The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2008-05-13fll-E tâ€¢92-4 - ; Prepared 5/09/08 4 '444-~ f L *Revised Ill TOWN Of ESTES PARK The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to plan and provide reliable, high-value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community by being good stewards of public resources and natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, May 13, 2008 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance) PROCLAMATION: ARBOR DAY/MONTH OF THE TREE. Mayor Pinkham PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated April 22, 2008 and Joint Town Board and EPURA Study Session dated April 30,2008. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Works, April 24,2008: 1. Policy Manual - Cash in Lieu of Construction for Required Improvements. 2. Prospect Ave. Surveying/Engineering - Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, $8,500 - Budgeted. B. Community Development, May 1, 2008: CVB 1. Estes Park Fun Run Festival, June 14, 2008. 2. Praise in the Park Concert, June 20,2008 and July 25,2008. MUSEUM 1. New Sign, DaVinci Sign System, $12,552 - Budgeted. C. Utilities, May 8,2008: 1. Small Wind Energy Pilot Agreement, $25,000. 2. 2009 Ford Escape 4x4 Hybrid, $27,179 - Budgeted. 3. Net Metering Policy and Interconnection Agreement. 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Cash in Lieu of Construction for Required Improvements. Director Zurn 2. Town Hall Light Fixture Upgrade. Director Zurn 3. Net Metering Policy and Interconnection Agreement. Dir. Goehring 4. Campground Shuttle Route, Estes Park Campground Stop. Town Administrator Halburnt 3. ACTION ITEMS: 1. APPOINTMENT: ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY. â€¢ Appointment of Matthew Heiser, 5-year term, expiring May 14, 2013. 2. RESOLUTION #09-08 ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL REVENUE FUND - FIRE FEES AND RESOLUTION #10-08 APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATION. Finance Officer McFarland. 3. BARK BEETLE ORDINANCE #08-08. Director Zurn. 4. RESOLUTION #11-08 APROVING THE ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY CONDITIONS ANAYLSIS (BLIGHT STUDY) AND PLAN. Director Smith 5. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT TIME EXTENSION AND FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT. 1. Stone Bridge Estates Subdivision, Metes and Bounds property currently addressed 1043 Fish Creek Road, Rock Castle Development Company/Applicant. 6. TOWN POLICY FOR USE OF TOWN FACILITIES. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson. 7. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 8. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: 24-6-402(4)(b) and (e) C.R.S. - Conference with Town Attorney White for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions and determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators - Sale of Lot 4, Stanley Historic District Motion: I move the Town Board go into Executive Session - For the purpose of a conference with Town Attorney White to receive legal advice under C. R. S. Section 24-6-4-2(4)(b) and Section 24-6-4-2(4)(e). 9. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the Anpnrba wAR nrenprprl .. I. h Cynthia Deats From: EP Administration [ir3045@estes.org] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 8:07 AM To: Cynthia Deats Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 0305 ST. TIME 05/12 07:55 PGS. 2 SEND DOCUMENT NAME TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 6672527 Greg White 5869561 KEPL 5869532 Trail Gazette 5866336 Chamber of Commerce 5861691 Channel 8 6353677 Reporter Herald 2247899 Coloradoan 5771590 EP News ERROR ----- 1 Town Board, 5-13-08 Good evening, At our last meeting the new wording ofthe invitation to participate in the Pledge brought to mind a quote from an opinion by Supreme Court Justices Hugo Black and William Douglas: "Words uttend under coercion are proofof loyalty to nothing but self-interest" The Mayor also stated, and correct me if I'm wrong, "the United States Congress starts it's meetings with a chaplain reciting a prayer, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, and as long as they do it, we will continue to do likewise." To refresh your memories again- the First Amendment to the Constitution starts with: "Congress<hallmakenolaw respecting an establishment ofreligion, ....." Andas you also remember, your oath of office says that you will support and bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution ofthe United States. Ifthe United States Congress passes a law which violates the Constitution, it is your sworn duty to object, regardless ofthe majority will or prospect of recall! It is certainly not your duty to emulate the very body that violated the Constitution in the first place! You've all heard about the folly of letting a fox guard your henhouse so I'll use that as a simple metaphor to