, New Stanley requests that the Committee deny the Proposal. Moreover, the Proposal does not comply with the access requirements specific to Lot 4 under the Master Plan. The Master Plan provides that there shall be two primary vehicular access points, an easternmost access point to Stanley Historic District Technical Review Committee June 26,2006 Page 5 be aligned to create a four-way intersection with the public roadway serving Parcel 3 to the north, and an access point to be located approximately between that eastemmost access point and the access drive to the Hotel. However, the Proposal provides for a third primary access point connecting directly to Steamer Drive. Because the number of primary access points as set forth in the Proposal is contradictory to that required under the Master Plan, New Stanley asks that the Committee deny the Proposal. THE COMMITTEE HAS NO RIGHT TO GRANT VARIANCES ON CERTAIN SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS. According to the Master Plan, the Committee can approve, approve with conditions or deny the Application. (Master Plan, Page 5) The Master Plan states that the Committee may, by majority vote, grant variances based on the Applicant's "ability to demonstrate innovative approaches, design solutions or future market conditions which the [Committee] feels is advantageous to, and in conformity with, the intent of the Master Plan and Guidelines." As a result, any variances granted by the Committee must offer some advantage to and be in conformance with the purpose and intent ofthe Master Plan. As explained above, the Proposal not only is not in line with the purpose and intent o f the Master Plan, it is directly counter to the purpose and intent. For this reason, the Committee cannot grant any variances to the requirements of the Master Plan. Because certain site specific development limitations for Lot 4 are key to the implementation of the purpose and intent of the Master Plan, the Master Plan itself provides that "[i]n no event shall the Technical Review Committee be allowed to grant a variance to the permitted uses or density or square footage in a development parcel." (Master Plan, Page 4) Accordingly, the Committee has no authority to approve the Proposal because the uses, density and square footages do not comply with the limitations contained in the Master Plan. As a result, the Committee cannot grant variances on these matters and for these reasons, in addition to the reasons stated above, the Committee must deny the Proposal. In summary, the Master Plan and Ordinance clearly, repeatedly and consistently declare that the intent and purpose of the District is to preserve the Hotel as the "Crown Jewel" and center of activity in the District, and to ensure that surrounding development does not lessen the Hotel's ability to conduct an economically viability operation. The Master Plan, Ordinance and Development Code set forth certain criteria and requirements to carry out such intent, including the application of use, density and dimensional limitations, to adjacent development, including Lot 4. For the reasons set forth above, the Proposed runs afoul of the overarching purpose of the District, while it also fails to meet specific criteria applicable to Lot 4 which were established to help realize the intended purpose of the District. Therefore, the Committee has no choice but to deny the Proposal, and we respectfully request that you do so. .. Stanley Historic District Technical Review Committee June 26,2006 Page 6 I thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, 4 f Am, Hpnsen for 111@/Pirm AKH/mb 69!156.6 CC: Bob Joseph Greg White, Esq. John Cullen Robert Simon, Esq. John Mill, Esq. Rebecca Fischer, Esq. Kimberly Martin, Esq. A-TORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW 633 SEVENTEENTH STREET SUITE 3000 Sherman & Howard L.L.C. TELEPHONE: 303 297-2900 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 FAX: 303 2980940 OFFICES IN: COLORADO SPRINGS RENOâ€¢LAS VEGAS â€¢ PHOENIX John W. Mill Direct Dial Number: (303) 299-8358 E-mall: jmill@sah.com July 17, 2006 VIA FACSIMILE AND CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED Town of Estes Park Attn: Town Administrator P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Notice of Potential Default Under Development Agreement Dear Mr. Repola: This firm represents New Stanley Associates, L.L.L.P. CNew Stanley"). This notice is provided to the Town of Estes Park pursuant to Section 10.01 of the Development Agreement between Stanley Hotels, Ltd., formerly Stanley Manor House, Ltd., a Colorado Limited Partnership, and the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, a Municipal Corporation, dated January 15, 1994("the Stanley-Town Development Agreement"). As the owner of the Stanley Hotel, New Stanley is now a party to the Stanley-Town Development Agreement. Section 11.12 of the Stanley-Town Development Agreement expressly incorporates by reference all of the terms and conditions of the Stanley Historic District Master Plan ("Master Plan") and Development Standards and Design Guidelines ("Development Standards"). You are hereby notified that any amendment by the Town of the Master Plan or Development Standards without New Stanley's agreement would constitute a breach by the Town of the Stanley-Town Development Agreement. If such a breach occurs New Stanley will seek all appropriate legal remedies. New Stanley Opposes the Proposed Development on Lot 4 New Stanley opposes the proposal to develop a competing wedding facility at the doorstep ofthe Hotel on Lot 4 of the Stanley Historic District. I understand that at the June 27, 2006 meeting of the Technical Review Committee ("the Committee"), there was public testimony challenging the proposal on many technical levels from the mundane to the life threatening (such as pedestrian traffic across the blind corner ofthe roadway). We are aware that the Town has placed the untaxed financial burden of the new Performing Arts Center upon the sale of Lot 4 by planning to use the proceeds of the sale to fund replacement of the horse Sherman & Howard L.Le Town of Estes Park July 17, 2006 Page 2 stables before the next season. After attending the Town Board of Trustees' meeting on June 27,2006 and learning of these ambitious plans, our client called the developer's representative and met with him. New Stanley proposed to (1) buy Lot 4 immediately and without conditions for whatever the developer proposed to pay, and (2) create a fully equipped i restaurant in the Carriage House for the Twin Owls operators under a long term lease. New Stanley will continue to be a generous member of the community so long as it has the economic ability to do so. The Town may remember that The Stanley Hotel did not oppose the Convention Center's use as a wedding venue despite the competition it created for The Stanley. However, by comparison, our client views this Town effort to sell Lot 4 and construct a competing wedding facility at his doorstep as an ill-considered and hostile act which violates all of the various agreements signed by the Town which induced our client to invest $12 million in the Hotel and its grounds. The competing wedding facility will drain off the current business while creating little, if any, new business that would not have been serviced by the Convention i Center or the other existing properties. The result predictably will be that the reduced operating I revenue at The Stanley Hotel will (1) reduce the net operating income of the property, (2) force a reduction in days of operation, (3) force a reduction in payroll, health insurance, wages, tips, and sales tax revenue corresponding to the reduced days of operation, and (4) leave that investment to fester while a similar investment elsewhere would have reaped far greater rewards. The Stanley cannot compete on price or efficiency with both the new proposed development on Lot 4 and the Convention Center, thus our client must oppose this rival facility to the fullest extent ofthe law despite what disruptions to the Performing Arts Center this opposition may cause. We are aware that after the meeting of the Technical Review Committee, the proposed developer of Lot 4 (Mr. Edward Grueff, or one of his entities, LOT4ED, LLC or Estes Winds, LLC), requested that the Town of Estes Park amend the Development Agreement applicable to Lot 4. This request concerns the developer's desire to change the development standards applicable to Lot 4. It appears that Este Winds is asking the Town to (i) increase the maximum allowable amount of commercial space on Lot 4 from 30,000 square feet to 45,000 square feet, and (ii) increase the maximum allowable building coverage on Lot 4 from 30,000 square feet to 45,000 square feet. As set forth below, the Town will breach its agreements with other Lot owners within the Historic District if the Town makes these requested changes. Master Plan The entire Stanley Historic District is governed by the Master Plan. The three Development Agreements between the Town and the property owners in the Historic District were intended to implement the Master Plan. Each lot owner negotiated a specific set of development standards with the Town and in turn aillot owners in the District executed specific Development Agreements each in reliance upon the common standards agreed to through the Sherman & Howard L.L.C. Town of Estes Park July 17, 2006 Page 3 Master Plan process. The Master Plan was to provide the "orderly process" and "certainty" that had not been present in prior development of the Stanley site. The recitals of the Stanley-Town Development Agreement support the Stanley Hotel's position on this point. The Master Plan includes the Development Standards which are intended to create the framework for the "orderly process" identified in the Master Plan. Those efforts culminated in the 1994 agreements on the Master Plan and the Development Standards, and the Town's execution ofthree development agreements with (i) the owner of the Stanley Hotel, (ii) FHK Partnership ("FHK") (the then-owner of Lot 4), and (iii) Overlook Partnership ("Overlook"), which at the time owned other lots in the Stanley Historic District. It is this historical joint agreement that the developer now seeks to have the Town unwind. The Stanley-Town Development Agreement expressly refers to the Master Plan and Development Standards. See Stanley-Town Development Agreement Â§ 1.01(d, 0. Indeed, this contract expressly incorporates by reference the terms ofthe Master Plan and Development Standards into the agreement. See id. Â§ 11.12. Thus, the agreement between New Stanley and the Town includes the terms of the Master Plan and the Development Standards. The Town cannot deny that the provisions ofthe Master Plan and Development Standards are part of the agreement with The Stanley Hotel. This is made clear by the following: â€¢ The Master Plan expressly says it is an agreement between various parties including the owners of The Stanley and the Town. The Master Plan states: "the private ownership interest[s] and the public authorities have jointly prepared and agreed to the overall Master Plan and Development Standards and Design Guidelines." Master Plan at 2 (emphasis added). Furthermore, "[tlhe Design Guidelines and Development Standards contained within [the Master Plan] are an integral part of the Master Plan and reflect a mutual i agreement and desire to plan and develop the Stanley Historic District accordingly." Ii (emphasis added). â€¢ The Town, through its Urban Renewal Authority, signed a document in 1999 stating: "The Town and [New Stanley] are bound by the Development Agreement dated January 15, 1994. ... By its terms, the Development Agreement includes the Stanley Historic District Master Plan Development Standards and Design Guidelines attached to and incorporated into the Development Agreement by reference..., all to facilitate the development and preservation of the Hotel." Joint Development Agreement $ B (emphasis added) (dated April 30,1999) (for your convenience, a copy is attached to this letter as Exhibit A). The purpose and intent of the Master Plan and the Development Standards was, among other things, to maintain the integrity ofthe Stanley Historic District and provide standards and Sherman & Howard LLC. Town of Estes Park July 17, 2006 Page 4 guidelines for development within the District. See Master Plan at 2. The agreement made in ~ 1994 was that "[t]he standards and guidelines contained in this document will be used to review potential development" within the District. Id at 3 (emphasis added). The intent was to provide predictability. Part ofthat was predictability in knowing the type and amount of development that would be allowed by the Town on the various lots in the District. The Master Plan expressly limits the amount of development on Lot 4 to "[u]p to 30,000 square feet of commercial/office/residential space." I* at 10. Importantly, this express limitation on what can be built on Lot 4 is in the body of the Master Plan. The same limitation on the amount of development on Lot 4 is also contained in the site-specific Development Standards. This reflects the intent of All the parties to the Master Plan that development on Lot 4 not exceed 30.000 square feet. Because of Lot 4's location between The Stanley Hotel and the existing commercial development near the Safeway, the Master Plan states that on Lot 4 "[flloor plates that are too large will simply bring the encroachment of contemporary commercial development closer to the historic complex rather than buffering it through transition." Id, at 41. The need for buffering and transition clearly influenced the specific development standards for Lot 4. That includes the limits on commercial square footage and maximum building coverage (30,000 sq. ft. each) that Mr. Grueff now has asked the Town to change over 12 years after they were agreed to. The Square Footage Limitations Cannot Be Changed The Town does not have authority to change the square footage limitations for Lot 4 that are set forth in the Master Plan and the Development Standards. While the Master Plan allows flexibility on certain issues, the intent of the parties in 1994 was that no changes be allowed to i the square footage limitations in the Master Plan and Development Standards. This was expressly stated in the Master Plan: "In no event shall the Technical Review Committee be ; allowed to grant a variance to the permitted uses or density or square footage in a development parcel." Id. at 4 (emphasis added). The Town Board of Trustees cannot change Lot 4's square footage limitations either. That is because the Town cannot unilaterally amend the Master Plan. The Master Plan is an agreement among various parties, including the Town and the owner of The Stanley Hotel, now New Stanley. New Stanley has relied on the provisions in the Master Plan in making significant investments in and improvements to the Stanley Hotel complex. Just as the Master Plan I expressly anticipated, New Stanley did so relying on the fact that development on the other lots in the District would comply with the Master Plan and the Development Standards. Sherman & Howard L.L.c. Town of Estes Park July 17, 2006 Page 5 Many other people have also relied on the integrity ofthe Master Plan. The homeowners who now live on Lots 2,3,7 and 9 of the District bought their condominiums and homes with the understanding that development on the other lots in the District would be limited i to what is allowed under the Master Plan. We understand that a number of these citizens oppose the proposed Lot 4 development. I would anticipate an even greater outcry of opposition if these citizens are told that the Town plans to unilaterally change the Master Plan to allow 50% more development on Lot 4 than was agreed in 1994. Changing the Master Plan and Development Standards Would Be a Breach of Contract Any effort by the Town to change the Master Plan or the Development Standards without New Stanley's agreement would constitute a breach of contract by the Town. New ' Stanley strongly opposes any changes to the square footage limitations for Lot 4 in the Master Plan and the Development Standards, which are, as shown above, incorporated into the Stanley- Town Development Agreement. Thus, even ifthe Town amended the development agreement between FHK and the Town pertaining to Lot 4, that would not override the other applicable agreements and would ngi be sufficient to allow more than 30,000 square feet of commercial space or more than 30,000 square feet of building coverage on Lot 4. New Stanley requests that the Town deny Mr. Grueffs request to amend the square footage limitations on Lot 4 development. Denying his request is required by the agreements referenced above, and will avoid long, protracted, expensive--and for the Town, we believe, ultimately unsuccessful--litigation. New Stanley will vigorously pursue alllegal remedies if the Town amends or disregards the terms of the Master Plan, the Development Standards or the Stanley-Town Development Agreement. i I understand that the Town Board ofTrustees will consider the request for an amendment at the Board's meeting on July 25. Please have Mr. White let me know before then ' how the Town ofEstes Park intends to proceed so we may plan accordingly. Sincerey.,, A ~1 A A 011\ Ill Mir v 1 1 '~t-liuj . 11 PAF ~ Jdhn W. Mill < \ 1 JWM/np CC: Gregory A. White, Esq. (Town Attorney) (via facsimile) Joint Development Agreement This Agreement, dated as ofApril 30.1999, is executed on behalf of New Stanley Associates, L.P., a Colorado limited partnership ENSAD, and the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority ("EPURAD. REI - A. NSA is the owner of the hotel complex property in Estes Park, Colorado, 1mown as The Stanley Hotel (the "Hotel"). The Hotel is located in the Stanley Historic District (the "District"), as established and administered by the Town ofEstes Patk, Colorado (the "Town"). The Hotel complex includes, among other improvements in addition to the primary Hotel building, a concert hall known (and referred to here) as the Stanley Hall, which NSA has leased to the Town in accordance with a Lease Agreement dated March 11, 1997 (as amended, the "Stanley Hall Lease"). B. The Town and NSA (as successor in interest to Stanley Hotels, Ltd.) are bound by the Development Agreement dated January 15, 1994 (as amended from time to time, the "Development Agreement"). By its terms, the Development Agreement includes the Stanley Historic District Master Plan Development Standards and Design Guidelines attached to and incorporated in the Development Agreement by reference (the "Guideiines"), all to facilitate the development and preservation of the Hotel. C. NSA has begun work on improvements to the parking facilities and other infrastructure features serving the Hotel, including the Stanley Hall and the Carriage House. as outlined in excepts, specified below, from the Stanley Hotel Parking Master Plan dated as of February 17, 1998, prepared by Design Studios West, Inc. (the "Parking Plan Proposal'D. To induce and encourage NSA in its efforts to preserve and protect the Hotel in accordance with the historical standards and planning procedures adopted in the Development Agreement, including the Guidelines, EPURA intends to contribute funds toward the infrastructure improvements planned by NSA, subject to the terms and conditions set forth below. For the reasons outlined above, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which each party acknowledges, NSA and EPURA agree as follows. Agr~mcni 1. Ehaa.I.::-Earking. Reference is made to the excerpt from the Parking Plan Proposal attached as Exhibit A and describing the first phase ofparking improvements for the Hotel (the "Phase I Improvements" or "Phase ID, including, generally, the completion of the road circling the northern section ofthe Hotel property, with a minimum of96 additional parking spaces, including 42 spaces adjacent to the Stanley Hall. Of the estimated total cost of $350,000 for the Phase I Improvements, NSA agrees to fund a maximum of $200,000; and EPURA agrees to fund XI_-3IT A IE~ a maximum of $150,000. Neither party will be required under this Agreement to contribute more than its share allocated above toward the cost of the Phase I Improvements. Should the cost of the Phase I Improvements exceed $350,000, then NSA and EPURA will reasonably cooperate to reach agreement on a plan to reduce the scale of the Phase I Tmrrovements as required to reduce the cost to a maximum of $350,000. 2. Conim~ign.and-Elluding. The terms and procedures for the construction and funding ofthe Phase 1 Improvements will include the following: (a) 2mj~t.Man@~. The Executive Director of EPURA (the "Director"), will act as the project manager for construction of the Phase I Improvements. Neither the Director nor any other representative of EURA, and no representative of NSA, will receive any compensation or fee in connection with the management of the Phase I Improvements project. In carrying out the functions ofthe project manager, the Director will remain and be considered at all times an employee of EPURA, and any liability attributable to the Director for any act or omission taken by him in his role as project manager will be subject to the limitations ofthe Colorado Governmental Immlmity Act, Colo. Rev. Stat Â§ 24- 10- 101 through --Â§ 24- 10-120. Without the approval ofan authorized representative ofNSA, the Director will have ne authority to (i) approve any change orders representing any deviation from the Parking Plan Proposal or to any other plans and specifications for the Phase I Improvements or (ii) execute any contracts on behalf ofNSA under Section 2(g) below or othenvise. (b) Credit to NSA for Pavment of Architectural Fees. NSA has paid $30,000 toward payment of architectural fees for the design ofthe Phase I Improvements, which sum will be credited toward the contribution required from NSA under this Section 2 above. (c) Establishment ofConstruction Account. No laterthan May 12,1999, NSA will deposit $170,000 (representing the balance ofNSA's required contribution in cash in an interest bearing account designated as the "Stanley Road Construcdon Account" (the "Construction Account") at Park National Bank at the address of Stanley Village in Estes Park, Colorado (the 'fBank"), and by the same date, EPURA will deposit $150,000 in cash in the Consuuction Account. NSA agrees that the Construction Account -nay be established under the NSA's tax identification number. (d) Construction Account Procedures and Pavments. The Construction Account will be subject to these terms and restrictions: 0) Any withdrawal or transfer of funds from the Construction Account will require an authorized signature on behalf ofEPURA and written authorization from NSA. Initially, either the Director or Mr. Monte Vavg Finance Officer, Town of Estes Park, is authorized to take such actions on behalf of EPURA, and John W. Cullen IV is authorized to take -2- such actions on behalf ofNSA. (Any authorization required from NSA is subject to the provisions of Section 2(g) below providing for a response, or deemed approval, from NSA within five business days after submission ofthe request for authorization to NSA) EURA and NSA each has the right on its own behalf, to designate from time to time different or additional persons as the individuals authorized to approve any draw on the Construction Account (ii) The first payment from the Construction Account shall be made immediately after the funding of the Construction Account as required under part (i) immediately above, to Design Studios West, Inc. ("DSW"), in the amount of $41709.35, as necessary to pay the balance owing to DSW for the work previously performed by DSW in col:Indon with the Phase I Improvements, and to discharge all tiens filed by DSW against the Hotel property. Such payment shall be conditioned on DSWs delivery of the lien release and other documents required under Section 5(a) below. (e) Completion_gmesign. NSA and EPURA will cooperate as necessary to finalize instrufons for DSW to (i) complete the design work for the Phase I Improvements, (ii) act as the owner's representative under the construction contract for the Phase I Improvements, and (iii) certify completion ofthe Phase I Improvements in compliance with the plans and specifications, all for a fee not to exceed $7,000. (f) 9:n:mLCantactgr. The general contractor for the construction of Phase I is Connell Resources. Fort Collins, Colorado ("Connell"). EPURA and NSA agree that such contractor is qualified to construct the Phase I Improvements. The cost of design, engineering and construction of the Phase I Improvements shall not exceed $350,000 (plus any interest accruing on the funds in the Construction Account as provided in Section 2(h) below). (g) Contracts Generally: Pavment Authorization from NSA. NSA, as owner of the Hotel Property (and nor EPURA) will execute the contracts with DSW and with Connell. All expenditures under the contracts will be documented and will be submitted for the approval ofNSA by telecopy transmittal to NSA at the address below (with a telephone message alerting NSA to the transmittal). If NSA does not pFOVide written nolice to EPURA confirming NSA's approval or rejection of a request for any contract change or an invoice for payment within five business days afterNSA's receipt of the change request or payment request, then NSA will be deemed to have approved the change request or the payment request, as applicable. (11) Cgn,Indgkgn-AgggJJQI,Intvmt Any interest accruing on the funds in the Construction Account will be used for funding the cost of the Phase I Improvements. Any amounts remaining in the Conslruction Account following completion ofconstruction of the Phase I Improvements and the expiration of any warranty period relating to Phase I will be distributed to NSA and EPURA according to their respective contributions to the Construction Account, as illustrated in Section 2(h)above. -3- 3. fim=.Lagxiiig=Ec=lind:Q=]=i=,21..,8=0022. EPURA and NSA will document the procedures for the planning, design. construction and completion schedule ofthe Phase I Improvements by additional agreements ifnecessary to supplement the Development Agreement and this Agreement. Subject to compliance with the laws governing the authority and operations of EPURA, and subject to the limited partnership agreement and other agreements governing the authority and operations of NSA, each party will execute and deliver to the other party such other documents as reasonably necessary to carry out this Agreement 4. Daf=to=.a=:di=. (a) NniivianiC=Entlnlang.Ikf~ul No party will be in default under this Agreement unless it shall have failed to perform under this Agreement fbr a period of 30 days after written notice from the other party ofan event of default. The notice of such an event of default must specify the nature of the alleged default and the manner in which the default may be satisfactorily cured. If the nature of the alleged default is such that it cannot reasonably be cured within the allowed 30<lay period, the commencement of the cure within that time period and the diligent prosecution to completion of the cure will be deemed a cure within such period. (b) Remdies_and Costa, Upon the default by either party under this Agreement, the party not in default will have all rights and remedies provided by law, including but not limited to, the right to terminate this Agreement, the right to seek specific petfolmance, and the right to seek writs of mandate compelling performance with the terms ofthis Agreement or requiring other action consistent with this Agreement The non-defaulting party will be entitled to collect from the defaulting party all reasonable attorneys fees, expert fees, and court costs incurred by reason of default. (c) Waiver of Subsequent Breach. Any one or more waivers of any covenant or condition by eitherparty will not be construed as a waiver ofa subsequent breach ofthe same covenant or condition; and a consent to or approval of any act requiring consent or approval will not be deemed to waiver or render unnecessary such consent to or approval of any subsequent similar acts. 5. Additivnalfrsaiims ' -gpligni. The obligations ofNSA under this Agreement are conditioned upon the delivery by DSW by May 17,1999 of (i) a full release (in form reasonably satisfactory to NSA) of any and all liens contemplated under the notice of intent to file a lien submitted by DSW on or about April 8, 1999 and appropriate documents confirming the dismissal or withdrawal of the complaint filed by DSW in District Court in Larimer County, Colorado in connection with such notice and lien, and (ii) a certification by DSW that no other invoices for work, materials or services are outstanding or due or payable from NSA as of the date of DSW's delivery of the lien release and other documents required under the preceding clause, (i). -4- (b) Et----' ---Â£icate. NSA and EPURA agree that from time to time, each may have a responsibility to report to a third party regarding the status of the parties' performance under this Agreement. To accommodate any such repoding responsibility, each party agrees that within 10 days following any written request which either party may make from time to time, the other party to this Agreement will execute and deliver to the requesting party a statement certifying that (i) this Agreement is unmodified and in full force and effect, or ifthere have been modifications that this Agreement is in full force and effect as modified and stating the date and nature of such modification; (ii) there are no current uncured defaults under this Agreement or specifying the dates and nature of any such default; and (ili) any other reasonable infonnation requested. The failwe to deliver such a statement within such time will constitute a conclusive presumption against the party which fails to deliver such statement that this Agreement is in full force and effect without modification except as may be represented by the requesting party and that there are no uncured defaults in the performance of the requesting party, except as may be represented by the requesting party. (c) Seyerability. If any provision ofthis Agreement or the application of any provision ofthis Agreement to aparticular situation is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, then, to the extent that the invalidity of unenforceability does not impair the application of this Agreement as intended by the parties, the remaining provisions of this Agreement, or the application of this Agreement to other situalions, will continue in full force and effect. (d) Notices. Any notice or communication required under this Agreement between EPURA or NSA must be in writing, and may be given either personally, or overnight courier or by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. Any notice given as provided above will be effective upon receipt. Either party, by giving 10 days' written notice to the other party, may designate any other address at any time in substibition of the address to which such notice or communication should be given. Such notices or communications will be given to the parties at their addresses set forth below: If to EPURA to: Estes Park Urban Renewal authority Executive Director P.O. Box 1200 170 MacCregor Avenue Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Telephone: 970 -586-5331 Telecopy: 970 - 586-2816 -5- 4 1*I*Iâ€¢.9-ITW-~TI f. . If to DEA, to: New Stanley Associates, L.P. Attention: John W. Cullen, IV do Joy Gladwell 110 Annapolis Street, Suite C Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: 410 - 295-1287 Telecopy: 410 - 268-6810 With a copy to: John W. Cullen, IV 39 Bay Drive Annapolis, MD 21403 Telephone: 214 - 675-0200 Telecopy: 410 - 296-1760 and Rebecca Anderson Fischer Sherman & Howard L.L.C. 633 17th Street, Suite 3000 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: 303 - 299-8324 Telecopy: 303 - 298-0940 (e) Ma.IhirILEa#*B=licium This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the parties. No other party will have any right of action or claim based upon any provision of this Agreement 05 CQ]ini~am.~i.Exhihits. This Agreement may be executed in ' duplicate counterparts, each of which will be deemed to be an original. The Schedule of Phase I Improvements attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A is incorporated in this Agreement for all purposes. (g) Illrisdiction_and_Menue. This Agreement will be construed and the rights and obligations ofEPURA andNSA under it will be determined in accordance with the laws ofthe State of Colorado. Venue forany litigation pertaining tothe subject matterwill be exclusively in Larimer County, Colorado. (h) ~Immt&QfHSAkA~hQIi*M. NSA represents thatas of thedate of this Agreement, NSA has full power and authority to execute, deliver and perform this Agreement, -6- 0 that such execution, delivery and performance will not contravene any contractual restriction binding upon NSA or any of its assets; and that there is no legal action, proceeding or investigation ofany kind now pending or, to the knowledge of NSA, tlireatened against or affecting NSA as the same may pertain to execution, delivery or performance ofthis Agreement 0) 21 This Agreement supersedes and replaces all other agreements and understandings of the parties, either written or oral concerning the matters covered in this Agreement above, except the Development Agreement and the Stanley Historic District Master Plan dated January 15, 1994, both described or referred to in Paragraph B ofthis Agreement above. NSA New Stanley Associates, L.P., a Colorado li9ted partnership By: /4 2- . Title: 1 (Le+4,2-01 Ad EPURA~ /7 Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority raC HJ F Attest: l alid# A.~dÂ»Vt %#- By: ~M 1-0- c. LC Title: Executive Director Tilt. C.NAÂ· f /tâ€¢VAW H:\CLIENTRFISCHER\68803000.STNUT-DEV,8 5/7/99 6:05 pm -7- . Sign In Sheet for Attendees Town Board July 25,2006 Stanley Master Plan - Lot 4 Variance Name (please print legibly) Address For Against lo+4 LOR' Rapp 6906 Cree tagiaas- St-1 X HAJ\~fi- P c aL 5 re-H- t c Ots,nd- X -Al/?RYLY 16>hsen 950 Ill-h 9 . * 1600 Denver 00 Â©02.02_ 6 0~ 91*4119 /806 5422 93 9046 r *tÂ© X 1-4 GU@64/ 61-0 F,4.19 eT K 853 --D-.-* 1,4 , 73*p--1- #r , ry * .77\\ df â‚¬ .24*l/ 1 0 1 FUL 1*ALR H 4<- Or ft â€¢J~ 41Â·UC.4 : (Â· to tu *410&/# B . }tp bi Rtul klewevt 4Â¥p 51-*IM leg 14115 Ass. Chetrk K g XMAA Idels CARL & 12.D 3=I 4 -3 6 262-5- MAKÂ¥5 ANCE gb , 11%9 (if ilion 488 ffk66(*- AEÂ· A. Eb Ge Â»04- ><5 Audit Committee Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board ofTrustees Town Administrator Repola. From: Steve MeFarland, Finance Officer Date: July 20,2006 Subject: Background The Town of Estes Park undergoes an annual independent audit of its financial statements. The audit report for the year ended December 31, 2005 is complete and has been presented to the Audit Committee by the independent auditing firm, Swanhorst & Company, LLC. The independent auditors' report expressed an unqualified opinion that the financial statements presented fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the funds and activities of the Town of Estes Park in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). There were no findings or material weaknesses. Comments made by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) regarding previous years have been addressed. "Other information" as cited in the auditor's report was duly noted by the Audit Committee. Some of the items have already been addressed, and the remainder will be addressed between the date of this memo and the time the Audit Committee reconvenes at a date yet to be detennined in September 2006. The Audit Committee, which met on July 20,2006, reviewed and discussed the 2005 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report with Wendy Swanhorst, President of Swanhorst & Company, LLC. The Committee accepted the report and commended the Finance Department on the quality of the 2005 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and the supplementary management discussion and analysis. The report not only satisfies government and legal accounting standards, but also reflects the professionalism and determination of the Town administration and staff to effectively manage the Town finances. It is clear from our review that the Town Board and staff share a strong sense o f fiscal responsibility to ensure the continued economic well-being ofthe Town. Action The Audit Committee recommends acceptance of the audit report and Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year ended December 31, 2005. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO . .2.: . . .'.. r - ..Mt... 'b I. I .1 J , 1- 64 / . .6. L ?74Â· *k 4 6 A . , tr.' 9:07 / b r - a..,5~,#,6 Â·N F .,2 .../.- . ' A~ 6.i */ 71:ff'Ek/ i .4 - :06#f .4 4 . L :':ts. p _ .-_' - . *M . 9' W UP.N. 7 3*97844 :i.*f~14 :- 1- Â·: -? Q 7 6 ..i*.. 1%~ 44**~- - '~el :' 5. LiltigrAW/-,2:.t:/0~474.2/.272,liRGN ' i.. -23%w.. -tiL-Y/ - . r., 4.-- ;.:f?iN ;%76 r.st:- 41 45. . fi... -~ Â·-9 -C >.8-01:33Â© - I . - - 434'Us..?,4,7... 1 "11. .94* 4, .4Â¢Ff..h,Jaf I #n# 'Â· ,-21 . 1 , ~ ~- .+ M .fl - i. 44,014 91 .~.~~=:t,0 -5* 3 1 1 1Â¢h,20h . -re....991&083Â£2- ,Â£ c \6 L: ' -L- 11'rÂ¥ 5 E Big Horn Sheep Sculpture - Eastern Gateway COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31,2005 f 6&C Swanhorst & Company LLC Certified Public Accountants May 19,2006 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Board of Trustees Town of Estes Park Estes Park: Colorado We have audited the financial statements ofthe Town of Estes Park (the "Town") for the year ended December 31, 2005, and have issued our report thereon dated May 19,2006. Professional standards require that we provide you with the following information related to our audit. Our Responsibility under Generally Accepted Auditing Standards As stated in our engagement letter, our responsibility, as described by professional standards, is to plan and perform our audit to obtain reasonable, but not absolute, assurance about whether the financial statements are free ofmateria] misstatement. Because an audit is designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance and because we did not perform a detailed examination ofall transactions. there is a risk that material misstatements or noncompliance may exist and not be detected by us. In addition. an audit is not designed to detect immaterial misstatements or violations of laws or regulations that do not have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. As part of our audit, we considered the internal control of the Town of Estes Park. Such considerations were solely for the purpose of determining our audit procedures and not to provide any assurance concerning such internal control. Significant Accounting Policies Management has the responsibility for selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. In accordance with the terms ofourengagement letter, we will advise management aboutthe appropriateness ofaccountingpolicies and their application. The significant accounting policies used by the Town are described in Note 1 to the financial statements. We noted no transactions entered into by the Town during the year that were both significant and unusual, and of which, under professional standards, we are required to inform you, or transactions for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. Accounting Estimates Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management's current judgments. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from management's currentjudgments. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the significant estimates in determining that they are reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. 8400 E. Crescent Parkway â€¢ Suite 600 â€¢ Greenwood Village, CO 80111 â€¢ (720) 528-4306 Fax: (720) 528-4307 Significant Audit Adjustments For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a significant audit adjustment as a proposed correction of the financial statements that, in our judgment, may not have been detected except through our auditing procedures. Weprovided management with aschedule ofaudit adjustments. An auditadjustmentmay ormaynot indicate matters that could have a significant effect on the Town's financial reporting process (that is, cause future financial statements to be materially misstated). Management has determined that the effects ofthe uncorrected misstatements are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole. In ourjudgment, none of the adjustments we proposed, whether recorded or unrecorded by the Town, either individually or in the aggregate, indicate matters that could have a significant effect on the Town's financial reporting process. Disagreements with Management For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, concerning a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditor's report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit. Consultations with Other Independent Accountants In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a "second opinion" on certain situations. If a consultation involves the application of an accounting principle to the Town's financial statements or a determination ofthe type of auditors' opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants. Issues Discussed Prior to Retention of Independent Auditors We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards. with management prior to retention as the Town's auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention. Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit We encountered no significant difficulties in performing our audit. Other Information General Fund The General Fund fund balance has decreased approximately $3.4 million over the past two years and is budgeted for a $1.3 million decrease in 2006. While the General Fund remains in good financial condition, the Town should be aware that ifthis spending trend continues the General Fund could be in a deficit situation in approximately three years. Park Entrance Estates The Town has agreed to collect assessments and make debt payments for the Park Entrance Estates. Town staff is currently unable to determine how much, i f any, of the debt remains outstanding. We suggest that the Town continue to research this issue with the bank. If the debt is paid in full, the Town may need to notify the County Treasurer to discontinue collecting assessments from the property owners. Internal Controls Although we believe the Town has adequate internal controls in place. improvements could be made in a couple areas to strengthen the controls. Currently, the person who initiates wire transfers also receives confirmation from the bank. Journal entries are prepared and posted to the financial system by the same person. We recommend that the wire transfer and journal entry processes include a second person to detect errors and prevent misappropriations. Seizure Funds The Police Department had approximately $7,800 in seizure fund cash in their safe for an extended period oftime. We recommend that any cash collected by the Town be remitted to the Finance Department in a timely manner to lessen the risk of loss. Conclusion We would like to thank Steve McFarland, Debbie Parrack, Debbie McDougall, and the entire Town staff for making the audit process efficient and enjoyable. Everyone was very helpful and cooperative. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Trustees and management ofthe Town of Estes Park and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. Very truly yours, *u,*Â« l 4ue,UG Swanhorst & Company LLC INTRODUCTORY SECTION TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT For the Year Ended December 31, 2005 Prepared By FINANCE DEPARTMENT This page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTORY SECTION Title Page Table of Contents i-iv List of Principal Officials v Organization Chart vi GFOA Certificate of Achievement vii Transmittal Letter Viii - Xii FINANCIAL SECTION Independent Auditors' Report Management's Discussion and Analysis a-h Basic Financial Statements Statement of Net Assets 1 Statement of Activities 2 Balance Sheet - Governmental Funds 3 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Governmental Funds 4 Reconciliation ofthe Statement ofRevenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities 5 Statement of Net Assets - Proprietary Funds 6 Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Assets - Proprietary Funds 7 Statement of Cash Flows - Proprietary Funds 8 Statement of Fiduciary Net Assets 9 Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Assets 10 Notes to Financial Statements 11 - 30 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE FINANCIAL SECTION (Continued) Required Supplementary Information Schedule of Funding Progress - Volunteer Firefighter's Pension Plan 31 General Fund - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 32 - 33 Community Reinvestment Fund - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 34 Convention/Visitor Bureau Fund - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 35 Notes to Required Supplementary Information 36 Combining and Individual Fund Statements and Schedules Governmental Funds Combining Balance Sheet - Nonmajor Governmental Funds 37 Combining Statement ofRevenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - 38 Nonmajor Governmental Funds Museum Fund - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 39 Conservation Trust Fund - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 40 Open Space Fund - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 41 Senior Citizens Fund - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 42 Urban Renewal Authority (Special Revenue) - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 43 Park Entrance Estates - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 44 . Urban Renewal Authorily (Capital Projects) - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 45 Building Authority - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 46 Urban Renewal Authority (Debt Service) - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 47 Enterprise Funds Light and Power Fund - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 48 Water Fund - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 49 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE FINANCIAL SECTION (Continued) Combining and Individual Fund Statements and Schedules (Continued) Internal Service Funds Combining Statement ofNet Assets 50 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Assets 51 Combining Statement of Cash Flows 52 Fleet Maintenance Fund - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 53 Health Insurance Fund - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 54 Agency Funds Combining Statement ofChanges in Assets and Liabilities 55 STATISTICAL SECTION General Government Expenditures by Function - Last Ten Fiscal Years 56 General Government Revenues by Source - Last Ten Fiscal Years 57 General Government Tax Revenues by Source - Last Ten Fiscal Years 58 Property Tax Levies and Collections - General Fund - Last Ten Fiscal Years 59 Assessed and Estimated Actual Values of Property - Last Ten Fiscal Years 60 Property Tax Rates - Direct and Overlapping Governments - Last Ten Fiscal Years 61 Principal Taxpayers 62 Computation of Legal Debt Margin 63 Computation of Direct and Overlapping Bonded Debt 64 Revenue Bond Coverage - Last Ten Fiscal Years 65 Demographic Statistics - Last Ten Fiscal Years 66 Construction, Bank Deposits and Property Values - Last Ten Fiscal Years 67 Miscellaneous Statistical Data 68 - 70 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE STATE COMPLIANCE Local Highway Finance Report 71 - 72 iv TOWN OF ESTES PARK LIST OF PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS TOWN GOVERNMENT The Town of Estes Park is governed by a Mayor and a six-member Board of Trustees. The Mayor and Trustees are elected for four-year terms. The Trustees each have one vote in town board meetings. The Mayor has the final vote on all issues in case of a tie. Listed below are the Town officials and principal staff members as of December 31,2005. Mayor Elected 2004 John Baudek Trustees Elected 2002 Susan Doylen Elected 2002 Lori Jeffrey-Clark Elected 2004 Chuck Levine Elected 2004 Wayne Newsom Elected 2004 Bill Pinkham Appointed 2005 Richard Homeier Staff Town Administrator Randy Repola Town Attorney Greg White Town Clerk Jackie Williamson Finance Officer Steve MeFarland Human Resources Director Deb Parrack Director of Public Works Bill Linnane Utilities Director Robert Goehring Chief of Police Lowell Richardson Police Commander Wes Kufeld Community Development Director Bob Joseph Business Development Director Thomas Pickering Convention & Visitors Bureau Peter Marsh Special Events Director Linda Hinze Senior Center Director Lori Mitchell Museum Director Betty Kilsdonk Municipal Judge Gary R. Brown Fire Chief Scott Dorman V . 4 40 . .4 U,4 OIC Zqvi . 2 9Â£ 1%25:di, ' '4 - 4 . 4 f 7 -64. - I CE .0 Maril.â€ž48 Em~ Â£ 4 0 91%20*2.â€¢ a. -10 --99-11 U) <C N 0&3 2.-4,69. 12 8 0/ . 2% S. 4' 1 AÂ¥ LU I mÂ«, ./ 10 g . V .A .6'* ~ Â¥ .; 1 <C rn +:%,&+1?1 0/9.2 U ie - 4 Cut BAQ: 1-2-*.. 0 2> 42 2 + ..9 '1 Â»' 6/ 2 94 Mi 26 C.~ . '~2=-44â„¢91 .... Z:2 W S' CD . r- O 0 â€¢ (le , O ~ .61 4 9 1-0 0 4 I .