further explain my point On our farm, The United States of America, "We the people" have built a henhouse called the Constitution to protect our precious rights and freedoms; our chickens. "We the people" elect representatives to oversee our henhouse but sometimes, out of self interest or in pandering to the majority, they become foxes devouring some of our precious chickens. Now, on most farms there is a guard dog that keeps its eye out for 1hose wily foxes; our dog is called Judiciary. Sometimes our dog becomes complacent sometimes outsmarted, and sometimes he is told by the majority to 'be quiet' which allows the fox into our henbouse. Ultimately,it is "Wethepeople" who are the protectors of our chickens and that's why I am here. "We the people" can not be selective in which chickens are protected; they should all be protected equally. One favorite chicken ofmine is called'Freedom from Religion,' and adding 'under God' to the Pledge was the same as feeding that chicken to the fox. Originally I have asked that you merely stop reciting the Pledge,but as this goes on, I now think your responsibility increases. Besides stopping with the recital, I am asking youto send aletterto our elected represceives in Washington stating that because the phrase 'under God' in the Pledge violates the Constitutional guarantee of freedom from religion, the Trustees of Estes Park are no longer able to include the Pledge at our town board meetings. I am also requesting that you publicly apologize to me and my family for any offense caused by the Pledge and recall David Habecker 611 1}m 1% - .. Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 22,2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 22nd day of April, 2008. Meeting called to order by Mayor Pinkham. Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor Chuck Levine, Mayor Pro Tem Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer Richard Homeier John Ericson Jerry Miller Also Present: Town Attorney White Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk Absent: Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p. m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PROCLAMATION - "Earth Dav" April 22,2008. Mayor Pinkham read a proclamation encouraging the observance of Earth Day and presented the document to Irene Little, a representative of the League of Women Voters Recycling Program. PROCLAMATION - 20tl, Annual Estes Park Duck Race - Mav 3,2008. Mayor Pinkham read a proclamation designating May 3,2008 as the 2011h Annual Duck Race Day in Estes Park and acknowledged representatives of the Noon Rotary Club. Nearly 8,000 ducks have been sold this year the proceeds of which will benefit 69 different local charities. PUBLIC COMMENT. Fred Day, a county resident of Little Valley Subdivision, voiced his dissatisfaction with the correspondence he received from the Town related to the $130 subscription fee for fire protection to county residents. He stated that the letter did not contain information about charges for fire department services, therefore, not providing enough information to make a decision about the subscription fee, and stated county residents are not being treated fairly. Mayor Pinkham said that he has heard similar comments from other county residents and requested that Town Administrator Halburnt meet with Mr. Day to discuss his concerns. He also requested that Staff compile a supplemental letter that includes fire services costs so that people can make an informed decision about the subscription fee, and that the Trustees review the letter before it is mailed. David Habecker, an Estes Park resident, requested the Trustees stop reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of their Board meetings. He stated it is wrong, mean-spirited, and constitutes a war against atheists. Irene Little, representing the League of Women Voters Recycling Committee, and Annie Kidwell, representing Sustainable Mountain Living, wished the Trustees a "Happy Earth Day" and encouraged all to practice recycling and conservation. Mayor Pinkham stated that all the fluorescent lights in the municipal building have recently been replaced with low energy fluorescent lights. ..t 0 . Board of Trustees - April 22,2008 - Page 2 , TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. Trustee Blackhurst thanked Mayor Pinkham for his service to the Estes Park Housing Authority and stated applications for a replacement board member are being accepted. He encouraged the public to attend the Public Works Committee meeting on Thursday, April 24th at 8:00 a.m. in the Town Board room. Mayor Pro Tem Levine said public interest and input will be solicited when filling board vacancies and encouraged the public to watch for notices related to the application process. Mayor Pinkham welcomed Trustees Ericson and Miller to the Board. In addition he & stated that Town of Estes Park volunteers were honored at a luncheon on April 22n , he thanked them for their time and reported that a total of 42,572 volunteer hours were accrued last year at a value of $830,579. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of}: 1. Town Board Minutes dated April 8,2008. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Utilities, April 10, 2008: 1. 2008 Tree Trimming Contract - Asplundh, $75,000 - Budgeted. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission, March 18, 2008 (acknowledgement only.) It was moved and seconded (Levine/Eisenlauer) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. lA. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Approval of): Mayor Pinkham: 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. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. The Links of Estes Park Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #1, A Portion of Lot 3, South St. Vrain Addition, Mountain View Vacation, LLC/Applicant. 2. MLL-2 Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #3, Lots 3A & 3B, Mary's Lake Replat of Marys Lake Subdivision, Don DeBey/Applicant. As there were no comments, the Mayor closed the public hearing and it was moved and seconded (Homeier/Miller) the Consent Agenda be approved with Staff conditions of approval, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEM: Mayor Pinkham: Open the Public Hearing (A). The formal public hearing will be conducted as follows: â€¢ Mayor - Open Public Hearing â€¢ Staff Report â€¢ Public Testimony â€¢ Mayor - Close Public Hearing 1 I I Board of Trustees - April 22,2008 - Page 3 â€¢ Motion to Approve/Deny. a. KUNDTZ ANNEXATION AND RELATED LAND USE ITEMS: 1. ANNEXATION - RESOLUTION #08-08 & ORDINANCE #04-08. 2. MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT - Kundtz Subdivision, Lot 1, Block 1, Ferguson Subdivision, & a Portion of the SW 14 of the NE % of S35-T5N-R73W of the 6th P.M., Habitat for Humanity of Estes Valley, Inc./Applicant. 3. REZONING - ORDINANCE #05-08 - Lot 1, Block 1, Ferguson Subdivision, & a Portion of the SW +1 of the NE 1/1 of S35-T5N- R73W of the 6th p.M from A-1-Accommodations to R-1- Residential zoning Habitat for Humanity of Estes Valley, Inc./Applicant. Staff Report - Planner Shirk reviewed the request being made by Habitat for Humanity of Estes Valley to annex a .7 acre parcel to the Town of Estes Park and subsequently subdivide the properly into three separate lots to be rezoned from A-1 Accommodations to R-1 Residential to accommodate the construction of three homes. Proposed density is 5.2 owner-occupied, attainable housing residences with deed and income restrictions. The annexation would allow for a dedicated right-of-way along Riverside Drive, the installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the roadway, and provide landscaping in accordance with Estes Valley Development Code standards. The re-zoning and subdividing of the parcel was heard by the Estes Valley Planning Commission earlier this year, and recommended for approval despite opposition from owners of neighboring properties. Staffs recommendation is to approve Habitat for Humanity's request with the conditions set forth by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. Discussion ensued on the following topics: deed restrictions last for 20 years, driveway will remain private street and owners will retain responsibility for maintenance, plowing, etc. Applicant's Statement - Matthew Heiser representing Habitat for Humanity of Estes Valley, stated the three homes planned for the parcel will help to fill a need in the community for affordable housing. He spoke to the plans for the site including the placement of the three homes on the property; the dedication of the road right-of-way; installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk; architectural compatibility; limitations on parking; plans for extra storage; property values; the selection committee process; and continuing to work with owners as lender after the sale. Ed Mularz, President of Habitat for Humanity of Estes Valley, stated that building affordable homes for people who work in our community will provide viability for our Town. He stated the organization works with Habitat for Humanity families to assure they are successful homeowners, good neighbors, and that the properties are maintained. He said he has been in communication with neighbors in the area and has invited them to participate in the planning, building, and selection processes. Public Testimony - Steven Piper, Larimer County resident, said he would support the development of two residences on the parcel, but had concerns about the higher density development stating it will adversely affect neighboring properties. He also voiced safety concerns related to the proximity of homes to the roadway. Karen Kavka, Larimer County resident, voiced her opposition to the plan due to density issues, placement of homes so close to the roadway, safety issues, and impact on area property values. .. Board of Trustees - April 22,2008 - Page 4 , Millie Steketee and Roger Steketee, Larimer County residents, urged the Trustees to visit the property to become familiar with the area and voiced concern related to the placement of the homes, the density of the development not being compatible with the neighboring properlies, safety issues related to setbacks, and the need to disperse affordable housing throughout the Estes Valley. Leon Wiese, Larimer County resident, stated his opposition to the annexation requesting the parcel remain in the County with the existing zoning and setbacks. Kent Bosch, Larimer County resident and President of Charles Heights, stated that a majority of the Charles Heights property owners oppose the development because of density and safety issues, but support the objectives of Habitat and recognize the need for affordable housing. Andrea Wildman, Larimer County resident, supported the mission and purpose of Habitat for Humanity and the construction of two homes on the property as allowed by current zoning, but stated that the small lots and density of the proposed development does not fit into the neighborhood and will cause overcrowding, and urged the Trustees to deny the annexation. Dorothy Dorman, Larimer County resident, and Louise Olson, Town of Estes Park resident, both spoke in favor of the development stating that it is in line with the Town's vision and mission statements and reiterated the need for affordable housing. Ms. Dorman spoke about her experience on Habitat's family selection committee and the need to build three homes to keep the price of the homes affordable. Mayor Pinkham closed the public hearing at 9:15 p.m. Discussion among the Trustees followed and is summarized: no variances are being requested by Habitat for Humanity; reason to build three homes is to keep prices affordable; building placement is dictated by water main running through the property; recognize and acknowledge the good work Habitat for Humanity has done; three units may be too many for this parcel; affordable housing means higher density; annex property but limit number of units; proximity of residences to the roadway; difficult site design; and Habitat for Humanity has demonstrated a willingness to work with neighbors and address their concerns. Attorney White read Ordinance #04-08 into the record. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) to approve Ordinance #04-08 and Resolution #08-08 as presented, and it passed. Those voting "Yes" - Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Ericson, Levine, and Miller. Those voting "No" - Trustee Homeier. Attorney White read Ordinance #05-08. He stated that if rezoning is approved, the ability to develop three lots becomes a use by right. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Eisenlauer) to approve Ordinance #05-08 as presented, and it passed. Those voting "Yes" - Trustees Eisenlauer, Ericson, Levine, and Miller. Those voting "No" - Trustees Blackhurst and Homeier. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Ericson) to approve the Kundtz Minor Subdivision Plat with Planning Commission conditions of approval, and it passed. Those voting "Yes" - Trustees Eisenlauer, Ericson, Levine, and Miller. Those voting "NO" - Trustees Blackhurst and Homeier. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. 1ST QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT. Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the financial report and stated that revenues and expenses are on target for the 1St quarter of 2008. He reported I , . Board of Trustees - April 22,2008 - Page 5 that sales tax revenues are at 11.3% of budget and expenses are generally under 25%. He stated that with investment rates low a conservative approach is being taken in regard to investments. 2. SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEE - ORDINANCE #06-08. As a way for the water utility to recover a portion of the cost of constructed system capacity and water rights, new water service customers are required to pay a one-time connection charge or tap fee. Currently, the two components of the Town's connection charge are a System Development Charge (SDC) of $1840 and a Water Rights fee of $5400. The water rights portion of the fee was reviewed and increased in 2003, with the last increase to the SDC being instituted in 1995. Subsequent to a study completed in 2007 by HDR Engineering (HDR), staff is recommending the SDC increase to $4940 and the Water Rights fee increase to $5450. Data supporting the increases include planning and engineering design criteria of Estes Park's water system and future capital improvements related to growth. Dir. Goehring provided the Trustees with two methods to implement the SDC increase: one being to implement the increase at one time, and the other to spread the increase out over a three year period. Discussion followed related to tap fees in neighboring communities; the purchase of water rights; the size of the increase; when to implement the new fees; and how customers are notified of the fee increases. Attorney White read Ordinance #06-08 into the record. It was moved and seconded (Homeier/Blackhurst) to approve Ordinance #06-08 authorizing an increase to the connection charges for new water customers to be implemented over a three year period beginning in June of 2008 as outlined, with an additional annual increase of approximately 3.6% each January to reflect the cost of inflation, and it passed. Those voting "Yes" - Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Homeier, Levine, and Miller. Those voting "No" - Trustee Ericson. 