(49 9. I ,Â«01* te ..< E-~.43 Mr . 318Â£ 3 k . p ..% H P -i' 0 â€¢ --2 ' h. * Â·rÂ·t Â· 'i!& IÂ· ,*6. 1 . , 11 1,0 4 215 3 1. i 18,5.:ST: *' :22..' f F**ff pplf 1 2% RÂ®ia a:. a "1=): 4 b" tr41 U,4 1 e ' 610Â¥ ..' 2 h 1%4 0,1 . 44 1 f. 4 1 %=ium Â¥3 1- f 4 845 e f , |SM, ~ 1+ i W Q '6' 4 . 4/74 f Â»t. z ir 1.. ... *4: 1 M. ..5,4 Â·Â·Â·369 â€¢ f %, 1 Imiplig.!51 '4~ , A l. 94 Q E . g.,-7. -7.5--< ..4 '2841 .. jirk#V ' . G . 92 =4 i . I U.. ..y .'. 3 . - 0 1 942. 81 4 7t - 41041 *; 54 ~ - 1 %. .0 Zâ€¢ 1 e.. 4 16' 0 42 04 E > 51 2 , Ul; 4. 4 LL' 11-1 [ 4 2 441=.... 11: ....* .......'.*. -I,VE ..9 a,â€ž,Â». 4 f f % 4 . Â» Â¥ W , , rn ~ill 4- .r .. C. 4 . I . ' 26 . 4- 0.4 e E .* 421Â§34 C, g j .4. 4 }2* 12 51%5 6 .144; ... ff a 25115*t Ch.22> - fir g :c,/Mi<.&,4 2:32/tuu'.irin.,F o .4 * h & 4s,4 0.SfE 0,; . .LE mÂ· .Â·'.v- s. Â¢ 4 -: 2 ~ g W 021 * 1*Â·452.2-0 giE 451Â·03 '- 1 ' o CDÂ·af@ ma'.0 â‚¬ , r u. 6 ~Â·.52.*ih. 1,1 -.,1341%.1-Â¢333.:9,Â¢91; ~ 4 'y. 2.titt;5 Â¥. j* Â£:-Â»,l. r Â·Â·Â« 4 . i :. .9 Â¥Â¥ 13* . 0/ 4 po â€¢5 4,Â· . 'M 0 0 2,0 :,UJ TB (bi : 0,6 k m .W e I 0C1. -es :/ 3 02â‚¬: 0 g .224; '' 1 0 . m-O/3% Rj, f > O.Â« 1$' b O >, n A 4 - i..> 0 .9..04 ~~ ~~e . *.- 1 - 'ea O -04. 8 , v Bile e + 000> -i. 195-2.2 * Â¢Â¥ b:U ~12~5 4 &.a#'6 ./ J 0 .: P. 09 95 %294; 4 .F I :. A., ~: Â· e I i Â»1 - - . 0 -V .S#0 FE : 9 9,/c E 4 9 4$ I 1 'r Â¥ M Â£9, 4W1" 4.1 : IE#* fl ,â€¢3 +I.U , 9/ Vi lhIVHO + 2 2,/ 43aol o 1090.!!M 9 6 eajoIW~~7 Â«owÂ®u,4 .e '*.-#P'**1~4 - 153-223 â€žA-*%~* v~ A :4 -*I./. Ely ' A Â¢ Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Presented to Town of Estes Park, Colorado For its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31,2004 A Certificate ofAchievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting is presented by the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada to government units and public employee retirement systems whose comprehensive annual financial reports (CAFRs) achieve the highest standards in government accounting and financial reporting. .STATE&& 1.0 AND m< CAnDA gis President 13*40 li>..â€¢ICAst ..~Â·F Executive Director v li This page intentionally left blank. 4 i .R *p J ..U 4/U TOWN OF ESTES PARK - 4Â»32*31 9 f49/6445$3<05=Â£*V --9* JNÂ«tf,ke~-1-53Â»Â» jit,_ EI -i ff,iÂ»4 . 4491<4 - 7 ~t-i July 25,2005 To: the Honorable Mayor, Members of the Governing Body, and Citizens of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado: The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado (the Town) for the fiscal year ended December, 31, 2005, is hereby submitted. Responsibility for both the accuracy of the data and the completeness and fairness of the presentation, including all disclosures, rests with the Town. To the best of our knowledge and belief, the enclosed data are accurate in all material respects and are reported in a manner designed to present fairly the financial position and results of operations of the various funds and account groups of the Town. All disclosures necessary to enable the reader to gain an understanding of the Town's financial activities have been included. The CAFR is presented in three sections: introductory, financial and statistical. The introductory section includes this transmittal letter, the Town's organizational chart and a list of principal officials. The financial section includes the basic financial statements and the combining and individual fund statements and schedules, as well as the auditor's report on the financial statements and schedules. The statistical section includes selected financial and demographic information, generally presented on a multi-year basis. This report includes all Town funds. The Town provides a full range of services, including police and fire protection, electric and water utility services, the construction and maintenance of highways, streets, and infrastructure, business development, recreational activities and cultural events. In addition to general government activities, the Town Board has significant operational and/or financial relationships with the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority and the Estes Park Building Authority; therefore, these activities are included in the reporting entity as blended component units. Profile of the Government The Town of Estes Park, incorporated in 1917, is a resort community nestled in the Rocky Mountain foothills 65 miles northwest of Denver, Colorado. The Town is at the Vili http://www.estesnet.com (970) 586-5331 â€¢ PO. BOX 1200 â€¢ 170 MAC GREGOR AVENUE â€¢ ESTES PARK, CO 80517 44 entrance to Rocky Mountain National Park and is visited by approximately three million people each year. Rocky Mountain National Park has been the number one tourist attraction in the State of Colorado for as long as records have been compiled. Tourism is the Town's main industry; therefore, the Town's facilities are geared for a large seasonal usage in the summer months. The Town of Estes Park currently occupies a land area of six square miles and serves an estimated population of 5,413. The Town is empowered to levy a property tax on both real and personal properties located within its boundaries. It is also empowered to extend its corporate limits by annexation, which .occurs periodically when deemed appropriate by the governing body. The Town has operated under the board-administrator form of government since 1968. Policy-making and legislative authority are vested in the governing board consisting of the Mayor and six Trustees. The governing board is responsible, among other duties, for passing ordinances, adopting the budget, appointing committees, and hiring the Town Administrator. The Town Administrator is responsible for carrying out the policies and ordinances of the governing body, and for overseeing the day-to-day operations of the government. The board is elected on a non-partisan basis. Board members serve four- year staggered terms, with three trustees elected every two years. The Mayor is elected to serve a four-year term. All offices are elected at large. Elected officials are limited to two consecutive terms of office. The Town provides a full range of services including police and fire protection, the construction and maintenance of street, pathways and other infrastructure, business development, and recreational activities and cultural events. A water utility and an electric distribution utility are provided by the Town. An urban renewal agency (EPURA) operates as a legally separate authority, which functions in essence as a department of the Town, and therefore has been included as an integral part of the Town's financial statements. The Town is also financially accountable for another legally separate entity, the Estes Park Building Authority, which provides financing for golf course improvements. Additional information on these entities can be found in Note 1 in the Notes to the Financial Statements. The Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) has been included as a component unit in previous reports, but the EPHA has since undertaken large housing developments utilizing significant outside funding. Therefore, the EPHA is no longer dependent upon the Town for the majority of its funding, and has not been considered a component unit of the Town since 2001. The annual budget serves as the foundation for the Town's financial planning and control. All departments of the Town are required to submit requests annually for appropriation to the Town's designated budget officer by the third week of August. The budget officer uses these requests as the starting point for developing a proposed budget. The budget officer then presents this proposed budget to the Town Administrator for review and amendment. The budget is presented to the Town Board for deliberation in October. The board is required to hold public hearings on the proposed budget and to formally adopt the budget before December 15th. This date also serves as the deadline to certify the mill levy that will be assessed by the Town to the Larimer County Commissioners. The appropriated budget is prepared by fund, function (e.g., public iX TOWN OF ESTES PARK ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 safety and department (e.g., fire protection). Budget-to-actual comparisons are provided in this report for each individual fund for which an appropriated annual budget has been adopted. For the general fund, this comparison is presented as part of the basic financial statements for the governmental funds. For governmental funds, other than the general fund, with appropriated annual budgets, this comparison is presented behind the footnotes in this report. Factors Affecting Financial Condition The information presented in the financial statements is perhaps best understood when it is considered from the broader perspective of the specific environment within which the Town operates. Local economy. In 2005, the Town experienced continued expansion in the predominant local industry, tourism. A key local economic indicator, taxable sales, increased by $3,010,675, or 1.9%, in 2005. The unemployment rates in Colorado, and the United States, declined in 2005 to 4.9% and 5.0%, respectively. Long term financial planning. The Town neared completion of the new Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB) building in 2005. In addition to the new structure, additional parking will be added for both the CVB building and the planned transit system through Estes Park and into Rocky Mountain National Park. Infrastructure improvements have begun at Stanley Park with the intention of upgrading the Fairgrounds complex so as to offer an improved and wider array of amenities and facilities for appropriate functions and events. The Fish Creek Trail project continued, ultimately connecting Carriage Hills to Highway 7. The trail system offers dramatically improved recreational opportunities as well as safer access for citizens utilizing the open areas along Fish Creek Road. In 2005, Staff and the Town Board joined efforts to create and adopt a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Both foreseeing and flexible, the CIP forecasts improvements and cash flow in the Town's major funds for the next 5-7 years. The CIP will allow for a combination of long-term cash management coupled with an orderly addressing of the evolving needs of the Estes Park community. Other items that are in the discussion/consideration stage include the creation of an Estes Valley Fire Protection District, and a theater for cultural events. Cash management policies and practices. Cash temporarily idle during the year was invested in certificates of deposit, obligations of the U.S. treasury, local government investment pools, and agencies and instrumentalities of the United States. The Town earned $525,921 on all investments for the year ended December 31, 2005, a $321,147 increase from 2004. The maturity of these investments ranges from overnight to two years. Investment income includes appreciation in the fair value of the investments. X TOWN OF ESTES PARK ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 Increases in the fair value during the current year do not necessarily represent trends that will continue; nor is it always possible to realize such amounts, especially in the case of temporary changes in the fair value of investments that the Town intends to hold to maturity. Risk management. The objectives of the Town's risk management program is to minimize risk and protect against loss, which could significantly affect the public, personnel, property, budget, or the ability of the Town to fulfill its responsibilities. Potentially hazardous risk exposures are evaluated on an ongoing basis and reduced of eliminated where feasible and cost-effective. The Town is a member of the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA), a separate and independent governmental and legal entity formed by intergovernmental agreement by member municipalities pursuant to State statute. CIRSA defends and indemnifies the Town against the risks of loss related to torts; theft of, damage to, and destruction of assets, errors and omissions, injuries to employees, and natural disasters. The Town is partially self-insured for health insurance to eligible employees and dependents. The insurance coverage for workers compensation is carried by Pinnacol Assurance. The Town also maintains a separate internal service fund, the Catastrophic Loss Fund, to be used in the event of disasters not covered by other insurance. Net assets in this fund on December 31, 2005 were $2,124,959. Budgetary controls. The Town maintains budgetary controls, the objective of which is to ensure compliance with legal provisions embodies in the annual appropriated budget approved by the Town Board. The level of budgetary controls (the level at which expenditures cannot legally exceed the appropriated amount) is established by fund. The Town also maintains an encumbrance accounting systems as a budgetary control to prevent expenditures from exceeding legal appropriations. Encumbered amounts lapse at fiscal year-end, and qualifying encumbrances are formally appropriated in the following year when necessary. Award and acknowledgements The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reports to the Town for its comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004. In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, the government published an easily readable and efficiently organized CAFR. This report satisfied both GAAP and applicable legal requirements. A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. We believe that our current CAFR continues to meet the Certificate of Achievement Program's requirements and we are submitting it to the GFOA to determine its eligibility for another certificate. The successful preparation of this report on a timely basis could not have been accomplished without the dedication and efforts of the entire staff of the Finance Xi TOWN OF ESTES PARK ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 Department: Jim Allen, Debbie Parrack, Debbie McDougall, Lorraine McCown, Amy Mitterer, Deb Casey, Sammi Coleson, Carol Hillerson and Donell Thompson. We would like to express our sincere appreciation to all members of the department for the contributions made in the preparation of this report. Special thanks are extended to the accounting firm of Swanhorst & Company LLC for their professionalism in the performance of the independent audit for the Town. We also wish to extend appreciation to the Mayor, the Trustees, and the Town Administrator for their efforts and support in setting and administering policies for the prudent financial management of the Town of Estes Park. Sincerely, 92141-0 Steve McFarland Finance Officer Xii TOWN OF ESTES PARK ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 This page intentionally left blank. I f FINANCIAL SECTION 5&C Swanhorst & Company LLC Certified Public Accountants Honorable Mayor and Members of the Board of Trustees Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the Town ofEstes Park, as of and for the year ended December 31,2005, which collectively comprise the basic financial statements of the Town of Estes Park, as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Town of Estes Park's management. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinions. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position ofthe governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information ofthe Town ofEstes Park, as ofDecember 31,2005, and the respective changes in financial position and cash flows, where applicable, for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The management's discussion and analysis and required supplementary information listed in the table of contents are not a required part of the basic financial statements but are supplementary information required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. We have applied certain limited procedures, which consisted principally of inquiries of management regarding the methods of measurement and presentation ofthe supplementary information. However, we did not audit the information and express no opinion on it. Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the Town ofEstes Park's basic financial statements. The combining and individual fund statements and schedules and state compliance listed in the table ofcontents are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit ofthe basic financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. The introductory and statistical information has not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements, and accordingly, we express no opinion on it. 9*0.Â»Â« Ar-yÂ« May 19,2006 8400 E. Crescent Parkway Â· Suite 600 Â· Greenwood Village, CO 80111 â€¢ (720) 528-4306 Fax: (720) 528-4307 This page intentionally left blank. Management's Discussion and Analysis As management of the Town of Estes Park (Town), we offer readers of the Town's financial statements this narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the Town for the fiscal year ended December 31,2005. Financial Highlights â€¢ The assets of the Town exceeded its liabilities at the close of the most recent fiscal year by $85,984,056 (net assets). Of this amount, $18,929,484 Cunrestricted net assets) may be used to meet the government's ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors. â€¢ The Town's total net assets increased by $29,958,362. GASB 34 requires reporting of infrastructure assets at fair market value. Values were obtained and recorded during the 2005 fiscal year. â€¢ At the close of the current fiscal year, the Town's governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $11,222,984, a decrease of $1,846,696 in co-mparison with the prior year. Approximately 91% of this total amount, $10,172,444, is available for spending at the government's discretion (unreserved, undesignatedfund balance). â€¢ At the end of the current fiscal year, unreserved, undesignated fund balance for the general fund was $4,109,230, or 63% of total general fund expenditures. â€¢ The Town's total long-term debt decreased by $1,885,019 (20%) during the current fiscal year. Overview of the Financial Statements This discussion and analysis are intended to serve as an introduction to the Town's basic financial statements. The Town's basic financial statements comprise three components: 1) government-wide financial statements, 2) fund financial statements, and 3) notes to the financial statements. This report also contains other supplementary information in addition to the basic financial statements themselves. Government-wide financial statements. The government-wide jinancial statements are designed to provide readers with a broad overview of the Town's finances, in a manner similar to a private-sector business. The statement Of net assets presents information on all of the Town's assets and liabilities, with the difference between the two reported as net assets. Over time, increases or decreases in net assets may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the Town is improving or deteriorating. a The statement qfactivities presents information showing how the government's net assets changed during the most recent fiscal year. All changes in net assets are reported as soon as the underlying event giving rise to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Thus, revenues and expenses are reported in this statement for some items that will only result in cash flows in future fiscal periods (e.g., uncollected taxes and earned but unused vacation leave). Both of the government-wide financial statements distinguish functions of the Town that are principally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues (governmental activities) from other functions that are intended to recover all or a significant portion of their costs through user fees and charges (business-type activities). The governmental activities of the Town include general government, public safety, public works, and culture and recreation. The business-type activities of the Town include an electric distribution operation (light and power fund) and a water utility that treats and distributes under the water fund. The government-wide financial statements include not only the Town itself (known as the primary governmenO, but also a legally separate Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) and Building Authority. Financial information for these component units is reported separately from the financial information presented for the primary government itself. EPURA, although legally separate, functions for all practical purposes as a department of the Town, and therefore has been included as an integral part of the primary government. The Building Authority does not issue separate financial statements. Fund financial statements. A fund is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or objectives. The Town, like other state and local governments, uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal requirements. All of the funds of the Town can be divided into three categories: government funds, proprietary funds, and fiduciary funds. Governmental funds. Governmental funds are used to account for essentially the same functions reported as governmental activities in the 'government-wide financial statements. However, unlike the government-wide financial statements, governmental fund financial statements focus on near-term inflows and outflows of spendable resources, as well as on balances ofspendable resources available at the end of the fiscal year. Such information may be useful in evaluating a government's near-term financing requirements. Because the focus of governmental funds is narrower than that of the government-wide financial statements, it is useful to compare the information presented for governmental funds with similar information presented for governmental activities in the government- wide financial statements. By doing so, readers may better understand the long-term impact ofthe government's near-term financing decisions. Both the governmental fund balance sheet and the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures, and b changes in fund balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate this comparison between governmental funds and governmental activities. The Town maintains 13 individual governmental funds. Information is presented separately in the governmental fund balance sheet and in the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances for the General fund, the Community Reinvestment fund, the Convention and Visitors Bureau fund, and the Urban Renewal Authority Debt Service fund, all of which are considered to be major funds. Data from the other 10 governmental funds are combined into a single, aggregated presentation. Individual fund data for each of these non-major governmental funds is provided in the form of combining and individual fund statements and schedules elsewhere in this report. The Town adopts annual appropriated budgets for all funds. Budgetary comparison schedules have been presented for all funds (except fiduciary funds) to demonstrate compliance with the budgets. Proprietary funds. The Town maintains two different types of proprietary funds. Enterprise funds are used to report the same functions presented as business-type activities in the government-wide financial statements. The Town uses enterprise funds to account for its electric and water utilities. Internal service funds are an accounting device used to accumulate and allocate costs internally among the Town's various functions. The Town uses internal service funds to account for its Fleet Maintenance Fund, Vehicle Replacement Fund, Catastrophic Loss Fund, and Health Insurance Fund. Because these internal services benefit governmental and business-type functions, they have been allocated between the governmental and business-type activities in the government-wide financial statements. Proprietary funds provide the same type of information as the government-wide financial statements, only in more detail. The proprietary fund financial statements provide separate information for the Water and Light & Power funds both of which are considered to be major funds ofthe Town. Conversely, all four internal service funds are combined into a single, aggregate presentation in the proprietary fund financial statements. Individual fund data for the internal service funds is provided in the form of combining statements elsewhere in this report. Fiduciary funds. Fiduciary funds are used to account for resources held for the benefit of parties outside the government. Fiduciary funds are not reflected in the government- wide financial statements because the resources of those funds are not available to support the Town's own programs. The accounting used for fiduciary funds is much like that used for proprietary funds. C Notes to the financial statements. The notes provide additional information that is essential to a full understanding of the data provided in the government-wide and fund financial statements. The notes to the financial statements can be found immediately following the basic financial statements. Other information. In addition to the basic financial statements and accompanying notes, this report also presents certain required supplemental information concerning the Town's progress in funding its obligation to provide pension benefits to its employees, and budgetary comparison schedules for the general and major special revenue funds. The combining and individual fund statements and schedules referred to earlier in connection with non-major governmental funds and internal service funds are presented immediately following the required supplementary information. Government-wide financial analysis Town of Estes Park's Net Assets Governmental Activities Business-type Activities Total 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 Current and other assets $17,056,154 $17,388,160 $9,102,706 $7,846,658 $26,158,860 $25,234,818 Capital assets 44,479,536 17,267,101 26,598,614 26,542,616 71,078,150 43,809,717 Total assets 61,535,690 34,655,261 35,701,320 34,389,274 97,237,010 69,044,535 Long term liabilities 2,561,467 3,879,667 3,164,233 2,132,540 5,725,700 6,012,207 Other liabilities 3,407,039 3,461,330 2,120,215 3,545,304 5,527,254 7,006,634 Total liabilities 5,968,506 7,340,997 5,284,448 5,677,844 11,252,954 13,018,841 Invested in capital assets, net of related debt 41,002,600 12,306,359 23,103,614 22,657,616 64,106,214 34,963,975 Restricted 2,948,358 3,980,074 0 0 2,948,358 3,980,074 Unrestricted 11,616,226 11,027,831 7,313,258 6,053,814 18,929,484 17,081,645 Total net assets 55,567,184 27,314,264 30,416,872 28,711,430 85,984,056 56,025,694 As noted earlier, net assets may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position. In the case of the Town, assets exceeded liabilities by $85,984,056 at the close ofthe most recent fiscal year. By far the largest portion of the Town's net assets (75 percent) reflects its investment in capital assets (e.g., land, buildings, machinery, and equipment), less any related still- outstanding debt used to acquire those assets. The Town uses these capital assets to provide services to citizens; consequently, these assets are not available for future spending. Although the Town's investment in its capital assets is reported net of related debt, it should be noted that the resources needed to repay this debt must be provided from other sources, since the capital assets themselves cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities. d An additional portion of the Town's net assets (3%) represents resources that are subject to external restrictions on how they may be used. The remaining balance of unrestricted net assets 61 8,929,484) may be used to meet the government's ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors. At the end of the current fiscal year, the Town is able to report positive balances in all three categories of net assets, both for the government as a whole, as well as for its separate governmental and business-type activities. The same situation held true for the prior fiscal year. There was a decrease of $1,705,442 in restricted net assets reported in connection with the Town's business-type activities. Town of Estes Park's Changes in Net Assets Governmental Activities Business-type Activities Total 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 Revenues: Program revenues: Charges for services $1,717,959 $1,325,810 $11,638,310 $10,826,314 $13,356,269 $12,152,124 Operating grants/contributions 1,049,090 668,780 0 0 1,049,090 668,780 Capital grants/contributions 36,390 247,794 848,319 560,837 884,709 808,631 General revenues: Property taxes 936,564 1,099,499 0 0 936,564 1,099,499 Other taxes 7,339,068 6,685,192 0 0 7,339,068 6,685,192 Other 610,905 834,774 945,686 500,631 1,556,591 1,335,405 Total revenues 11,689,976 10,861,849 13,432,315 11,887,782 25,122,291 22,749,631 Expenses: General government 2,541,570 3,146,405 0 0 2,541,570 3,146,405 Public safety 3,235,388 2,808,104 0 0 3,235,388 2,808,104 Public works 2,549,336 838,784 0 0 2,549,336 838,784 Culture and recreation 3,262,341 1,808,416 0 0 3,262,341 1,808,416 Interest on long-term debt 129,699 333,453 0 0 129,699 333,453 Water 0 0 2,380,179 2,457,021 2,380,179 2,457,021 Electric 0 0 8,416,543 8,297,223 8,416,543 8,297,223 Total expenses 11,718,334 8,935,162 10,796,722 10,754,244 22,515,056 19,689,406 Increase in net assets before transfers (28,358) 1,926,687 2,635,593 1,133,538 2,607,235 3,060,225 Transfers 930,151 931,982 (930,151) (931,982) 0 0 Increase/decrease in net assets 901,793 2,858,669 1,705,442 201,556 2,607,235 3,060,225 Net assets - beginning* 54,665,391 24,455,595 28,711,430 28,509,874 83,376,821 52,965,469 Net assets - ending $55,567,184 $27,314,264 $30,416,872 $28,711,430 $85,984,056 $56,025,694 * Government activities restated to include infrastructure e The Town's net assets increased $29,958,362 during the current fiscal year mostly due to the previously mentioned changes in GASB 34 requirements in regards to adding the Town's infrastructure. Revenues did not change significantly from 2004 to 2005. Expenses in the General Fund decreased, while transfers to other funds increased. The net change in General Fund balance was a $1,855,044 decrease in 2004, and a $1,517,677 decrease in 2005. Governmental activities. Governmental activities increased the Town's net assets by $901,793 after restatement. Key elements ofthe real increase are as follows. The Town's major source of revenue is sales tax. Sales tax increased from $6,308,376 in 2004 to $6,427,942 in 2005. Expenses increased from $8,935,162 in 2004 to $11,718,334 in 2005. The bulk of the increase resulted from depreciation related to the addition of the infrastructure to the assets. Business-type activities. Business-type activities, which include the Light & Power and Water funds, increased the Town's net assets by $ 1,705,492, accounting for 7% of the total growth in the government's net assets. Income increased through charges for services by 8% (approximately $800,000). Purchased power expense increased approximately $275,000. Financial Analysis of the Government's Funds As noted earlier, the Town uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal requirements. Governmental funds. The focus of the Town's governmental funds is to provide information on near-term inflows, outflows and balances of spendable resources. Such information is useful in assessing the Town's financing requirements. In particular, unreserved./und balance may serve as a useful measure of a government's net resources available for spending at the end of the fiscal year. As of the end of the current fiscal year, the Town's governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $11,222,984, a decrease of $1,846,696 in comparison with the prior year. Approximately 91% of this amount constitutes unreserved undesignated fund balance, which is available for spending at the government's discretion. The remainder of fund balance is reserved to indicate that it is not available for new spending because it has already been committed to inventories, and to property held for resale. f The General Fund is the chief operating fund of the Town. At the end of the current fiscal year, unreserved, undesignated fund balance of the general fund was $4,109,230 with no reservations of fund balance. As a measure of the general fund's liquidity, it may be useful to compare both unreserved fund balance and total fund balance to total fund operating expenditures (the ratio for 2005 is 63%), which is a healthy percentage. The general fund decreased $1,517,677, and is related to the transfers out, mainly to the Community Reinvestment and Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) Funds. The Convention and Visitors Bureau is now a separate fund. It absorbed special events, conference center, group sales and marketing, and advertising, originated from closing old General Fund subaccounts. This will allow for better tracking of Convention and Visitors Bureau activity. The Community Reinvestment fund ended the year with a fund balance of $2,031,668, an increase of $332,781 over last year's balance. The loss in the general fund and surplus in the Community Reinvestment fund resulted largely from transfers between the funds, in accordance with the Tabor ballot issue from the November 2000 election. The EPURA debt fund exists to pay debt. It is funded by tax revenues and rental income. Proprietao funds. The town's proprietary funds provide the same type of information found in the government-wide financial statements, but in more detail. Unrestricted net assets of the Light and Power fund at the end of the year amounted to $3,284,526, and those for the Water fund totaled $3,237,292. The change in total net assets for both funds was $856,260 and $730,709, respectively. Other factors concerning the finances of these two funds have already been addressed in the discussion of the Town' s business-type activities. General Fund Budgetary Highlights Although reaching record levels, actual sales tax revenues ($6,427,942) trailed the final budget by $28,266. Total expenditures were $369,370 less than the final budget because of expenses saved in General Government, Public Works and Culture and Recreation. Transfers out of the General fund were $534,864 beyond budget because of monies required by projects in the Community Reinvestment and Convention and Visitors Bureau Funds. There were no significant variances between the final budget and final income statement (variance was less than 2%). g Capital Asset and Debt Administration Capital assets. Depreciable capital assets increased $2,765,506. Monies were spent on communications equipment, the water distribution system, data processing equipment, the new park shop, the new convention and visitor's bureau building, Stanley Park grounds, the picnic pavilion, and walkways and byways (specifically Fall River and Fish Creek). Non-depreciable capital assets (increased by $1,089,398) include construction in progress. In 2005, the largest of these projects was the Convention and Visitors Bureau building, not scheduled for completion until early 2006. Additional info can be found in notes to the financial statements on pages 15-16 Long-term debt. Scheduled debt payments were made in accordance with loan parameters; there were no other changes in long-term debt structure. The Urban Renewal Authority's outstanding long term debt was $2,590,000 on December 31, 2005. This will be paid in full by December 31,2008. Capital leases were restated by $397K to remove a lease that had been paid off in prior years. The Town Light & Power fund maintains a rating from Standard & Poors and Fitch of "AAA" on its outstanding revenue bonds. State statutes limit the amount of general obligation debt a government entity may issue to 3% of its total assessed valuation. The current debt limitation for the Town is $38,079,377. The Town currently has no outstanding general obligation debt. Refer to footnotes on pp. 20-22 for further information on debt structure and obligations. Economic Factors and Net Year's Budgets and Rates â€¢ Combined traffic counts for the two main highways into the Town of Estes Park decreased by 122,012 (3%). The Town uses traffic counts for forecasting methods in regards to sales tax projections. â€¢ Taxable sales increased by $3,010,675,1.91% from 2004. â€¢ Major capital projects for the 2006 budget include the Stanley Park Master Plan Improvements and site prep for the proposed theater. All of these factors and many others were considered in preparation for the Town's budget for the 2006 fiscal year. Request for information This financial report is designed to provide a general overview of the Town's finances for all those with an interest in the government's finances. Questions concerning any of the information provided in this report or requests for additional financial information should be addressed to the Finance Department, P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, Colorado, 80517. h BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS This page intentionally left blank. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS December 31,2005 PRIMARY GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENTAL BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES ACTIVmES TOTAL ASSETS Cash and Investments $ 11,189,286 $ 6,754,206 $ 17,943,492 Restricted Cash and Investments 2,396,112 - 2,396,112 Accounts Receivable 101,951 977,371 1,079,322 Interest Receivable - 11,136 11,136 Intergovernmental Receivable 350,426 - 350,426 Taxes Receivable 1,803,433 - 1,803,433 Internal Balances (791,440) 791,440 - Inventories 29,776 527,178 556,954 Prepaid Expenses 5,475 41,375 46,850 Net Pension Obligation 877,139 - 877,139 Property Held for Resale 1,039,463 - 1,039,463 Bond Issuance Costs, Net of Accumulated Amortization 54,533 - 54,533 Capital Assets, Not Being Depreciated 7,464,060 2,943,951 10,408,011 Capital Assets, Net ofAccumulated Depreciation 37,015,476 23,654,663 60,670,139 TOTAL ASSETS 61,535,690 35,701,320 97,237,010 LIABILITIES Accounts Payable 780,043 1,327,534 2,107,577 Accrued Liabilities 290,495 104,430 394,925 Accrued Interest Payable 9,992 37,723 47,715 Customer Deposits and Advances - 103,780 103,780 Unearned Revenues 1,021,229 - 1,021,229 Noncurrent Liabilities Due Within One Year 1,305,280 546,748 1,852,028 Due in More Than One Year 2,561,467 3,164,233 5,725,700 TOTAL LIABILITIES 5,968,506 5,284,448 11,252,954 NET ASSETS Invested in Capital Assets, Net of Related Debt 41,002,600 23,103,614 64,106,214 Restricted for Emergencies 485,000 - 485,000 Restricted for Capital Projects 1,157,848 - 1,157,848 Restricted for Debt Service 1,305,510 - 1,305,510 Unrestricted 11,616,226 7,313,258 . 18,929,484 TOTAL NET ASSETS $ 55,567,184 $ 30,416,872 $ 85,984,056 The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 1 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES Year Ended December 31, 2005 PROGRAM REVENUES CHARGES OPERATING CAPITAL FOR GRANTS AND GRANTS AND FUNCTIONS/PROGRAMS EXPENSES SERVICES CONTRIBUTIONS CONTRIBUTIONS PRIMARY GOVERNMENT Governmental Activities General Government $ 2,541,570 $ 582,716 $ -$ - Public Safely 1 3,235,388 524,523 25,000 36,390 Public Works 2,549,336 10,937 728,277 - Culture and Recreation 3,262,341 599,783 295,813 - Interest on Long-Term Debt 129,699 - Total Governmental Activities 11,718,334 1,717,959 1,049,090 36,390 Business-Type Activities Light and Power 8,416,543 9,384,819 - Water 2,380,179 2,253,491 - 848,319 Total Business-Type Activities 10,796,722 11,638,310 - 848,319 TOTAL PRIMARY GOVERNMENT $ 22,515,056 $ 13,356,269 $ 1,049,090 $ 884,709 GENERAL REVENUES Sales Taxes Property Taxes Franchise Taxes Use Taxes Rental Income, Unrestricted Investment Income Miscellaneous TRANSFERS TOTAL GENERAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS CHANGE IN NET ASSETS NET ASSETS, Beginning, As Restated NET ASSETS, Ending The accompanying notes are an integral part ofthe financial statements. 2 NET (EXPENSE) REVENUE AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS PRIMARY GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENTAL BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES ACTIVITIES TOTAL $ (1,958,854) $ - $ (1,958,854) (2,649,475) - (2,649,475) (1,810,122) - (1,810,122) (2,366,745) - (2,366,745) 029,699) - (129,699) (8,914,895) - (8,914,895) - 968,276 968,276 - 721,631 721,631 1,689,907 1,689,907 (8,914,895) 1,689,907 (7,224,988) 6,427,942 - 6,427,942 936,564 - 936,564 387,100 - 387,100 202,182 - 202,182 321,844 - 321,844 355,351 170,570 525,921 255,554 775,116 1,030,670 930,151 (930,151) - 9,816,688 15,535 9,832,223 901,793 1,705,442 2,607,235 54,665,391 28,711,430 83,376,821 $ 55,567,184 $ 30,416,872 $ 85,984,056 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO BALANCE SHEET GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS December 31, 2005 URBAN RENEWAL CONVENTION/ AUTHORITY COMMUNITY VISITOR (DEBT GENERAL REINVESTMENT BUREAU SERVICE) ASSETS Cash and Investments $ 3,767,181 $ 2,310,998 $ 212,321 $ - Restricted Cash and Investments - - 10,643 1,305,510 Accounts Receivable 57,715 - 12,152 - Intergovernmental Receivable - 341,600 Taxes Receivable 1,045,760 - - 757,673 Inventories - - 11,077 - Property Held for Resale - TOTAL ASSETS $ 4,870,656 $ 2,652,598 $ 246,193 $ 2,063,183 LIABIUTIES AND FUND BALANCES LIABILITIES Accounts Payable $ 341,668 $ 279,330 $ 46,298 $ - Accrued Liabilities 156,202 - 18,693 - Accrued Interest Payable - Due to Other Funds Deferred Revenues 263,556 341,600 - 757,673 TOTAL LIABILITIES 761,426 620,930 64,991 757,673 FUND BALANCES Reserved for Inventories - - 11,077 Reserved for Property Held for Resale - Unreserved, Reported in General Fund 4,109,230 - Special Revenue Funds - 2,031,668 170,125 - Capital Projects Funds Debt Service Funds - - 1,305,510 TOTAL FUND BALANCES 4,109,230 2,031,668 181,202 1,305,510 TOTAL LIABILmES AND FUND BALANCES $ 4,870,656 $ 2,652,598 $ 246,193 $ 2,063,183 Amounts Reported for Governmental Activities in the Statement ofNet Assets are Different Because: Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources and, therefore, are not reported in the funds. Other long-term assets are not available to pay for current period expenditures and therefore are deferred in the funds. The net pension obligation is not available to pay current expenditures and is not reported in the funds. Internal service funds are used by management to charge the costs of fleet maintenance, vehicle replacement, and health insurance to individual funds. A portion of the assets and liabilities of the internal service funds are included in governmental activities in the statement of net assets. Long-term liabilities, including bonds payable ($2,590,000), bond premium ($34,263), deferred amount on refunding $36,930, bond issuance costs $54,533, certificates of participation ($326,000), capital leases payable ($618,136), accrued interest payable ($9,992) and accrued compensated absences ($328,812), are not due and payable in the current period and, therefore, are not reported in the funds. Net Assets of Governmental Activities The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 3 OTHER GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS TOTAL $ 1,551,989 $ 7,842,489 1,079,959 2,396,112 27,542 97,409 8,826 350,426 - 1,803,433 - 11,077 1,039,463 1,039,463 $ 3,707,779 $ 13,540,409 $ 102,384 $ 769,680 10,021 184,916 - 1,362,829 112,405 2,317,425 - 11,077 1,039,463 1,039,463 - 4,109,230 1,398,063 3,599,856 1,157,848 1,157,848 - 1,305,510 3,595,374 11,222,984 $ 3,707,779 44,447,696 341,600 877,139 2,493,505 (3,815,740) $ 55,567,184 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO STATEMENT OF REVENUES. EXPENDITIJRES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Year Ended December 31, 2005 URBAN RENEWAL CONVENTION/ AUTHORITY COMMUNITY VISITOR (DEBT GENERAL REINVESTMENT BUREAU SERVICE) REVENUES Taxes $ 7,295,102 $ - $ - $ 658,686 Licenses and Permits 729,317 - - Intergovernmental 497,660 - - Charges for Services 57,873 - 489,883 - Fines and Forfeitures 29,258 - Rental Income 164,523 - - 217,837 Investment Income 124,612 78,400 123 28,896 Miscellaneous 308,663 - 77,412 - TOTAL REVENUES 9,207,008 78,400 567,418 905,419 EXPENDITURES Current General Government 2,077,603 - Public Safety 3,043,678 Public Works 825,480 40,789 - Culture and Recreation 587,441 - 2,146,055 - Capital Outlay 2,337,287 60,413 - Debt Service Principal 23,796 196,362 - 815,000 Interest and Fiscal Charges 1,069 21,840 - 74,022 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 6,559,067 2,596,278 2,206,468 889,022 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 2,647,941 (2,517,878) (1,639,050) 16,397 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers In 930,151 2,850,659 1,820,252 Transfers Out (5,095,769) - - TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) (4,165,618) 2,850,659 1,820,252 - NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES (1,517,677) 332,781 181,202 16,397 FUND BALANCES, Beginning 5,626,907 1,698,887 - 1,289,113 FUND BALANCES, Ending $ 4,109,230 $ 2,031,668 $ 181,202 $ 1,305,510 The accompanying notes are an integral part ofthe financial statements. 4 OTHER GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS TOTAL $ - $ 7,953,788 - 729,317 295,813 793,473 7,682 555,438 - 29,258 92,835 475,195 63,669 295,700 51,198 437,273 511,197 11,269,442 138,838 2,216,441 - 3,043,678 - 866,269 431,625 3,165,121 1,132,156 3,529,856 71,000 1,106,158 21,835 118,766 1,795,454 14,046,289 (1,284,257) (2,776,847) 545,110 6,146,172 (120,252) (5,216,021) 424,858 930,151 (859,399) (1,846,696) 4,454,773 13,069,680 $ 3,595,374 $ 11,222,984 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO RECONCILIATION OF THE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS TO THE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES Year Ended December 31,2005 Amounts Reported for Governmental Activities in the Statement ofActivities are Different Because: Net Change in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds $ 0,846,696) Capital outlays to purchase or build capital assets are reported in governmental funds as expenditures. However, for governmental activities those costs are capitalized in the statement of net assets and allocated over their estimated useful lives as annual depreciation expense in the statement of activities. This is the amount by which capital outlays $3,854,904 exceeded annual depreciation expense ($2,715,746) and loss on disposal ($8,022) in the current year. 1,131,136 Revenues that do not provide current financial resources are not reported as revenues in the funds. 341,600 Repayment of long-term debt principal is an expenditure in the governmental funds, but the repayment reduces long-term liabilities in the statement ofnet assets. These include payments on bonds $815,000, payments on certificates of participation $71,000, payments on capital leases $220,158, and the net increase in accrued compensated absences ($53,188). 1,052,970 Debt proceeds provide current financial resources to governmental funds, but issuing debt increases long-term liabilities in the statement of net assets. This amount is the net effect of these differences in the treatment of long-term debt and related items: amortization of bond premium $12,093, amortization ofbond issuance costs ($19,247), and amortization ofdeferred (20,188) amount on refunding ($13,034). Some expenses reported in the statement of activities do not require the use ofcurrent financial resources and, therefore, are not reported as expenditures in governmental funds. This includes increases in accrued interest payable ($9,992) and a decrease in pension costs due to the change in the net pension obligation $12,427. 2,435 Internal service funds are used by management to charge the costs of fleet maintenance, vehicle replacement, and health insurance to individual funds. A portion of the net income ofthe internal service funds is reported with governmental activities in the statement of activities. 240,536 Change in Net Assets of Governmental Activities $ 901,793 The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 5 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS PROPRIETARY FUNDS December 31, 2005 GOVERNMENTAL TOTAL ACTIVITIES LIGHT AND BUSINESS-TYPE INTERNAL POWER WATER ACTIVITIES SERVICE ASSETS Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 3,518060 $ 3,236,146 $ 6,754,206 $ 3,346,797 Accounts Receivable 837,826 139,545 977,371 4,542 Interest Receivable - 11,136 11,136 Inventories 406,072 121,106 527,178 18,699 Prepaid Expenses 41,375 - 41,375 5,475 TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS 4,803,333 3,507,933 8,311,266 3,375,513 NONCURRENT ASSETS Capital Assets, Not Being Depreciated 227,489 2,716,462 2,943,951 - Capital Assets, Net of Accumulated Depreciation 9,711,745 13,942,918 23,654,663 31,840 TOTAL NONCURRENT ASSETS 9,939,234 16,659,380 26,598,614 31,840 TOTAL ASSETS 14,742,567 20,167,313 34,909,880 3,407,353 LIABILITIES Current Liabilities Accounts Payable 1,202,070 125,464 1,327,534 10,363 Accrued Liabilities 67,236 37,194 104,430 4,581 Accrued Interest Payable 20,829 16,894 37,723 - Customer Deposits and Advances 103,780 - 103,780 - Insurance Claims Payable - - 100,998 Compensated Absences, Current Portion 76,184 55,564 131,748 6,466 Loans Payable, Current Portion - 220,000 220,000 - Revenue Bonds Payable, Current Portion 195,000 - 195,000 - TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES 1,665,099 455,116 2,120,215 122,408 Noncurrent Liabilities Compensated Absences 48,708 35,525 84,233 - Loans Payable - 1,145,000 1,145,000 - Revenue Bonds Payable 1,935,000 - 1,935,000 TOTAL NONCURRENT LIABILITIES 1,983,708 1,180,525 3,164,233 - TOTAL LIABILITIES 3,648,807 1,635,641 5,284,448 122,408 NET ASSETS Invested in Capital Assets, Net of Related Debt 7,809,234 15,294,380 23,103,614 31,840 Restricted for Emergencies - - 485,000 Unrestricted 3,284,526 3,237,292 6,521,818 2,768,105 TOTAL NET ASSETS $ 11,093,760 $ 18,531,672 29,625,432 $ 3,284,945 Amounts Reported for Business-Type Activities in the Statement ofNet Assets are Different Because: Internal service funds ares used by management to charge the costs of fleet maintenance, vehicle replacement, and health insurance to individual funds. A portion of the assets and liabilities of the internal service funds are included in business-type activities in the statement of net assets. 791,440 Net Assets of Business-Type Activities $ 30,416,872 The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 6 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO STATEMENT OF REVENUES. EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS PROPRIETARY FIJNDS Year Ended December 31, 2005 GOVERNMENTAL TOTAL ACTIVITIES LIGHT AND BUSINESS-TYPE INTERNAL POWER WATER ACTIVITIES SERVICE OPERATING REVENUES Charges for Services $ 9,384,819 $ 2,253,491 $ 11,638,310 $ 841,911 Miscellaneous 735,435 39,681 775,116 6,856 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 10,120,254 2,293,172 12,413,426 848,767 OPERATING EXPENSES Source of Supply 4,590,883 103,150 4,694,033 - Purification . 446,280 446,280 . Distribution 1,406,577 658,943 2,065,520 - Customer Accounts 604,246 173,393 777,639 - Administration and General 1,267,999 449,767 1,717,766 246,738 Depreciation 521,661 474,175 995,836 7,280 Health Benefits - 295,391 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 8,391,366 2,305,708 10,697,074 549,409 OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) 1,728,888 (12,536) 1,716,352 299,358 NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES) Investment Income 89,538 81,032 170,570 59,651 Interest Expense (117,532) (100,589) (218,121) . TOTAL NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES) (27,994) (19,557) (47,551) 59,651 NET INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND TRANSFERS 1,700,894 (32,093) 1,668,801 359,009 Capital Contributions - 848,319 848,319 - Transfers Out (844,634) (85,517) (930,151) - CHANGE IN NET ASSETS 856,260 , 730,709 1,586,969 359,009 NET ASSETS, Beginning 10,237,500 17,800,963 28,038,463 2,925,936 NET ASSETS, Ending $ 11,093,760 $ 18,531,672 $ 29,625,432 $ 3,284,945 Amounts Reported for Business-Type Activities in the Statement of Activities are Different Because: Change in Net Assets of Proprietary Funds $ 1,586,969 Internal service funds are used by management to charge the costs of fleet maintenance, vehicle replacement and health insurance to the individual funds. A portion ofthe net income of the internal service funds is reported with business-type activities in the statement of activities. 118,473 Change in Net Assets of Business-Type Activities $ 1,705,442 The accompanying notes are an integral part ofthe financial statements. 7 . TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS PROPRIETARY FUNDS Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents Year Ended December 31,2005 GOVERNMENTAL TOTAL ACTIVITIES LIGHT AND BUSINESS-TYPE INTERNAL POWER WATER ACTIVITIES SERVICE CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Cash Received from Customers $ 9,345,183 $ 2,247,717 $ 11,592,900 $ 837,851 Cash Received from Other Sources 735,435 39,681 775,116 6,856 Cash Paid to Suppliers (6,575,227) (1,410,141) (7,985,368) (347,028) Cash Paid to Employees (1,307,262) (444,913) (1,752,175) (214,940) Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities 2,198,129 432,344 2,630,473 282,739 CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES Transfers to Other Funds (844,634) (85,517) (930,151) - Net Cash Provided (Used) by Noneapitai Financing Activities (844,634) (85,517) (930,151) CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES Purchase of Capital Assets (590,348) (466,115) 0,056,463) Principal Paid (185,000) (205,000) (390,000) - Interest Paid (118,731) (103,261) (221,992) Capital Contributions Received - 848,319 848,319 - Net Cash Provided (Used) by Capital and Related Financing Activities (894,079) 73,943 (820,136) - CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Interest Received 89,538 81,032 170,570 59,651 Net Cash Provided by Investing Activities 89,538 81,032 170,570 59,651 NET INCREASE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS 548,954 501,802 1,050,756 342,390 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, Beginning 2,969,106 2,734,344 5,703,450 3,004,407 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, Ending $ 3,518,060 $ 3,236,146 $ 6,754,206 $ 3,346,797 RECONCILIATION OF OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) TO NET CASH PROVIDED BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES Operating Income (Loss) $ 1,728,888 $ (12,536) $ 1,716,352 $ 299,358 Adjustments to Reconcile Operating Income (Loss) to Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities Depreciation 521,661 474,175 995,836 7,280 Loss on Disposal of Capital Assets 4,629 - 4,629 - Changes in Assets and Liabilities Accounts Receivable (64,088) (5,774) (69,862) (4,060) Inventories (7,667) (8,110) (15,777) 6,823 Prepaid Expenses (1,180) . (1,180) (5,475) Accounts Payable 30,697 (20,265) 10,432 (4,146) Accrued Liabilities I67 (1,783) (1,616) (3,046) Customer Deposits and Advances 24,452 - 24,452 - Insurance Claims Payable - - - 0,634) Compensated Absences (39,430) 6,637 (32,793) (12,361) Total Adjustments 469,241 444,880 914,121 (16,619) Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities $ 2,198,129 $ 432,344 $ 2,630,473 $ 282,739 The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 8 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO STATEMENT OF FIDUCIARY NET ASSETS December 31,2005 PENSION TRUST AGENCY ASSETS Cash and Cash Equivalents $ 249,324 $ - Investments Money Market Funds 802,914 - Local Government Investment Pools - 444,587 TOTAL ASSETS 1,052,238 444,587 LIABILITIES Special Assessments Payable - 16,517 Due to Friends of Stanley Hall - 428,070 TOTAL LIABILITIES - $ 444,587 NET ASSETS Held in Trust for Pension Benefits $ 1,052,238 The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 9 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FIDUCIARY NET ASSETS Year Ended December 31,2005 PENSION TRUST ADDITIONS State Contributions $ 54,148 Town Contributions 61,969 Investment Income 20,830 TOTAL ADDITIONS 136,947 DEDUCTIONS Pension Benefit Payments 92,866 CHANGE IN NET ASSETS 44,081 NET ASSETS, Beginning 1,008,157 NET ASSETS, Ending $ 1,052,238 The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 10 This page intentionally left blank. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31,2005 NOTE 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES The Town of Estes Park, Colorado (the "Town") is a statutory municipality governed by a council- manager form of government through a Mayor and six-member Board of Trustees elected by the residents. The accounting policies of the Town and its component units conform to generally accepted accountingprinciples as applicable togovernments. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is the accepted standard-setting body for establishing governmental accounting and financial reporting principles. Following is a summary ofthe more significant policies. Reporting Entity In accordance with governmental accounting standards, the Town has considered the possibility of inclusion ofadditional entities in its financial statements. The definition ofthe reporting entity is based primarily on financial accountability. The Town is financially accountable for organizations that make up its legal entity. It is also financially accountable for legally separate organizations if Town officials appoint a voting majority of the organization's governing body and either it is able to impose its will on that organization or there is a potential for the organization to provide specific financial benefits to, or to impose specific financial burdens on, the Town. The Town may also be financially accountable for organizations that are fiscally dependent upon it. Based on the application ofthese criteria, the Town includes the following component units in its financial statements. TheEstesPark Urban Renewalkuthority (EPURA) provides redevelopment within the Town limits. The Town Board of Trustees appoints the governing board of EPURA. EPURA is blended into the Town's financial statements because it provides services exclusively to the Town, receives all of its funding from the Town, and agreements between the entities restrict EPURA's activities to those approved by the Town Board of Trustees. EPI-IRA is reported using three funds, special revenue, debt service, and capital projects. The Estes Park Building Authority (Building Authority) was formed to provide financing for improvements to the Town-owned golf course. The Estes Valley Recreation and Park District operates the course under a management agreement. The Town Board of Trustees appoints the directors of the Building Authority. The Building Authority is reported as a debt service fund. Complete financial statements of EPURA may be obtained by contacting the Town's Finance Department at 170 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado 80517. The Building Authority does not issue separate financial statements. 11 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 NOTE 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued) Reporting Entity (Continued) Joint Fenture - In 1975, the Town joined with the cities of Fort Collins, Longmont, and Loveland to establish the Platte River Power Authority (Authority), to provide electrical power and energy to the Town and cities. The Authority is governed by an eight-member Board. Each participant's Council/Trustees appoint two members to the Board. The Town has a residual interest in the assets ofthe Authority that may revert to the Town upon dissolution of the Authority. The Town has no equity interest in the Authority. Complete financial statements of the Authority may be obtained by contacting the Authority at 2000 East Horsetooth Road, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80525-5721. Government-Wide and Fund Financial Statements The government-wide financial statements (i.e., the statement of net assets and the statement of activities) report information on all of the nonfiduciary activities of the Town and its component units. For the most part, the effect of interfund activity has been removed from these statements. Exceptions to this general rule are charges for interfund services that are reasonably equivalent to the services provided. Governmental activities, which normally are supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues, are reported separately from business-type activities, which rely to a significant extent on fees and charges for support. The statement of activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of the given function or segment are offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a specific function or segment. Program revenues include 1) charges to customers or applicants who purchase, use, or directly benefit from goods, services, or privileges provided by a given function or segment and 2) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a particular function or segment. Taxes and other items not properly included among program revenues are reported instead as general revenues. Separate financial statements are provided for governmental funds, proprietary funds, and fiduciary funds, even though the latter are excluded from the Town's government-wide financial statements. Major individual governmental funds are reported as separate columns in the fund financial statements. Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting, and Financial Statement Presentation The government-wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting, as are the proprietary fund and pension trust fund financial statements. The agency funds utilize the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when the liability is incurred, regardless ofthe timing of related cash flows. Property taxes are recognized as revenues in the year for which they are levied. Grants and similar items are recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements imposed by the provider have been met. 12 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 NOTE 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued) Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting, and Financial Statement Presentation (Continued) Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurementfocus andthe modified accrual basis ofaccounting. Revenues arerecognized as soon as they are both measurable and available. Revenues are considered to be available when they are collected within the current period or soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities ofthe current period. For this purpose, the Town considers revenues to be available ifthey are collected within 60 days ofthe end ofthe current fiscal period. Property taxes, specific ownership taxes, grants, and interest associated with the current year are considered to be susceptible to accrual and so have been recognized as revenues ofthe current year. All other revenues are considered to be measurable and available only when cash is received by the Town. Expenditures generally are recorded when a liability is incurred, as under accrual accounting. However, debt service expenditures, as well as expenditures related to compensated absences, are recorded only when payment is due. Private-sector standards of accounting and financial reporting issued prior to December 1,1989, generally are followed in both the government-wide and proprietary (enterprise and internal service) fund financial statements to the extent that those standards do not conflict with or contradict guidance ofthe Governmental Accounting Standards Board. Governments also have the option of following subsequent private-sector guidance fortheir business-type activities and enterprise funds, subject to this same limitation. The Town has elected not to follow subsequent private-sector guidance. Proprietary funds distinguish operating revenues and expenses from nonoperating items. Operating revenues and expenses generally result from providing services and producing and delivering goods in connection with a proprietary fund's principal ongoing operations. Operating expenses for enterprise funds and internal service funds include the cost of sales and services, administrative expenses, and depreciation on capital assets. All revenues and expenses not meeting this definition are reported as nonoperating revenues and expenses. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the Town's practice to use restricted resources first, then unrestricted resources as they are needed. In the fund financial statements, the Town reports the following major governmental funds: The General Fund is the Town's primary operating fund. It accounts for all financial resources ofthe Town, except those required to be accounted for in another fund. The Community Reinvestment Fund accounts for revenues in excess of the Tabor Amendment limits for the Town and the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority which are used for capital projects. 13 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31,2005 NOTE 1: SIJMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOIJNTING POLICIES (Continued) Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting, and Financial Statement Presentation (Continued) The Convention/Visitor Bureau Fund accounts for the activities of the Town related to tourism, and culture and recreation activities sponsored by the Town. The Urban Renewalkuthorio'DebtService Fundaccounts fortheaccumulation ofresources for, and the payment of long-term debt principal, interest, and related costs of EPURA. The Town reports the following major proprietary funds: The Light andPower Fundaccounts forthe financial activities associated with the provision of electric services. The Water Fund accounts for the financial activities associated with the provision of water services. Additionally, the Town reports the following fund types: The Internal Service Funds account for fleet maintenance, vehicle replacement, catastrophic loss and health insurance services provided to other departments of the Town on a cost reimbursement basis. The Pension Trust Funds account for the activities of the fire and police pension plans, which accumulate resources for benefits to qualified employees. TheAgency Funds are used to account for resources collected to pay special assessment debt and to assist with improvement to the historic Stanley Hotel. The Town holds all resources in a purely custodial capacity. Assets, Liabilities and Net Assets/Fund Balance Cash and Investments - Cash equivalents include investments with original maturities of three months or less. Investments in pooled cash are considered cash equivalents. Investments are recorded at fair value. Inte,find Receivables/Payables - During the course of operations, numerous transactions occur between individual funds. The resulting receivables and payables are classified in the fund financial statements as due#om otherfunds and due to otherfunds because they are short-term in nature. Noncurrent portions of interfund receivables and payables are reported as advances and are offset equally by a fund balance reserve account which indicates that they do not constitute expendable available financial resources and therefore are not available for appropriation. Any residual balances outstanding between governmental and business-type activities are reported in the government-wide financial statements as internal balances. 14 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31,2005 NOTE 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued) Assets, Liabilities and Net Assets/Fund Balance (Continued) Inventories - Inventories are valued at cost, using the first-in, first-out (FIFO) method. The costs of governmental fund inventories are recorded as expenditures when consumed rather than when purchased. Capital Assets -Capital assets, which include property, equipment, and all infrastructure owned by the Town, are reported in the applicable governmental or business-type activities columns in the government-wide financial statements and the proprietary funds in the fund financial statements. Capital assets are defined by the Town as assets with an initial, individual cost ofmore than $5,000 and an estimated useful life in excess of one year. Such assets are recorded at historical cost or estimated historical cost if purchased or constructed. Donated capital assets are recorded at estimated fair market value at the date of donation. The costs of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to the value of the asset or materially extend assets lives are not capitalized. Property and equipment ofthe Town and its component units is depreciated using the straight-line method over the following estimated useful lives. Buildings 30 - 40 years Collection and Distribution Systems 25 - 50 years Streets, Bridges, and Trails 30 - 40 years Machinery and Equipment 20 - 25 years Vehicles 5 - 10 years Customer Advances fbr Construction - Customer advances for construction represent amounts received from customers for construction of electric service facilities at their locations. These deposits are refunded to the customers by reducing their annual electric charges by 20% each year, for the lessor of five years or until the entire deposit has been refunded. DeferredRevenues - Deferred revenues arise when resources are received by the Town before it has a legal claim to them, as when grant monies are received prior to the incurrence of qualifying expenditures. Property taxes earned but not levied for the current fiscal year are also recorded as deferred revenues. Con,pensatedAbsences - Employees ofthe Town are allowed to accumulate unused vacation and sick time. Upon termination of employment from the Town, an employee will be compensated for all accrued vacation time and, if the employee has completed 20 years of continuous service, they will be compensated for 50% of accrued sick time at their current pay rate. These compensated absences are recognized as current salary costs when earned in the proprietary fund types and when due in the governmental funds. A long-term liability has been recorded in the government-wide financial statements for the accrued compensated absences. 15 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 NOTE 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued) Assets, Liabilities and Net Assets/Fund Balance (Continued) Long-Term Obligations - In the government-wide financial statements, and proprietary funds in the fund financial statements, long-term debt and other long-term obligations are reported as liabilities in the applicable governmental activities, business-type activities, or proprietary funds statement ofnet assets. Bond premiums and discounts, as well as issuance costs, are deferred and amortized over the life ofthe bonds using the straight-line method. In the fund financial statements, governmental fund types recognize bond premiums and discounts, as well as bond issuance costs, during the current period. The face amount ofdebt issued is reported as other financing sources. Premiums received on debt issuances are reported as other financing sources while discounts on debt issuances are reported as other financing uses. Issuance costs, whether or not withheld from the actual debt proceeds received, are reported as debt service expenditures. Net Assets/Fund Balance - In the government-wide financial statements, net assets are restricted when constraints placed on the net assets are externally imposed. In the fund financial statements, governmental funds report reservations of fund balance for amounts that are not available for appropriation or are legally restricted by outside parties for use for a specific purpose. Property Taxes Property taxes attach as an enforceable lien on properly on January 1 and are levied the following January. Taxes are payable in full on April 30 or in two installments on February 28 and June 15. The County Treasurer's Office collects property taxes and remits to the Town on a monthly basis. Since property tax revenues are collected in arrears during the succeeding year, a receivable and corresponding deferred revenue are recorded at December 31. As the tax is collected in the succeeding year, the deferred revenue is recognized as revenue and the receivable is reduced. Contraband Forfeitures The Colorado Contraband Forfeiture Act allows law enforcement agencies to retain proceeds from the seizure of contraband. These proceeds are not subject to appropriation in the budget process. Cash proceeds are recorded in the General Fund. Property and equipment seized are recorded as capital assets. 16 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31,2005 NOTE 2: CASH AND INVESTMENTS A summary of cash and investments as of December 31,2005 follows: Petty Cash $ 2,020 Cash Deposits 898,909 Investments 20.935,500 Total $ 21,836,429 Cash and investments are reported in the financial statements as follows: Cash and Investments $ 17,943,492 Restricted Cash and Investments 2,396,112 Pension Trust Funds 1,052,238 Agency Funds 444.587 Total $ 21.836.429 Cash Deposits The Colorado Public Deposit Protection Act (PDPA) requires that all units of local government deposit cash in eligible public depositories. Eligibility is determined by State regulations. Amounts on deposit in excess of federal insurance levels must be collateralized by eligible collateral as determined by the PDPA. The financial institution is allowed to create a single collateral pool for all public funds held. The pool is to be maintained by another institution, or held in trust for all the uninsured public deposits as a group. The market value of the collateral must be at least equal to 102% ofthe uninsured deposits. At December 31, 2005, the Town had bank deposits of $891,328 collateralized with securities held by the financial institutions' agents but not in the Town's name. Investments The Town is required to comply with State statutes which specify investment instruments meeting defined rating, maturity, and concentration risk criteria in which local governments may invest, which include the following. State statutes do not address custodial risk. â€¢ Obligations ofthe United StAtes and certain U.S. Agency securities â€¢ Certain international agency securities â€¢ General obligation and revenue bonds ofU.S. local government entities â€¢ Bankers' acceptances of certain banks â€¢ Commercial paper â€¢ Local government investment pools â€¢ Written repurchase agreements collateralized by certain authorized securities â€¢ Certain money market funds â€¢ Guaranteed investment contracts 17 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31,2005 NOTE 2: CASH AND INVESTMENTS (Continued) Investments (Continued) The Town's investment policy follows State statutes. At December 31,2005 the Town had the following investments: Investment Maturities (in Years) S&P Less Fair Investment Tvoe Rating Than 1 1-2 Value Local Government Investment Pool AAAm $ 9,704,514 $ - $ 9,704,514 U.S. Treasury N/A 1,733,125 - 1,733,125 U.S. Agency Securities AAA 4,204,500 2,713,900 6,918,400 Money Market Funds AAAm 2,579.461 - 2.579.461 Total $ 18,221.600 $ 2,713,900 $ 20,935,500 Interest Rate Risk- State statutes limit investments in U.S. Agency securities to an original maturity of five years unless the governing board authorizes the investment for a period in excess of five years. CreditRisk - State statutes limit investments in U.S. Agency securities to the highest rating issued by nationally recognized statistical rating organizations ('NRSROs"). State statutes limit investments in money market funds to those with the highest rating issued by NRSROs and with a constant share price, or to money market funds that invest only in specified securities. Concentration ofCredit Risk - State statutes do not limit the amount the Town may invest in one issuer. At December 31, 2005, the Town's investment in the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Bank, and the Federal National Mortgage Association was 15%, 11% and 7%, respectively of the Town's total investments. Local GovernmentInvestmentPool- At December31,2005, the Town had $1,315,713,$2,717,216, and $5,671,585, invested, in the Colorado Surplus Asset Fund Trust (CSAFE), the Colorado Diversified Trust, and the Colorado Local GovernmentLiquid Asset Trust (Colotrust), respectively, investment vehicles established by State statute for local government entities in Colorado to pool surplus funds. The State Securities Commissioner administers and enforces requirements of creating and operating the Pools. The Pools operate similarly to a money market fund and each share is equal in value to $1.00. The Pools are rated AAAm by Standard and Poor's. Investments ofthe pools are limited to those allowed by State statutes. A designated custodial bank provides safekeeping and depository services in connection with the direct investment and withdrawal functions. Substantially all securities owned are held by the Federal Reserve Bank in the account maintained forthe custodial bank. The custodian's internal records identify the investments owned by the participating governments. 18 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 NOTE 2: CASH AND INVESTMENTS (Continued) Restricted Cash The Estes ParkUrban Renewal Authority Debt Service and Capital Projects Funds hold investments of $2,385,469 restricted for payment of debt service and capital projects of the Authority. In addition, the Convention/Visitor Fund has restricted cash in the amount of $10,643. NOTE 3: CAPITAL ASSETS Capital assets activity for the year ended December 31, 2005 is summarized below: Restated Balance Balance 12/31/04 Additions Deletions 12/31/05 Governmental Activities Capital Assets, Not Being Depreciated Land $ 6,374,662 $ $ . $ 6,374,662 Construction in Progress - 1.089,398 - 1,089,398 Total Capital Assets, Not Being Depreciated 6.374.662 1.089.398 - 7.464.060 Capital Assets, Being Depreciated Buildings 10,313,964 482,338 - 10,796,302 Infrastructure 90,812,948 1,906,926 - 92,719,874 Machinery and Equipment 4,297,895 376.242 93.815 4,580,322 Total Capital Assets, Being Depreciated 105.424,807 2,765,506 93,815 108,096,498 Less Accumulated Depreciation For Buildings (4,244,632) (323,671) - 0,568,303) Infrastructure (61,560,882) (2,124,369) - (63,685,251) Machinery and Equipment (2.638.275) (274,986) (85.793) (2.827.468) Total Accumulated Depreciation (68.443.789) (2.723.026) (85.793) (71.081.022) Total Capital Assets, Being Depreciated, Net 36,981,018 42.480 8,022 37.015.476 Governmental Activities Capital Assets, Net $ 43.355.680 $ 1,131,878 $ 8,022 $ 44,479,536 Business-Type Activities Capital Assets, Not Being Depreciated Land and Easements $ 2,943,951 $ - $ - $ 2.943.951 Capital Assets, Being Depreciated Buildings 2,310,581 27,713 - 2,338,294 Infrastructure 24,314,567 563,762 29,915 24,848,414 Machinery and Equipment 10,221,380 464.988 29.075 10,657,293 Total Capital Assets, Being Depreciated 36,846,528 1.056.463 58,990 37,844.001 19 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 NOTE 3: CAPITAL ASSETS (Continued) Restated Balance Balance 12/31/04 Additions Deletions 12/31/05 Less Accumulated Depreciation For Buildings (1,336,021) (55,219) - (1,391,240) Infrastructure (7,132,549) (517,207) (29,915) (7,619,841) Machinery and Equipment (4.779.293) (423.410) (24.446) (5.178.257) Total Accumulated Depreciation (13.247,863) (995,836) (54.361) (14,189.338) Total Capital Assets, Being Depreciated, Net 23.598.665 60.627 4.629 23,654,663 Business-Type Activities Capital Assets, Net $ 26,542,616 $ 60,627 $ 4,629 $ 26,598,614 The Town reclassified beginning balances between Governmental Activities, Land and Buildings in the amount of $8,988. Depreciation expense was charged to functions/programs ofthe Town as follows: Governmental Activities General Government $ 425,980 Public Safety 191,710 Public Works 1,683,067 Culture and Recreation 422.269 Total $ 2.723.026 Business-Type Activities Light and Power $ 521,661 Water 474,175 Total $ 995,836 NOTE 4: LONG-TERM DEBT Governmental Activities Following is a summary of long-term debt transactions for the governmental activities for the year ended December 31,2005. 20 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 NOTE 4: LONG-TERM DEBT (Continued) Governmental Activities (Continued) Restated Balance Balance Due Within 12/31/04 Additions Deletions 12/31/05 One Year 2003 Revenue Refunding Bonds $ 3,405,000 $ - $ 815,000 $ 2,590,000 $ 835,000 Bond Premium 46,356 - 12,093 34,263 - Deferred Amount on Refunding (49,964) - (13,034) (36,930) - 1998 Certificates of Participation 397,000 - 71,000 326,000 75,000 Capital Lease Obligations 838,294 - 220,158 618,136 199,300 Compensated Absences 294,451 234,800 193,973 335,278 195.980 Total $ 4.931.137 $ 234.800 $ 1,299.190 $ 3.866.747 $ 1,305.280 2003 Tax Increment Revenue Refunding Bonds were issued by the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) to refinance EPURA's Series 1993 Bonds. Principal payments are due annually on May 15. Interest payments are due semi-annually on May 15 and November 15, through 2008. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 3% to 3.25%. 1998 Refunding Certificates of Participation were issued by the Estes Park Building Authority (Building Authority) to refinance the Building Authority's 1990 Certificates of Participation. Principal payments are due annually on December 1. Interest payments are due semi-annually on June 1 and December 1, through 2009. Interest accrues at a rate of 5.5% per annum. The Town has entered into several capital lease agreements to purchase land, buildings, and equipment which will be paid from revenues ofthe General and Community Reinvestment Funds. Capital assets of $754,000 have been capitalized under these lease agreements. Compensated absences are expected to be liquidated primarily with revenues ofthe General Fund. Business-Type Activities Following is a summary of long-term debt transactions for the business-type activities for the year ended December 31,2005. Balance Balance Due Within 12/31/04 Additions Payments 12/31/05 One Year 1999 Light and Power Revenue Bonds $ 2,315,000 $ - $ 185,000 $ 2,130,000 $ 195,000 1997B Water Loan 600,000 - 70,000 530,000 75,000 1993A and 1990AWater Loans 970,000 - 135,000 835,000 145,000 Compensated Absences 248,774 94.271 127,064 215,981 131,748 Total $ 4.133.774 $ 94,271 $ 517.064 $ 3,710,981 $ 546,748 21 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31,2005 NOTE 4: LONG-TERM DEBT (Continued) Business-Type Activities (Continued) 1999 Light and Power Revenue Bonds were issued to relocate and make improvements to the Town's light and power facilities. Principal payments are due annually on December 1. Interest payments aredue semi-annually on June 1 and December 1,through 2014. Interest accrues atrates ranging from 4% to 5.45%. 1997B Water Loan from the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority was obtained to finance improvements to the water system. Monthly principal and interest payments are due through October 1, 2011. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 3.8% to 5%. 1993A and 1990A Water Loans were obtained from the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority to finance improvements to the water system. Monthly principal and interest payments are due through October 1,2010. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 2.7% to 5%. Future Debt Service Requirements Annual debt service requirements for the outstanding bonds, certificates of participation, and loans at December 31, 2005, are as follows. Year Ended December 31. Principal Interest Total 2006 $ 1,325,000 $ 279,219 $ 1,604,219 2007 1,374,000 228,143 1,602,143 2008 1,439,000 164,437 1,603,437 2009 578,000 114,363 692,363 2010 520,000 80,137 600,137 2011-2014 1,175.000 148.452 1,323.452 Total Debt Service Requirements $ 6.411.000 $ 1,014.751 $ 7.425.751 Following is a schedule of the future minimum lease payments required under the outstanding capital lease obligations at December 31,2005. Year Ended December 31, 2006 $ 214,884 2007 214,766 2008 217.125 Total Minimum Lease Payments 646,775 Less: Interest (28.639) Present Value of Future Minimum Lease Payments $ 618.136 22 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 NOTE 4: LONG-TERM DEBT (Continued) Park Entrance Special Improvement District During 1996, $165,000 Special Improvement District Bonds were issued to finance improvements within the Park Entrance Estates. The Town is not obligated for this debt and is only acting as an agent for the property owners in collecting assessments and paying the required debt service. Therefore, the debt activity is recorded in the Park Entrance Estates Agency Fund and the outstanding debt is not recorded in the Town's financial statements. Outstanding bonds at December 31, 2005 totaled $12,372. NOTE 5: INTERFUND TRANSFERS Interfund transfers for the year ended December 31,2005, were comprised of the following: Transfers In Transfers Out Amount General Light and Power $ 844,634 General Water 85,517 Museum General 228,796 Community Reinvestment General 2,850,659 Senior Citizens General 116,314 EPURA Special Revenue General 200,000 Convention/Visitor Bureau General 1,700,000 Convention/Visitor Bureau Conference Center 36,644 Convention/Visitor Bureau Special Events 83.608 Total $ 6.146.172 During the year ended December31,2005, the General Fund made transfers totheMuseum, Senior Citizens, EPURA, and Convention/Visitor Bureau Funds to subsidize operatingcosts. The General Fund transferred sales tax revenues in excess of the Tabor Amendment limits to the Community Reinvestment Fund. The Light and Power Fund and Water Fund made transfers to the General Fund to reimburse for overhead costs. During the year, the Town closed the Conference Center and Special Events Funds with a final transfer to the Convention/Visitor Bureau Fund. NOTE 6: RISK MANAGEMENT Public Entity Risk Pool The Town is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts; theft of, damage to, and destruction ofassets; errors and omissions; injuries to employees; and natural disasters. For these risks of loss, the Town is a member ofthe Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA), a separate and independent governmental and legal entity formed by intergovernmental agreement by member municipalities pursuant to State statute. 23 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31,2005 NOTE 6: RISK MANAGEMENT (Continued) Public Entity Risk Pool (Continued) The purposes of CIRSA are to provide members defined liability, property, and workers compensation coverages and to assist members in preventing and reducing losses and injuries to municipal property and to persons or property which might result in claims being made against members of CIRSA, their employees and officers. It is the intent of the members of CIRSA to create an entity in perpetuity which will administer and use funds contributed by the members to defend and indemnify, in accordance with the bylaws, any member ofCIRSA against stated liability of loss, to the limit ofthe financial resources ofCIRSA. It is also the intent ofthe members to have CIRSA provide continuing stability and availability of needed coverages at reasonable costs. All income and assets of CIRSA shall be at all times dedicated to the exclusive benefit of its members. CIRSA is a separate legal entity and the Town - does not approve budgets nor does it have the ability to significantly affect the operations of CIRSA. Self-Insured Medical Plan The Town is partially self-insured for health benefits to eligible employees and dependents. For the year ended December 31,2005, the Town was responsible for up to $5,000 per claim, per year. Self-insurance activities were accounted for in the Health Insurance Internal Service Fund. The Town recognizes claims payable at December 31,2005, estimated at four months ofpremiums, to cover incurred claims should the Town terminate the health insurance contract with the commercial carrier. Settled claim amounts have not exceeded insurance coverage in the past three years. Claims payable as of and for the years ending December 31,2005 and 2004, were as follows: Claims Payable, December 31, 2003 $ 95,430 Claims Incurred and Adjustments 263,351 Claims Paid (256.149) Claims Payable, December 31, 2004 102,632 Claims Incurred and Adjustments 295,391 Claims Paid (297,025) Claims Payable, December 31, 2005 $ 100.998 24 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 NOTE 7: RETIREMENT COMMITMENTS DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLANS Management Employees and Police Money Purchase Pension Plans The Town contributes to a single-employer defined contribution money purchase pension plan on behalf of management employees and a similar plan for police officers. The contribution requirements of Plan participants and the Town are established and may be amended by the Town Board of Trustees. Management Employees Plan - Management employees are eligible to participate in the Plan. The Plan is administered by International City Managers' Association (ICMA). The Town is required to contribute 10% ofeach participant's covered salary to the Plan, and employees must contribute 8% of covered salary. During the year ended December 31, 2005, the Town and employee contributions were $72,971 and $54,728, respectively, equal to the required contributions. Police Plan - All sworn police employees shall be eligible to participate in the Plan administered by International City Managers' Association (ICMA). The Town is required to contribute 9.2% ofeach participating employee's covered salary, and each employee mustcontribute 8% ofcovered salary. During the year ended December 31,2005, the Town and employee contributions were $99,845 and $86,822, respectively, equal to the required contributions. Death and disability coverage is provided for members through the Statewide Death and Disability Plan, which is administered by the Colorado Fire and Police Pension Association. All full-time, paid police officers ofthe Town are members ofthe Plan. The State Legislature establishes benefit provisions ofthe Plan. DEFINED BENEFIT PLANS Defined Benefit Multiple-Employer Pension Plan Plan Description - The Town contributes to the Municipal Division Trust Fund (MDTF), a cost- sharing multiple-employer defined benefit pension plan administered by the Public Employee's Retirement Association of Colorado (PERA). MDTF provides retirement and disability, annual increases, and death benefits for members or their beneficiaries. Title 24, Article 51 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS), as amended, assigns the authority to establish benefit provisions to the State Legislature. PERA issues a publicly available annual financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information for the MDTF. That report may be obtained by contacting PERA of Colorado, 1300 Logan Street, Denver, Colorado, 80203. Funding Policy- Plan members andthe Town are required tocontribute ataratesetbystatute. The contribution requirements of Plan members and the Town are established under Title 24, Article 51, Part 4 ofthe CRS, as amended. The contribution rate for members is 8% and for the Town is 10% ofcovered salary. A portion ofthe Town's contribution (1.02% ofcovered salary) is allocated 25 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31,2005 NOTE 7: RETIREMENT COMMITMENTS (Continued) DEFINED BENEFIT PLANS (Continued) Defined Benefit Multiple-Employer Pension Plan (Continued) to the Health Care Trust Fund (See Note 8). The Town's contributions to MDTF for the years ended December 31,2005,2004, and 2003 were $356,245, $329,003, and $305,487, respectively, equal to the required contributions for each year. Volunteer Firefighters' Pension Plan Plan Description - The Town has established a single-employer defined benefit pension plan for volunteer firefighters as authorized by State statute. The Plan is administered by a Board of Trustees composed of Town Trustee members and firefighters. The Board of Trustees established the Plan benefits. Any firefighter who has both attained the age of fi fty and completed twenty years of active service shall be eligible for a monthly pension, currently $350. A firefighter who is disabled in the line of duty and whose disability is of such character and magnitude as to deprive the firefighter ofearning capacity and extends beyond one year, shall be compensated in an amount determined by the Board of Trustees. Currently, the Plan covers 22 retirees and beneficiaries, has zero inactive members eligible to receive benefits and 39 active members. The plan does not publish a separate stand-alone report, but is included in these financial statements as a Pension Trust Fund. Funding Policy - The Volunteer Firefighters' Pension Plan may receive contributions from the Town in an amount not to exceed one-halfmill ofproperty tax revenue. As established by the State Legislature, the State of Colorado contributes ninety percent of the Town's contribution. The contribution requirements of the Town and Plan members are established and may be amended by the Town Board of Trustees. The contributions are not actuarially determined. An actuary is used to determine the adequacy of contributions. The actuarial study as of January 1, 2005, indicated that the current level of contributions to the plan are adequate to support on an actuarially sound basis the prospective benefits, including administrative costs, for the present Plan. Actuarial assumptions included the following: Actuarial Cost Method - Entry age Interest Rate - 4.5% per annum, compounded annually Retirement - Age 50 and 20 years of service Disability - None Mortality - 1994 Group Annuity Mortality Table Marital Status - 90% married Age Difference - Males assumed to be 3 years older Asset Valuation - Market value 26 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31,2005 NOTE 7: RETIREMENT COMMITMENTS (Continued) DEFINED BENEFIT PLANS (Continued) Volunteer Firefighters' Pension Plan (Continued) Based on an amortization period ofthirty-four years using the level dollar method on an open basis, the Plan's expected contributions exceed the amount recommended to eliminate the unfunded actuarial accrued liability. During the year ended December 31, 2005, the Town and the State contributed $61,969 and $54,148, respectively, to the Plan. The Plan's net pension obligation for the years ended December 31,2005 and 2004, respectively, was as follows: 2004 2005 Annual Required Contribution $ 89,701 $ 93,315 Interest on Net Pension Obligation (38,305) (38,912) Adjustment to Net Pension Obligation 47,851 49.287 Annual Pension Cost (APC) 99,247 103,690 Contributions Made (112.734) (116.117) Change in Net Pension Obligation (13,487) (12,427) Net Pension Obligation, Beginning of Year (851.225) (864,712) Net Pension Obligation, End of Year $ (864.7121 $ (877.139) Trend information ofthe Plan follows: Percentage Net Fiscal Year Annual Pension of APC Pension Ending Cost (APO Contributed Obligation 12/31/05 $ 103,690 112% $ (877,139) 12/31/04 99,247 114% (864,712) 12/31/03 98,496 113% (851,225) 12/31/02 58,234 176% (838,740) 12/31/01 57,598 178% (794,332) 12/31/00 28,929 277 % (749,320) Police Pension Plan Plan Description - The Town administers the single-employer Police Defined Benefit Pension Plan. Membership in the Plan consists ofone individual currently receiving benefits. The monthly benefit is $214 with no future increases scheduled. The Plan is closed to new entrants. Plan provisions and contributions are established and may be amended by the Town Board of Trustees. The Plan is included in these financial statements as a Pension Trust Fund. Funding Policy - No additional contributions are required by the Town based on an actuarial study completed in 1986. No further actuarial evaluations have been prepared. 27 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 NOTE 8: POST-EMPLOYMENT HEALTHCARE BENEFITS Plan Description - The Town contributes to the Health Care Trust Fund (HCTF), a cost-sharing multiple-employer postemployment healthcare plan administered by the PERA. The HCTF provides a health care premium subsidy to PERA participating benefit recipients and their eligible beneficiaries. Title 24, Article 51, Part 12 of the CRS, as amended, assigns the authority to establish the HCF benefit provisions to the State Legislature. PERA issues a publicly available annual financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information for the HCF. That report may be obtained by writing to PERA of Colorado, 1300 Logan Street, Denver, Colorado 80203 or by calling PERA at 303-832-9550 or 1-800-759-PERA (7372). Funding Policy - The Town was required to contribute at a rate of 1.02% of covered salary for all PERA members as set by statute. No member contributions are required. The contribution requirements for the Town are established by under Title 24, Article 51, Part 4 of the CRS, as amended. The Town's contributions to the HCTF for the years ended December 31, 2005,2004, and 2003, were $36,337, $34,874, and $53,778, respectively, equal to the required contributions for each year. Other Post-Employment Healthcare Benefits The Town provides health insurance to employees retiring between the ages of 60 and 65. To be eligible, the employee must have been employed by the Town for at least 15 years. Coverage terminates at age 65. Payments are funded by the Town on a pay-as-you-go basis. During the year ended December 31, 2005, the Town paid $17,048 for benefits to four retirees under this plan. NOTE 9: PENSION TRUST FUNDS Combining statements for the Town's pension trust funds as ofand for the year ended December 31, 2005, were as follow: Fire Police Pension Pension Total Assets Cash and Investments $ 1,042,256 $ 9,982 $ 1.052.238 Net Assets Held in Trust for Pension Benefits 1.042,256 9.982 1,052,238 Additions State Contributions 54,148 - 54,148 Town Contributions 61,969 - 61,969 Investment Income 20,412 418 20,830 Total Additions 136,529 418 136,947 28 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 NOTE 9: PENSION TRUST FUNDS (Continued) Fire Police Pension Pension Total Deletions Pension Benefit Payments 90.301 2,565 92,866 Change in Plan Net Assets 46,228 (2,147) 44,081 Plan Net Assets, Beginning 996.028 12.129 1,008,157 Plan Net Assets, Ending $ 1,042,256 $ 9,982 $ 1,052,238 NOTE 10: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Tabor Amendment Colorado voters passed an amendment to the State Constitution, Article X, Section 20, which has several limitations, including revenue raising, spending abilities, and other specific requirements of state and local government. In November, 2000, voters within the Town authorized the Town and EPURA to collect and retain all revenue in excess of the revenue limitations of the Amendment, and to spend all such revenues by transferring said revenues into the Community Reinvestment Fund for the purpose of acquisition, maintenance, repair and replacement of capital projects. The Town has established an emergency reserve, representing 3% of qualifying expenditures, as required by the Amendment. At December 31, 2005, the emergency reserve of $485,000 was recorded as restricted net assets of the governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements and as restricted net assets in the Catastrophic Loss Internal Service Fund in the fund financial statements. Claims and Judgements The Town participates in a number of federal, state, and local programs that are fully or partially funded by grants received from other governmental units. Expenses financed by grants are subject to audit by the appropriate grantor government. If expenses are disallowed due to noncompliance with grant program regulations, the Town may be required to reimburse the grantor government. As of December 31, 2005, significant amounts of grant expenses have not been audited but management believes that subsequent audits will not have a material effect on the overall financial position ofthe Town. Litigation The Town is involved in various lawsuits. The outcome ofthis litigation cannot be determined at this time. 29 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31,2005 NOTE 10: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued) Unconditional Purchase Obligation The Town is a participant in the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The purpose of the Subdistrict is to provide a supplemental water supply to the participants through the construction ofthe Windy Gap Project. The Town is an .8% participant in the Subdistrict. The Subdistrict issued bonds in 1986 to finance the Windy Gap Project. The bonds have since been refinanced. The participants have agreed to service this debt and pay operating expenses through water allotment contracts. The Town's required payments to service the debt through the year 2017 follows: Year Ended December 31. 2006 $ 61,964 2007 62,037 2008 62,017 2009 61,971 2010 61,970 2011 - 2015 310,071 2016 - 2017 127.428 Total $ 747,458 NOTE 11: PRIOR PERIOD ADJUSTMENT During theyearended December31,2005, the Town added infrastructure to its capital assets, added the net pension obligation for the Volunteer Fire Fighters' Pension Plan and adjusted its capital leases payable. As a result, net assets of the governmental activities at December 31, 2004 were restated as follows: Net Assets Balance, December 31,2004 as Originally Stated $ 27,314,264 Infrastructure 26,088,579 Net Pension Obligation 864,712 Capital Leases Payable 397.836 Balance, December 31, 2004 as Restated $ 54.665.391 30 REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION This page intentionally left blank. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO REOUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SCHEDULE OF FUNDING PROGRESS VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER'S PENSION PLAN Year Ended December 31,2005 (Unaudited) UAAL as a Actuarial Percentage of Actuarial Actuarial Acct-ued Unfunded AAL Covered Valuation Value of Liability (AAL) (UAAL) Funded Ratio Covered Payroll Date Assets (a) Entry Age (b) (b-a) (a/b) Payroll (c) ((b-a)/c) 1/1/97 $ 656,734 $ 821,522 $ 164,788 79.9% NA NA 1/1/99 758,599 845,446 86,847 89.7% NA NA 1/1/01 832,559 1,139,599 307,040 73.1% NA NA 1/1/03 933,823 1,588,888 655,065 58.8% NA NA 1/1/05 996,027 1,617,178 621,151 61.6% NA NA See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 31 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO GENERAL FIJIID BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31, 2005 VARIANCE ORIGINAL FINAL Positive BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Taxes Sales $ 6,609,315 $ 6,456,208 $ 6,427,942 $ (28,266) Property 279,834 279,834 277,878 (1,956) Franchise 419,240 419,240 387,100 (32,140) Use 226,493 190,000 202,182 12,182 Licenses and Permits 530,323 649,335 729,317 79,982 Intergovernmental 486,938 486,976 497,660 10,684 Charges for Services 65,461 47,543 57,873 10,330 Fines and Forfeitures 21,802 23,003 29,258 6,255 Rental Income 168,807 168,807 164,523 (4,284) Investment Income 50,548 50,548 124,612 74,064 Miscellaneous 249,666 294,426 308,663 14,237 TOTAL REVENUES 9,108,427 9,065,920 9,207,008 141,088 EXPENDITURES General Government Legislative 101,732 126,872 112,565 14,307 Judicial 37,756 37,595 36,476 1,119 Executive 373,270 353,781 329,356 24,425 Election 7,108 9,050 9,105 (55) Administrative 246,245 211,355 189,769 21,586 Community Development 396,433 388,725 376,184 12,541 Buildings 387,963 388,824 378,914 9,910 Community Services 435,345 435,345 430,645 4,700 Group Sales and Marketing 83,451 149,174 135,974 13,200 Other 146,100 149,400 78,615 70,785 Total General Government 2,215,403 2,250,121 2,077,603 172,518 Public Safety Police 2,288,615 2,175,240 2,168,767 6,473 Fire 399,988 477,010 616,697 (139,687) Protective Inspection 231,291 264,058 258,214 5,844 Total Public Safety 2,919,894 2,916,308 3,043,678 (127,370) Public Works Engineering 81,991 81,497 70,402 11,095 Streets 737,867 818,688 718,578 100,110 Sanitation 53,500 53,500 36,500 17,000 Total Public Works 873,358 953,685 825,480 128,205 Culture and Recreation Parks and Recreation 761,546 783,223 587,441 195,782 Debt Service Principal 24,000 24,000 23,796 204 Interest and Fiscal Charges 1,100 1,100 1,069 31 Total Debt Service 25,100 25,100 24,865 235 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 6,795,301 6,928,437 6,559,067 369,370 (Continued) See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 32 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO GENERAL FUND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31,2005 VARIANCE ORIGINAL FINAL Positive BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 2,313,126 2,137,483 2,647,941 (228,282) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers In 966,773 978,880 930,151 (36,622) Transfers Out (4,510,905) (4,560,905) (5,095,769) (534,864) TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) (3,544,132) 0,582,025) (4,165,618) (571,486) NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE (1,231,006) (1,444,542) (1,517,677) (73,135) FUND BALANCE, Beginning 5,507,104 5,626,907 5,626,907 - FUND BALANCE, Ending $ 4,276,098 $ 4,182,365 $ 4,109,230 $ (73,135) See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 33 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31,2005 VARIANCE ORIGINAL FINAL Positive BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Intergovernmental $ -$ 341,000 $ - $ (341,000) Investment Income 2,778 31,000 78,400 47,400 TOTAL REVENUES 2,778 372,000 78,400 (293,600) EXPENDITURES Current Public Works 110,000 181,719 40,789 140,930 Capital Outlay 2,615,000 3,431,579 2,337,287 1,094,292 Debt Service Principal 292,354 196,362 196,362 - Interest and Fiscal Charges 21,840 21,840 21,840 - TOTAL EXPENDITURES 3,039,194 3,831,500 2,596,278 1,235,222 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (3,036,416) (3,459,500) (2,517,878) 941,622 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Transfers In 2,155,795 2,155,795 2,850,659 694,864 NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE (880,621) (1,303,705) 332,781 1,636,486 FUND BALANCE, Beginning 1,298,683 1,698,887 1,698,887 - FUND BALANCE, Ending $ 418,062 $ 395,182 $ 2,031,668 $ 1,636,486 , See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 34 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO CONVENTION/VISITOR BUREAU FIJND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31,2005 VARIANCE ORIGINAL FINAL Positive BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Charges For Services $ 563,310 $ 520,933 $ 489,883 $ (31,050) Investment Income 42 43 123 80 Miscellaneous 76,200 76,738 77,412 674 TOTAL REVENUES 639,552 597,714 567,418 (30,296) EXPENDITURES Current Culture and Recreation 2,275,241 2,350,535 2,146,055 204,480 Capital Outlay 32,000 60,413 60,413 - TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,307,241 2,410,948 2,206,468 204,480 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (1,667,689) (1,813,234) (1,639,050) 174,184 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Transfers In 1,650,000 1,700,000 1,820,252 120,252 NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE (17,689) (113,234) 181,202 294,436 FUND BALANCE, Beginning 67,950 120,252 - (120,252) FUND BALANCE, Ending $ 50,261 $ 7,018 $ 181,202 $ 174,184 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 35 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION December 31, 2005 NOTE 1: STEWARDSHIP, COMPLIANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY Budgets and Budgetary Accounting The Town follows these procedures in establishing the budgetary data reflected in the financial statements: â€¢ In October, the Town Administration submits to the Board of Trustees a proposed operating budget for the fiscal year commencing the following January 1. The operating budget includes proposed expenditures and the means of financing them. â€¢ Public hearings are conducted to obtain taxpayer comments. â€¢ Prior to December 31, the budget is legally enacted through passage of an ordinance. â€¢ The Town Administration is authorized to transfer budgeted amounts between departments within any fund. However, any revisions that alter the total expenditures of any fund must be approved by the Board of Trustees. â€¢ Budgets are legally adopted for all funds ofthe Town. Fiduciary fund budgets are not required and have not been presented. For the year ended December 31, 2005, the Town did not adopt budgets for the Conference Center and Special Events Funds because these funds were closed during the current year. Also, budgets were not presented for the Vehicle Replacement and Catastrophic Loss Internal Service Funds because no expenditures were incurred during the year. Budgets for the General, Special Revenue, Debt Service, and Capital Projects Funds are adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Budgetary comparisons presented for the Enterprise and Internal Service Funds are presented on a non-GAAP budgetary basis. Capital outlay is budgeted as an expenditure and depreciation is not budgeted. â€¢ All budget appropriations lapse at year end. Colorado governments may not exceed budgeted appropriations at the fund level. Legal Compliance Fortheyear ended December31,2005, General Fund expenditures exceeded the budgeted amounts by $165,494 because the budget did not include an adequate amount for transfers out. 36 COMBINING AND INDIVIDUAL FUND STATEMENTS AND SCHEDULES TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO COMBINING BALANCE SHEET NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS December 31, 2005 SPECIAL REVENUE CONFERENCE CONSERVATION SPECIAL MUSEUM CENTER TRUST EVENTS ASSETS Cash and Investments $ 68,200 $ - $ 53,174 $ - Restricted Cash and Investments - Accounts Receivable 8,434 - Intergovernmental Receivable 8,826 - - Property Held for Resale - TOTAL ASSETS $ 85,460 $ . $ 53,174 $ LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES LIABILITIES Accounts Payable $ 9,820 $ - $ -$ - Accrued Liabilities 4,916 - TOTAL LIABILITIES 14,736 - - FUND BALANCES Reserved for Property Held for Resale - Unreserved, Reported in Special Revenue Funds 70,724 - 53,174 Capital Projects Funds - TOTAL FUND BALANCES 70,724 - 53,174 - TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES $ 85,460 $ - $ 53,174 $ - See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 37 DEBT SPECIAL REVENUE CAPITAL PROJECTS SERVICE TOTAL URBAN URBAN NONMAJOR OPEN SENIOR RENEWAL PARK RENEWAL BUILDING GOVERNMENTAL SPACE CITIZENS AUTHORITY ENTRANCE AUTHORITY AUTHORITY FUNDS $ 528,943 $ 30,590 $ 708,292 $ 1,901 $ 160,889 $ . $ 1,551,989 1,079,959 - 1,079,959 19,108 - - - 27,542 - - - 8,826 - - 1,039,463 - - 1,039,463 $ 548,051 $ 30,590 $ 1,747,755 $ 1,901 $ 1,240,848 $ - $ 3,707,779 $ 1,219 $ 3,706 $ 2,738 $ - $ 84,901 $ $ 102,384 - 2,881 2,224 - - 10,021 1,219 6,587 4,962 - 84,901 - 112,405 1,039,463 - - 1,039,463 546,832 24,003 703,330 - - 1,398,063 - - 1,901 1,155,947 - 1,157,848 546,832 24,003 1,742,793 1,901 1,155,947 - 3,595,374 $ 548,051 $ 30,590 $ 1,747,755 $ 1,901 $ 1,240,848 $ . $ 3,707,779 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES. EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES INFUND BALANCES NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Year Ended December 31, 2005 SPECIAL REVENUE CONFERENCE CONSERVATION SPECIAL MUSEUM CENTER TRUST EVENTS REVENUES Intergovernmental $ 23,066 $ . $ 25,533 $ . Charges for Services 2,328 - Rental Income Investment Income 122 - 839 Miscellaneous 18,381 - TOTAL REVENUES 43,897 - 26,372 - EXPENDAURES Current General Government Culture and Recreation 257,308 - Capital Outlay 20,934 Debt Service Principal Interest and Fiscal Charges TOTAL EXPENDITURES 257,308 - 20,934 - EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (213,411) - 5,438 - OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers In 228,796 - Transfers Out - (36,644) - (83,608) TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) 228,796 (36,644) - (83,608) NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES 15,385 (36,644) 5,438 (83,608) FUND BALANCES, Beginning 55,339 36,644 47,736 83,608 FUND BALANCES, Ending $ 70,724 $ - $ 53,174 $ - See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 38 DEBT SPECIAL REVENUE CAPITAL PROJECTS SERVICE TOTAL URBAN URBAN NONMAJOR OPEN SENIOR RENEWAL PARK RENEWAL BUILDING GOVERNMENTAL SPACE CITIZENS AUTHORITY ENTRANCE AUTHORITY AUTHORITY FUND $ 244,739 $ 2,475 $ - $ - $ - $ . $ 295,813 - 5,354 - - - 7,682 - - 92,835 92,835 7,342 - 6,314 50 49,002 - 63,669 - 28,222 4,595 - - 51,198 252,081 36,051 10,909 50 49,002 92,835 511,197 138,838 - - 138,838 - 174,317 - - - 431,625 14,057 - . - 1,097,165 - 1,132,156 - - 71,000 71,000 - - - 21,835 21,835 14,057 174,317 138,838 - 1,097,165 92,835 1,795,454 238,024 (138,266) (127,929) 50 0,048,163) - 0,284,257) - 116,314 200,000 - - 545,110 - - - - (120,252) - 116,314 200,000 - - 424,858 238,024 (21,952) 72,071 50 0,048,163) - (859,399) 308,808 45,955 1,670,722 1,851 2,204,110 - 4,454,773 $ 546,832 $ 24,003 $ 1,742,793 $ 1,901 $ 1,155,947 $ - $ 3,595,374 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO MUSEUM FUND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31,2005 VARIANCE ORIGINAL FINAL Positive BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Intergovernmental $ 23,821 $ 23,821 $ 23,066 $ (755) Charges for Services 1,625 2,487 2,328 (159) Investment Income 42 43 122 79 Miscellaneous 22,050 23,141 18,381 (4,760) TOTAL REVENUES 47,538 49,492 43,897 (5,595) EXPENDITURES Current Culture and Recreation 278,833 270,287 257,308 12,979 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (231,295) (220,795) (213,411) 7,384 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Transfers In 228,796 228,796 228,796 - NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE (2,499) 8,001 15,385 7,384 FUND BALANCE, Beginning 14,7,56 55,339 55,339 - FUND BALANCE, Ending $ 12,257 $ 63,340 $ 70,724 $ 7,384 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 39 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO CONSERVATION TRUST FUND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31,2005 VARIANCE ORIGINAL FINAL Positive BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Intergovernmental $ 25,400 $ 25,400 $ 25,533 $ 133 Investment Income 252 252 839 587 TOTAL REVENUES 25,652 25,652 26,372 720 EXPENDITURES Capital Outlay - 20,934 20,934 - NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE 25,652 4,718 5,438 720 FUND BALANCE, Beginning 18,862 47,736 47,736 - FUND BALANCE, Ending $ 44,514 $ 52,454 $ 53,174 $ 720 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 40 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO OPEN SPACE FUND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31, 2005 VARIANCE ORIGINAL FINAL Positive BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Intergovernmental $ 224,000 $ 224,000 $ 244,739 $ 20,739 Investment Income 1,355 1,377 7,342 5,965 TOTAL REVENUES 225,355 225,377 252,081 26,704 EXPENDITURES Capital Outlay 150,000 97,658 14,057 83,601 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 150,000 97,658 14,057 83,601 NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE 75,355 127,719 238,024 110,305 FUND BALANCE, Beginning 256,873 308,808 308,808 - FUND BALANCE, Ending $ 332,228 $ 436,527 $ 546,832 $ 110,305 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 41 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO SENIOR CITIZENS FUND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31, 2005 VARIANCE ORIGINAL FINAL Positive BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Intergovernmental $ -5 2,475 $ 2,475 $ - Charges for Services - 4,400 5,354 954 Miscellaneous 38,763 32,330 28,222 (4,108) TOTAL REVENUES 38,763 39,205 36,051 (3,154) EXPENDITURES Current Culture and Recreation 186,876 181,574 174,317 7,257 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (148,113) (142,369) (138,266) 4,103 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Transfers In 116,314 116,314 116,314 - NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE (31,799) (26,055) (21,952) 4,103 FUND BALANCE, Beginning 41,140 45,955 45,955 - FUND BALANCE, Ending $ 9,341 $ 19,900 24,003 $ 4,103 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 42 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY (SPECIAL REVENUE) BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31,2005 ORIGINAL AND VARIANCE FINAL Positive BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Investment Income $ - $ 6,314 $ 6,314 Miscellaneous Â· - 4,595 4,595 TOTAL REVENUES - 10,909 10,909 EXPENDITURES Current General Government 200,000 138,838 61,162 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 200,000 138,838 61,162 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (200,000) (127,929) 72,071 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Transfers In 200,000 200,000 NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE - 72,071 72,071 FUND BALANCE, Beginning - 1,670,722 1,670,722 FUND BALANCE, Ending $ - $ 1,742,793 $ 1,742,793 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 43 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO PARK ENTRANCE ESTATES BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31, 2005 ORIGINAL AND VARIANCE FINAL Positive BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Investment Income $ 16 $ 50 $ 34 TOTAL REVENUES 16 50 34 NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE 16 50 34 FUND BALANCE, Beginning 847 1,851 1,004 FUND BALANCE, Ending $ 863 $ 1,901 $ 1,038 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 44 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO URBAN RENEWAL AIJTHORITY (CAPITAL PROJECTS) BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDIJLE Year Ended December 31,2005 ORIGINAL AND VARIANCE FINAL Positive BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Investment Income $ 13,000 $ 49,002 $ 36,002 TOTAL REVENUES 13,000 49,002 36,002 EXPENDITURES Capital Outlay 2,500,000 1,097,165 1,402,835 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,500,000 1,097,165 1,402,835 NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE (2,487,000) (1,048,163) 1,438,837 FUND BALANCE, Beginning 2,487,000 2,204,110 (282,890) FUND BALANCE, Ending $ - $ 1,155,947 $ 1,155,947 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 45 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO BUILDING AUTHORITY BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31,2005 ORIGINAL VARIANCE AND FINAL Positive BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Rental Income $ 92,835 $ 92,835 $ - TOTAL REVENUES 92,835 92,835 - EXPENDITURES Debt Service Principal 71,000 71,000 - Interest and Fiscal Charges 21,835 21,835 - TOTAL EXPENDITURES 92,835 92,835 - NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE - FUND BALANCE, Beginning FUND BALANCE, Ending $ - $ . $ See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 46 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY (DEBT SERVICE) BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31, 2005 ORIGINAL AND VARIANCE FINAL Positive BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Incremental Properly Taxes $ 630,000 $ 658,686 $ 28,686 Rental Income 217,837 217,837 - Investment Income 62,326 28,896 (33,430) TOTAL REVENUES 910,163 905,419 (4,744) EXPENDITURES Debt Service Principal 815,000 815,000 - Interest and Fiscal Charges 95,163 74,022 21,141 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 910,163 889,022 21,141 NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE - 16,397 16,397 FUND BALANCE, Beginning - 1,289,113 1,289,113 FUND BALANCE, Ending $ - $ 1,305,510 $ 1,305,510 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 47 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO LIGHT AND POWER FUND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31,2005 VARIANCE ORIGINAL FINAL Positive BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Utility Sales $ 9,604,065 $ 9,338,476 $ 9,384,819 $ 46,343 Miscellaneous Income 388,102 919,968 735,435 (184,533) Investment Income 27,494 45,000 89,538 44,538 TOTAL REVENUES $ 10,019,661 $ 10,303,444 $ 10,209,792 $ (93,652) EXPENDITURES Current Source of Supply $ 4,610,000 $ 4,613,129 $ 4,590,883 $ 22,246 Distribution 1,571,865 1,484,614 1,406,577 78,037 Customer Accounts 651,596 639,105 604,246 34,859 Administration and General 1,343,234 1,329,905 1,267,999 61,906 Capital Outlay 810,500 971,192 590,348 380,844 Debt Service Principal 185,000 185,000 185,000 - Interest 118,995 118,995 117,532 1,463 Transfers Out 938,893 951,000 844,634 106,366 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 10,230,083 10,292,940 9,607,219 685,721 CHANGE IN NET ASSETS, Budgetary Basis $ (210,422) $ 10,504 602,573 $ 592,069 ADJUSTMENTS TO GAAP BASIS Debt Principal Payments 185,000 Capital Outlay 590,348 Depreciation (521,661) CHANGE IN NET ASSETS, GAAP Basis 856,260 NET ASSETS, Beginning 10,237,500 NET ASSETS, Ending $ 11,093,760 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 48 This page intentionally left blank. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO WATER FUND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31, 2005 VARIANCE ORIGINAL FINAL Positive BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Utility Sales $ 2,099,450 $ 2,097,000 $ 2,253,491 $ 156,491 Miscellaneous Income 57,139 59,689 39,681 (20,008) Investment Income 25,254 36,000 81,032 45,032 Tap Fees 624,801 500,000 848,319 348,319 TOTAL REVENUES $ 2,806,644 $ 2,692,689 $ 3,222,523 $ 529,834 EXPENDITURES Current Source of Supply $ 133,900 $ 133,900 $ 103,150 $ 30,750 Purification 461,313 477,987 446,280 31,707 Distribution 576,733 631,190 658,943 (27,753) Customer Accounts 194,540 195,834 173,393 22,441 Administration and General 519,144 534,642 449,767 84,875 Capital Outlay 256,900 698,151 466,115 232,036 Debt Service Principal 205,000 205,000 205,000 - Interest 103,261 103,261 100,589 2,672 Transfers Out 94,630 94,630 85,517 9,113 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,545,421 3,074,595 2,688,754 385,841 CHANGE IN NET ASSETS, Budgetary Basis $ 261,223 $ (381,906) 533,769 $ 915,675 ADJUSTMENTS TO GAAP BASIS Debt Principal Payments 205,000 Capital Outlay 466,115 Depreciation (474,175) CHANGE IN NET ASSETS, GAAP Basis 730,709 NET ASSETS, Beginning 17,800,963 NET ASSETS, Ending $ 18,531,672 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 49 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO COMBINING STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS INTERNAI, SERVICE FUNDS December 31, 2005 FLEET VEHICLE CATASTROPHIC MAINTENANCE REPLACEMENT LOSS ASSETS Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 194,087 $ 604,624 $ 2,124,959 Accounts Receivable Inventories 18,699 - . Prepaid Expenses 5,475 - TOTAL CURRRENT ASSETS 218,261 604,624 2,124,959 Noncurrent Assets Capital Assets, Net ofAccumulated Depreciation 31,840 - . TOTAL ASSETS 250,101 604,624 2,124,959 LIABILITIES Current Liabilities Accounts Payable 10,363 - Accrued Liabilities 4,581 - - Insurance Claims Payable - - - Compensated Absences 6,466 - - TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES 21,410 - . NET ASSETS Invested in Capital Assets 31,840 - . Restricted for Emergencies - - 485,000 Unrestricted 196,851 604,624 1,639,959 TOTAL NET ASSETS $ 228,691 $ 604,624 $ 2,124,959 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 50 HEALTH INSURANCE TOTAL $ 423,127 $ 3,346,797 4,542 4,542 - 18,699 - 5,475 427,669 3,375,513 - 31,840 427,669 3,407,353 - 10,363 - 4,581 100,998 100,998 - 6,466 100,998 122,408 - 31,840 - 485,000 326,671 2,768,105 $ 326,671 $ 3,284,945 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES. EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Year Ended December 31,2005 FLEET VEHICLE CATASTROPHIC MAINTENANCE REPLACEMENT LOSS OPERATING REVENUES Charges for Services $ 265,202 $ 231,549 $ . Miscellaneous 855 - - TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 266,057 231,549 - OPERATING EXPENSES Salaries and Benefits 199,533 - Supplies 5,900 . Utilities 5,927 - - Training 4,055 - . Insurance 8,286 - Maintenance and Repairs 15,901 - Professional Fees 7,136 - - Depreciation 7,280 - . Health Benefits - - TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 254,018 - OPERATING INCOME 12,039 231,549 - NONOPERATING REVENUES Investment Income 586 - 54,621 TOTAL NONOPERATING REVENUES 586 - 54,621 CHANGE IN NET ASSETS 12,625 231,549 54,621 NET ASSETS, Beginning 216,066 373,075 2,070,338 NET ASSETS, Ending $ 228,691 $ 604,624 $ 2,124,959 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 51 HEALTH INSURANCE TOTALS $ 345,160 $ 841,911 6,001 6,856 351,161 848,767 - 199,533 - 5,900 - 5,927 - 4,055 - 8,286 - 15,901 - 7,136 - 7,280 295,391 295,391 295,391 549,409 55,770 299,358 4,444 59,651 4,444 59,651 60,214 359,009 266,457 2,925,936 $ 326,671 $ 3,284,945 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents Year Ended December 31, 2005 FLEET VEHICLE CATASTROPHIC MAINTENANCE REPLACEMENT LOSS CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Cash Received from Customers $ 265,202 $ 231,549 $ - Cash Received from Other Sources 855 - Cash Paid to Suppliers (49,979) - (24) Cash Paid to Employees (214,940) - - Net Cash Provided (Used) by Operating Activities 1,138 231,549 (24) CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Interest Received 586 - 54,621 Net Cash Provided by Investing Activities 586 - 54,621 NET INCREASE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS 1,724 231,549 54,597 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, Beginning 192,363 373,075 2,070,362 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, Ending $ 194,087 $ 604,624 $ 2,124,959 RECONCILIATION OF OPERATING INCOME TO NET CASH PROVIDED (USED) BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES Operating Income $ 12,039 231,549 $ - Adjustments to Reconcile Operating Income to Net Cash Provided (Used) by Operating Activities Depreciation 7,280 - - Changes in Assets and Liabilities Accounts Receivable - Inventories 6,823 - Prepaid Expenses (5,475) . . Accounts Payable (4,122) - (24) Accrued Liabilities (3,046) - - Insurance Claims Payable - Compensated Absences (12,361) Total Adjustments (10,901) - (24) Net Cash Provided (Used) by Operating Activities $ 1,138 $ 231,549 $ (24) See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 52 HEALTH INSURANCE TOTALS $ 341,100 $ 837,851 6,001 6,856 (297,025) (347,028) - (214,940) 50,076 282,739 4,444 59,651 4,444 59,651 54,520 342,390 368,607 3,004,407 $ 423,127 $ 3,346,797 $ 55,770 $ 299,358 - 7,280 (4,060) (4,060) - 6,823 - (5,475) - (4,146) - (3,046) (1,634) (1,634) - (12,361) (5,694) (16,619) $ 50,076 $ 282,739 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO FLEET MAINTENANCE FUND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31, 2005 VARIANCE ORIGINAL FINAL Positive BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Charges for Services $ 285,000 285,000 $ 265,202 $ (19,798) Miscellaneous - 1,000 855 (145) Investment Income 209 209 586 377 TOTAL REVENUES $ 285,209 $ 286,209 $ 266,643 $ (19,566) EXPENDITURES Salaries and Benefits $ 234,867 $ 219,956 $ 199,533 $ 20,423 Supplies 9,025 9,025 5,900 3,125 Utilities 7,282 7,282 5,927 1,355 Training 5,710 6,199 4,055 2,144 Insurance 9,740 9,237 8,286 951 Maintenance and Repairs 31,000 31,000 15,901 15,099 Professional Fees 7,964 7,964 7,136 828 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 305,588 290,663 246,738 43,925 CHANGE IN NET ASSETS, Budgetary Basis $ (20,379) $ (4,454) 19,905 $ 24,359 ADJUSTMENTS TO GAAP BASIS Depreciation (7,280) CHANGE IN NET ASSETS, GAAP Basis 12,625 NET ASSETS, Beginning 216,066 NET ASSETS, Ending $ 228,691 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 53 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO HEALTH INSURANCE FUND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31,2005 VARIANCE ORIGINAL FINAL Positive BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Charges for Services $ 330,000 $ 345,998 $ 345,160 $ (838) Miscellaneous 2,184 6,001 6,001 - Investment Income 1,245 1,550 4,444 2,894 TOTAL REVENUES 333,429 353,549 355,605 2,056 EXPENDITURES Health Benefits 363,000 314,635 295,391 19,244 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 363,000 314,635 295,391 19,244 CHANGE IN NET ASSETS $ (29,571) $ 38,914 60,214 $ 21,300 NET ASSETS, Beginning 266,457 NET ASSETS, Ending $ 326,671 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 54 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO COMBINING STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AGENCY FUNDS Year Ended December 31,2005 BALANCE BALANCE 12/31/04 ADDITIONS DEDUCTIONS 12/31/05 Park Entrance Estates ASSETS Cash and Investments $ (2,887) $ 19,404 $ -$ 16,517 LIABILITIES Special Assessments Payable $ (2,887) $ 19,404 $ .$ 16,517 Friends of Stanley Hall ASSETS Cash and Investments $ 414,829 $ 15,452 $ 2,211 $ 428,070 LIABILITIES Due to Friends ofStanley Hall $ 414,829 $ 15,452 $ 2,211 $ 428,070 Total ASSETS Cash and Investments $ 411,942 $ 34,856 $ 2,211 $ 444,587 LIABILITIES Special Assessments Payable $ (2,887) $ 19,404 $ .$ 16,517 Due to Friends of Stanley Hall 414,829 15,452 2,211 428,070 TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 411,942 $ 34,856 $ 2,211 $ 444,587 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 55 STATISTICAL SECTION Town of Estes Park, Colorado General Government Expenditures by Function Last Ten Fiscal Years -- - Culture - - Inter- ~ Fiscal - General ~ ~ Public Public and governmental Capitall Debt Payments ~ Â¥ear Government - Saftly Work# Recreation Grants Outlay Service to Trustee Total - 1996 1,793,873 1,684,918 1,063,679 1,274,040 37,600 1,670,033 1,263,734 - 8,787,877 1997 1,759,156 1,859,560 1,132,336 1,360,134 37,600 2,312,463 1,232,014 - 9,693,263 I 1998 2,595,756 1,909,631 1,248,056 1,297,773 37,600 1,118,923 1,293,964 870,000 10,371,703 1999 2,477,513 2,176,244 801,098 1,561,208 10,000 178,797 1,565,050 - 8,769,910 2000 2,450,880 2,426,254 2,696,484 1,987,304 - 337,424 1,388,866 - 11,287,212 2001 2,819,056 2,521,392 824,072 1,976,439 - 1,211,997 381,876 - 9,734,832 2002 2,488,930 2,579,795 425,892 1,830,965 - 478,766 398,712 - 8,203,060 2003 2,845,799 2,997,822 788,047 1,696,450 - 2,376,537 948,069 - 11,652,724 2004 3,209,193 2,953,998 789,616 1,736,317 - 2,053,785 1,503,627 - 12,246,536 2005 2,216,441 3,043,678 891,134 3,165,121 - 3,529,856 1,200,059 - 14,046,289 Notes: Includes all governmental fund types and blended component units. Culture and Recreation come from accts. 207, 208,211,215. Capital Outlay includes Urban Renewal 56 Town of Estes Park, Colorado General Government Revenues by Source Last Ten Fiscal Years - . Licenses -i -- -- Charges Fines, Rent Fiscal - - and Inter- for and - Year T#45 Permit governmental *ervices Interest- Miscellaneoub Total 1996 5,393,481 386,785 574,280 301,122 317,016 592,972 7,565,656 1997 5,678,592 519,188 872,449 296,385 339,129 696,755 8,402,498 1998 6,017,029 522,486 842,592 355,249 398,911 684,876 8,821,143 1999 6,696,754 483,828 832,134 351,832 364,550 766,155 9,495,253 2000 9,512,310 530,831 1,862,457 436,545 512,902 723,169 13,578,214 2001 7,385,859 517,862 687,871 436,406 490,019 814,744 10,332,761 2002 6,908,469 573,974 1,294,189 18,163 156,545 654,378 9,605,718 2003 7,057,078 608,469 573,007 18,726 63,885 503,396 8,824,561 2004 7,182,629 580,387 712,743 39,409 49,620 434,262 8,999,050 2005 7,295,102 729,317 497,660 57,873 124,612 502,444 9,207,008 Notes: Includes all general and debt service funds. Information from Jinal Audit 57 Town of Estes Park, Colorado General Government Tax Revenues by Source Last Ten Fiscal Years - General Specific Vehicle . General Fix* Properly Ownership Use ' Salks*.-- - Franchise / - Incremental T:nes -Year . Taxes Taxe'. faxes Takes Taxes *: Sales Properly '. Total i j 1996 170,179 20,728 134,694 4,579,231 270,133 1,671,997 317,762 7,164,724 1997 175,699 21,360 171,571 4,773,576 295,323 1,773,386 329,138 7,540,053 1998 189,092 23,574 183,609 5,358,178 315,669 1,865,420 358,988 8,294,530 1999 196,269 26,800 227,647 5,609,014 338,274 2,286,297 387,109 9,071,410 2000 206,265 27,493 185,926 5,882,889 353,755 2,320,109 463,897 9,440,334 2001(1) 219,192 28,491 198,851 3,507,136 418,496 2,694,320 499,520 7,566,006 2002 228,807 26,953 217,284 3,495,646 390,449 2,542,834 555,201 7,457,174 2003 237,409 27,404 198,045 6,173,628 420,592 - - 7,057,078 2004 248,124 27,374 221,939 6,308,376 376,8 I 6 - - 7,182,629 2005 249,595 28,283 202,182 6,427,942 387,100 - - 7,295,102 Notes: Includes all general and debt service funds. (1) As of 2001, General Sales Taxes does not include sales taxes generated in tax increment area. 1 58 Town of Estes Park, Colorado Property Tax Levies and Collections - General Fund Last Ten Fiscal Years . + .percent or - Â· Current Percent DelinquenÂ¢ Total Total Tax~ 2 Fiscal Totil i - Tax Or Levy , ~ *Tax Tax + â‚¬olleetiobs Year - * TaI Levy Collected Collected - Collected Collections of Tal Levy, Â·, 1996 169,288 169,288 100.00% 71 169,359 100.04% 1997 175,551 175,058 99.72% (85) 174,973 99.67% 1998 188,997 188,077 99.51% 60 188,137 99.54% 1999 195,908 195,277 99.68% 992 196,269 100.18% 2000 206,995 206,265 99.65% - 206,265 99.65% 2001 215,592 215,592 100.00% 600 216,192 100.28% 2002 231,743 228,807 98.73% 226 229,033 98.83% 2003 237,870 237,306 99.76% 886 238,192 100.14% 2004 248,238 246,906 99.46% 1,218 248,124 99.95% 2005 250,680 248,314 99.06% 1,281 249,595 99.57% Source: Financial statements and budget documents Get Current Tax Collected and Delinquent Tax Collected from Statement of Collections for the year from Lorraine Total Tax Levy from Budget, General Fund, General Property based on tabor and calculations 59 Town of Estes Park, Colorado Assessed and Estimated Actual Values of Property Last Ten Fiscal Years T Â· Â· " * Â· ' Less: Este, Park Urban . - Ratio of Net . An Property (1) . - 4 Renewal Authority (2) . 'Assessed , - Estimated Net Value to Fiscat i * AssaNed Adual Asse*5ed. . Estimated Assessed Estimated Net Estimated - .+; Yar... Vallie I Value , Value . - Value ' Value - Value , Actutllyalue. 1996 66,857,840 416,428,610 5,554,940 19,388,830 61,302,900 397,039,780 15.44% 1997 74,346,110 474,613,320 5,735,520 20,015,940 68,610,590 454,597,380 15.09% 1998 77,438,900 498,755,820 5,890,470 20,478,900 71,548,430 478,276,920 14.96% 1999 106,272,440 676,046,089 6,758,650 23,633,110 99,513,790 652,412,979 15.25% 2000 108,919,940 685,268,729 6,625,058 17,122,198 102,294,882 668,146,531 15.31% 2001 130,171,750 889,806,885 8,317,975 56,858,660 121,853,775 832,948,225 14.63% 2002 134,594,490 931,101,080 8,688,470 60,105,312 125,906,020 870,995,768 14.46% 2003 145,187,100 1,116,589,034 9,288,080 71,431,748 135,899,020 1,045,157,286 13.00% 2004 147,021,660 1,157,712,227 10,132,738 79,789,568 136,888,922 1,077,922,659 12.70% 2005 153,326,340 1,269,312,565 11,715,449 96.986,380 141,610,891 1,172,326,185 12.08% Source: Financial statements and budget documents Assessed Value under EPURA get from Paula Belew @ assessors office 498-7062 Assessed Value under All Property comes from Abstract of Assessmentd and Levies under cities & towns Estes Park Estimated Actual Value from abstract Summary 60 Town of Estes Park, Colorado Property Tax Rates - Direct and Overlapping Governments (Per $100 of Assessed Value) Last Ten Fiscal Years - 3 -- - - 1996 1997 - --1998 -1999 - 2000 - 2001 2001 2003 -Â· 2004 2005 j Governments assessing allofthe Town: Estes Park $ 0.27 $ 0.27 $ 0.27 $ 0.22 $ 0.22 $ 0. 19 $ 0.19 $ 0.18 $ 0.18 $ 0.18 Larimer County 2.14 2.09 2.14 2.17 2.16 2.24 2.24 2.24 2.25 2.25 Park R-3 School District 4.34 4.25 4.25 3.78 3.69 3.07 3.10 2.85 2.83 2.70 Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Park Hospital District 0.65 0.62 0.63 0.28 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Estes Valley Recreation and Park District 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.13 Estes Valley Public Library District 0.31 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.35 0.32 0.27 0.31 0.38 0.35 Total $ 8.02 $ 7.82 $ 7.88 $ 7.00 $ 7.42 $ 6.80 $ 6.76 $ 6.56 $ 6.63 $ 6.47 Governments assessing only portions of the Town (1): Estes Park Sanitation District $ $-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ $- Upper Thompson Sanitation District - - - - - St. Vrain Left Hand Water District 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 Note: (1) Boundaries of these districts include only portions of Estes Park and generally do not overlay each other. Most Estes Park properties are subject to assessment by one of the districts. 61 Town of Estes Park, Colorado Principal Taxpayers December 31, 2005 - - - - pettentage 2005 of Total A5seBed- Assaud Taxpayer - Type of BIBiness- Valuation Valuation 1 Stanley Commercial Development Company Retail $ 3,549,600 2.32% 2 New Stanley Associates, L.P. Lodging 1,450,890 0.95% 3 Rocky Mountain Park Inn, LLC Lodging 1,189,000 0.78% 4 Qwest Telecommunications 1,149,700 0.75% 5 Barlow Incorporated Plaza 975,750 0.64% 6 Worldmark, The Club 857,890 0.56% Lodging 7 Chung, Vincent and Mary Lodging 718,730 0.47% 8 Caribou Chalet, Inc. Lodging 679,200 0.44% 9 Richter, James 651,870 0.43% Lodging 10 Pica Properties, LLC Restaurant/Retail 638,260 0.42% 62 Town of Estes Park, Colorado Computation of Legal Debt Margin December 31, 2005 Estimated actual property value $ 1,269,312,565 Debt limit - 3% of estimated actual value 38,079,377 Amount of debt applicable to debt limit - Legal debt margin 38,079,377 63 Town of Estes Park, Colorado Computation of Direct and Overlapping Bonded Debt December 31, 2005 Net' ---'Percentite Amount . Outstanding ~ Applicable*to ' Applicable to Name of Governmbntal Unit {1) Â· Debt Estes Park Estes Park Town of Estes Park $ - 0.00% $ - Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District 0.00% Park Hospital District 0.00% Estes Valley Public Library District 1,085,000 100.00% 1,085,000 Park R-3 School District 5,475,126 52.00% 2,847,066 Total $ 6,560,126 $ 3,932,066 Note: Includes all government units with general obligation debt. 64 Town of Estes Park, Colorado Revenue Bond Coverage Last Ten Fiscal Years Net Revenue 7 Direct Â· t Available Fiscal ' F .: Grosi- Operating for Debt Debt Service Requirements (2) Year Â·* Revenues Expenses (1) Service ,- Principal Â· . Interest Total Coverage'+ 1996 105,138 - 105,138 35,000 69,951 104,951 100 1997 107,022 - 107,022 40,000 67,554 107,554 1.00 1998 38,232 - 38,232 - 97,349 97,349 0.39 1999 (1) 7,470,341 (1) 6,723,184 747,157 52,000 41,470 93,470 7.99 2000 0) 7,784,926 (1) 7,218,785 566,141 214,000 180,510 394,510 1.44 2001 (1) 7,666,341 (1) 7,116,367 549,974 213,000 184,040 397,040 139 2002 (1) 8,014,558 (1) 7,727,011 287,547 221,000 196,634 417,634 0.69 2003 (1) 8,640,561 (1) 7,818,075 822,486 234,000 162,515 396,515 2.07 2004 (1) 9,211,209 (1) 8,147,386 1,063,823 243,000 151,279 394,279 2.70 2005 0) 10,302,387 (1) 8,559,979 1,742,408 256,000 140,830 396,830 4.39 Notes: CO Includes the Light and Power Fund and the Building Authority Debt Service Fund. 65 Town of Estes Park, Colorado Demographic Statistics Last Ten Fiscal Years Ifival tr1111,11 , Unemplnymcitt 1 <Ar Pupulation Enrollment 1 11 Rate (2) 1996 5,229 1,349 3.40% 1997 5,229 1,353 2.50% 1998 5,229 1,344 3.80% 1 1999 5,229 1,316 2.50% 2000 5,413 1,354 2.60% 2001 5,413 1,393 3.50% 2002 5,413 1,411 4.80% 2003 5,413 1,363 5.20% 2004 5,413 1,260 5.70% 2005 5,413 1,265 5.50% Source: (1)Source: Park R-3 School District (2) Source: Larimer County labor force summary 66 Town of Estes Park, Colorado Construction, Bank Deposits, and Property Values Last Ten Fiscal Years Commerdll<'onN{ruffion 7 Rexidential Other Fistal Hou*tag. Year Pern,its , Value Permils 1Jnits Value Permits ' Value 1996 8 1,534,249 57 129 10,638,429 162 2,919,475 1997 18 2,301,957 69 106 13,802,287 166 3,785,737 1998 27 3,971,567 75 120 15,728,158 149 2,332,310 1999 15 1,040,372 50 93 11,922,612 189 3,092,683 2000 1 10,593 67 106 14,981,043 205 3,057,477 2001 13 3,394,900 62 73 12,148,395 182 3,848,952 2002 18 12,494,025 67 128 17,496,906 210 3,304,465 2003 4 1,160,580 93 136 21,165,440 155 2,575,573 2004 97 4,078,645 265 297 18,819,059 13 195,050 2005 89 5,102,359 286 380 31,724,135 34 2,429,000 BankDeposits Property Â¥Jllut i _ ~ 1615211 (in thousands) li ear rew,th hlue {1) Commercial Re0idrnthal tlttllhei fotul ' , 1996 227 15,092,153 129,018 107,769,270 304,017,750 4,641,590 416,428,610 1997 253 19,889,981 152,519 124,878,040 344,854,660 4,880,620 474,613,320 1998 251 22,032,035 141,129 127,577,000 365,896,030 5,282,790 498,755,820 1999 255 16,006,667 138,038 154,223,831 492,303,218 5,885,930 652,412,979 2000 273 18,049,113 143,983 159,010,187 525,380,912 6,084,689 690,475,788 2001 263 20,860,258 155,714 198,430,940 685,615,279 6,184,327 890,230,546 ~ ~ 2002 300 33,856,778 178,278 194,965,720 737,107,400 8,379,302 940,452,422 2003 326 28,458,738 216,837 209,983,750 831,032,900 8,440,066 I,049,456,716 2004 375 23,092,754 210,356 210,204,530 864,042,900 7,735,232 1,081,982,662 2005 409 39,225,494 208,970 211,148,390 953,026,700 6,760,805 1,170,935,895 Notes: (1)Includes the First National Bank of Estes Park Weststar Bank Bank of Colorado Key Bank, Boulder Valley Credit Union and Norlarco Credit Union Property Value Commercial, Residential, Utilities (Industrial & State Assessed) from Abstract Summary Actual Value Totals Other info from Building Permit Technician 11 67 Town of Estes Park, Colorado Miscellaneous Statistical Data December 31, 2005 Date of incorporation: April 7,1917 Population: 5,413 Form of Government: Mayor and six member Board of Trustees Town Administrator Area in Square Miles: 1960 2.37 1970 2.86 1980 3.95 1990 5.02 2000 6.43 2005 6.50 Fire Protection: Number of stations 1 Number of volunteers 39 Number of firefighting units 12 Water hydrants 633 Fire insurance rating ISO Class 4 Police Protection: Number ofemployees 28 Patrol units 11 Law violations Homicide 0 Sexual assault 10 Robbery 1 Assault 46 Burglary 33 Larceny - theft 112 Auto theft 8 Other violations 837 Traffic citations 292 Adult Arrests 220 Juvenile Arrests 33 68 Town of Estes Park, Colorado Miscellaneous Statistical Data (continued) December 31, 2005 Education: Park School District R-3: Park High School 407 Middle School 332 Primary/Intermediate School 526 Enterprise Funds: Water Department: Water services 4,606 accounts Average daily consumption 1,066,148 gallons Plant capacity 4,500,000 gallons Distribution system 107 miles Treatment plants 2 Light & Power: Electric services 9,753 accounts 2005 kilowatt hours sold 120,644,976 KWh 68.75 MW Capacity Peak demand - winter 25 MW - summer 17 MW Number of street lights 1,161 Miles of line 345 Wind Power Customers 98 Town Employees: Elected officials 7 Appointed 3 Full-time 108 Part-time 5 Seasonal 37 Accomodations: Hotels, motels, and other 150 Rooms average to better 2,600 69 Town of Estes Park, Colorado Miscellaneous Statistical Data (continued) December 31, 2005 Retail sales: 1996 112,499,998 1997 118,124,999 1998 124,024,998 1999 136,195,687 2000 142,164,507 2001 154,303,440 2002 150,962,000 2003 154,280,750 2004 157,561,400 2005 160,573,080 Other Miscellaneous Data: Newspapers 2 Theaters 2 Bus/taxi companies 4 Radio stations 1 Hospitals 1 Churches 17 State highways (Highways 7,34, and 36) 3 Estes ValIey Recreation and Park District 1 Number ofRegistered Voters: August, 2005 4,252 70 This page intentionally left blank. COMPLIANCE SECTION Financial Planning 02/01 The public report burden for this information collection is estimated to average 380 hours annually. Form # 350-050-36 City or County: Larimer County, Colorado LOCAL HIGHWAY FINANCE REPORT YEAR ENDING: December 2005 This Information From The Records of Town of Estes Park, Colorado: Prepared By: Debbie McDougall, Accounting Manager Phone: (970) 577-3565 I. DISPOSITION OF HIGHWAY-USER REVENUES AVAILABLE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE A. Local B. Local C. Receipts from D. Receipts from ITEM Motor-Fuel Motor-Vehicle State Highway- Federal Highway Taxes Taxes User Taxes Administration 1. Total receipts available 2. Minus amount used for collection expenses 3. Minus amount used for nonhighway purposes 4. Minus amount used for mass transit 5. Remainder used for highway purposes II. RECEIPTS FOR ROAD AND STREET PURPOSES m. DISBURSEMENTS FOR ROAD AND STREET PURPOSES ITEM 1 AMOUNT ITEM AMOUNT A. Receipts from local sources: A. Local highway disbursements: ~ 1. Local highway-user taxes 1. Capital outlay (from page 2) 47,988 a. Motor Fuel (from Item LA.5.) 2. Maintenance: 425,142 b. Motor Vehicle (from Item I.B.5.) 3. Road and street services: ~ c. Total (a.+b.) a. Traffic control operations 14,671 2. General fund appropriations 1,230,823 b. Snow and ice removal 53,709 I 3. Other local imposts (from page 2) 162,934 c. Other 56,581 4. Miscellaneous local receipts (from page 2) 9,795 d. Total (a. through c.) 124,961 5. Transfers from toll facilities 4. General administration & miscellaneous. 309,442 736,248 I a. Bonds - Original Issues 6. Total (1 through 5) 1,643,781 ' b. Bonds - Refunding Issues B. Debt service on local obligations: c. Notes 1. Bonds: d. Total (a. + b. + c.) 0 a. Interest I 7. Total (1 through 6) 1,403,552 b. Redemption 'B. Private Contributions c. Total (a. + b.) 0 C. Receipts from State government 2.Notes----~~~ (from page 2) 240,229 a. Interest ID. Receipts from Federal Government b. Redemption J (from page 2) 0 c. Total (a. + b.) 0 1,643,781 3. Total (1.c + 2.c) 0 C. Payments to State for highways D. Payments to toll facilities E. Total disbursements (A.6 + B.3 +C+D) 1,643,781 IV. LOCAL HIGHWAY DEBT STATUS (Show all entries at par) _~ Opening Debt Amount Issued Redemptions Closing Debt ~A. Bonds (Total) 3,583 3,583 1. Bonds (Refunding Portion) F......9 p...../ 11 Notes (Total) V. LOCAL ROAD AND STREET FUND BALANCE A. Beginning Balance B. Total ]R~~p~l 2. Total Disb~;~~T~ D. Ending Balance 0 E. Reconciliation Notes and Comments: 'FORM FHWA-536 (Rev. 1-05) PREVIOUS EDITIONS OBSOLETE (Next Page) 71 FEDFORM536-2005 STATE: Colorado LOCAL HIGHWAY FINANCE REPORT YEAR ENDING (mm/yy): December 2005 II. RECEIPTS FOR ROAD AND STREET PURPOSES - DETAIL ITEM AMOUNT ITEM AMOUNT A.3. Other local imposts: A.4. Miscellaneous local receipts: a. Property Taxes and Assessments 16,486 a. Interest on investments 50 b. Other local imposts: b. Traffic Fines & Penalities 1. Sales Taxes c. Parking Garage Fees 2. Infrastructure & Impact Fees d. Parking Meter Fees 3. Liens e. Sale of Surplus Property 4. Licenses f. Charges for Services 7,933 5. Specific Ownership &/or Other 146,448 g. Other Misc. Receipts 6. Total (1.through 5.) 146,448 h. Other 1,812 c. Total (a. + b.) 162,934 i. Total (a. through 14) 9,795 (Carry forward to page 1) (Carry forward to page 1) ITEM 1 AMOUNT I ITEM 1 AMOUNT C. Receipts from State Government D. Receipts from Federal Government 1. Highway-user taxes 214,150 1. PHWA (from Item I.D.5.) 2. State general funds 2. Other Federal agencies: 3. Other State funds: a. Forest Service a. State bond proceeds b. FEMA b. Project Match c. HUD c. Motor Vehicle Registrations 26,079 d. Federal Transit Admin d. Other (Specify) e. U.S. Corps of Engineers e. Other (Specify) f. Other Federal f. Total (a. through e.) 26,079 g. Total (a. through f.) 0 4. Total (1. + 2. + 3.f) 240,229 3. Total (1.+ 2.g) ~ (Cany forward to page l) III. DISBURSEMENTS FOR ROAD AND STREET PURPOSES - DETAIL ON NAT[ONAL OFF NATIONAL HIGHWAY HIGHWAY TOTAL SYSTEM SYSTEM A.1. Capital outlay: a. Right-Of-Way Costs 0 0 b. Engineering Costs 0 0 c. Construction: .................I (1). New Facilities 0 (2). Capacity Improvements 0. (3). System Preservation 34,941 34,941 1 (4). System Enhancement & Operation 13,047 13,047 I (5). Total Construction (1) + (2) + (3) + (4) 0 47,988 47,988 d. Total Capital Outlay (Lines 1.a. + 1.b. + 1.c.5) 0 47,988 47,988 ~ (Carry forward to page 1) Notes and Comments: FORM FHWA-536 (Rev.1-05) PREVIOUS EDMIONS OBSOLETE 72