3. BONDING FOR THE MARY'S LAKE WATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS - ORDINANCE #07-08. Ordinance #07-08 authorizes the Town to execute a loan agreement, which includes the issuance of a Governmental Agency Bond, with the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority to borrow funds for upgrades to the Mary's Lake Water Treatment Plant. The principal amount of the loan is $5,500,000 for a term of 20 years at an approximate interest rate of 3.8%, and an estimated maximum annual debt service payment of approximately $440,000. The determination of the actual amount of the loan, interest rate, maturity date, and debt service payment will depend on conditions at the time of the marketing of the Water and Power Authority's overall bond. The obligation of the Loan Agreement and the Governmental Agency Bond is payable from revenues of the Town's water department, is not a general obligation of the Town, and does not pledge or encumber other revenues or properties of the Town. Attorney White read Ordinance #07-08 into the record. It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Miller) to adopt Ordinance #07-08 authorizing bonding for the Mary's Lake Water Treatment Plant improvements, and it passed unanimously. 4. AIR CURTAIN BURNER. In light of the bark beetle infestation in the Estes Valley, staff has researched the purchase of an air curtain burner to facilitate in the disposal of infested trees and slash. Also, the Light and Power department generates a large number of fallen trees and a large amount of tree slash in their trimming program to protect power lines. The current process being utilized for disposal of this material is to grind and haul the slash to the dump which is becoming cost prohibitive. In . Board of Trustees - April 22,2008 - Page 6 addition, people throughout the Estes Valley are being trained to inspect and identify at-risk trees in an effort to take an aggressive approach to managing the infestation. It is the intention of the Town to offer use of the air curtain burner to Estes Valley residents for the disposal of trees and slash to help prevent the spread of the infestation. Therefore, Staff recommends the Light and Power Department the Public Works department share in the purchase of the air curtain burner to be located on Town property on Elm Road. Discussion ensued on the following topics: the availability of the equipment; operational costs of the machine related to fuel and manpower; smoke emitted from the burner; and the possible use of ash produced by the burner by the streets department. It was moved and seconded (Ericson/Eisenlauer) to purchase the S-217 Air Curtain Burner from Air Burners, LLC, at the Federal GSA bid pricing cost of $82,807, as a joint department purchase as follows: $12,000 from account #101-5200-452-24-01; $5,000 from account #101-5200-452-25-01; and $65,807 from account #502-7001-520- 35-57 budgeted, and it passed unanimously. 5. TOWN ADMINSTRATOR REPORT. Administrator Halburnt reported that the application for a Community Development Block Grant on behalf of the Estes Valley Victim Advocates (EWA) has been approved. EWA will receive a grant in the amount of $210,000 to be applied towards the purchase of a safe house. Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the regular meeting at 10:59 p.m. William C. Pinkham, Mayor Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk .r . 1 0 . I . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 30,2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the JOINT TOWN BOARD & EPURA STUDYÂ·SESSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Museum Meeting Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 30th day of April, 2008. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Ericson, Homeier, Levine and Miller Commission: Chairman Swank, Commissioners Cope, Halburnt, Little, Steige, and Wilcocks Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Ericson, Homeier, Levine and Miller. Chairman Swank, Commissioners Cope, Little and Wilcocks. Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Director Smith, EPURA Attorney Benedetti, Town Attorney White and Town Clerk Williamson Absent Commissioner Steige Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 9:08 a.m. Planning Commissioner Wendell Amos spoke to the Planning Commission recommendation and conditions of approval of the new EPURA plan. He reviewed the conditions of approval imposed by the Planning Commission and stated he voted no due to them. He supports EPURA and the continuation as it has benefited the community. School Board Member Bob Richardson spoke to his personal views on the continuation of EPURA. He stated he supports EPURA and the projects it has completed. However, he senses an overwhelming decline in support for the continuation of EPURA. EPURA can not be a wish list of projects. It must continue to beautify Estes Park to make it competitive with other resort towns. He questioned the mechanism to complete the projects and the name of the organization. Pros for the Continuation of EPURA - Town competitiveness - Overall increase in tax revenue for the Town and all of the entities due to the redevelopment and increase in property value - More attractive - Increase number of jobs - Increased economy - Efficient organization - EPURA can bond - Partner with public/private partnership - Held in high regard - Stay competitive with other resort towns - Provides a source of revenue not available to the Town - Important funding source - Market driven need - improvements and market driven - Enter into multiple year agreements - Spurs private investment - Can sell land for less than it is worth to accomplish a redevelopment goal Cons for the Continuation of EPURA - Misunderstanding of the distribution of funds .. . 1 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' ' Town Board Study Session - April 30,2008 - Page 2 - Lack of voter participation in the approval of projects (Bonding) - Perception that EPURA has done its job - No huge identified project (No urgency such as the flood) - Statute does not allow specific projects to be listed - Statewide inappropriate use of funding and eminent domain - Lack of perceived blight - Term blight - Urban in name - Perception that the Town is stealing money that would stay with the taxpayer or other taxing entities - Determine goals and future projects Overall Statement from Pros and Cons EPURA exists for the economic sustainability of Estes Park and the mechanism necessary to achieve it. There is a need to remain competitive with other communities and to continue to improve and reinvest in the community. The Town's General Fund can not make all the necessary improvements. Questions Should TIF continue? same or new Should boundaries be amended? What happens to 2008 money? Attorney Benedetti stated EPURA can enter into public/private partnerships for redevelopment, construction of public facilities and provide assistance with land assembly costs. Projects could be built by a private developer with the Authority reimbursing them for their costs. The Authority could bond for these projects prior to receiving TIF funds based on anticipated revenues. Bonding authorities prefer the predictability of property TIF financing over the volatility of sales tax TIF. He also stated property TIF can be refunded to a taxing district through an agreement if the district meets a goal of the Authority's plan. Attorney White commented the Town can not enter into public/private partnerships and the Town can not use eminent domain. Long term bonding by the Town would require a vote. The Authority provides funding options that do not exist for the municipality. EPURA PROJECT PRIORITIES FOR 2008 ($900,000). Attorney Benedetti stated the funds could be used to complete a portion of the current EPURA plan. The current plan does not expire and the funds could be encumbered and used in 2009, in essence it could be seed money for a new EPUFU\ as long as the money is used for the current plan. The Town Board would encourage EPURA to look at improving Moraine Avenue; use the funds for future development that would encourage future private redevelopment; implementation of the Riverwalk signage plan as modified; look at the recommendations of the 2017 team. Chair Swank recommended a project that would increase TIF financing and provide operational funds quickly if EPURA is renewed. CONSIDERATION OF THE NEW URBAN RENEWAL AREA. Attorney Benedetti stated the boundaries of the new plan have been drawn as narrowly as possible to encompass future projects. The Town Board has the authority to change the boundaries later; however, he recommends adding potential area to the new plan rather than amending the plan at a later date. I -, 0 . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - April 30,2008 - Page 3 Suggested changes included Stanley Park, the old elementary building, Lots 4,5, & 6 Stanley Historic District, include commercial area of Reclamation District up to 2nd Street and the removal of Elkhorn Avenue. Commissioner Wilcocks stated Elkhorn Avenue was included to complete projects from the previous plan, the fagade program and/or the signage plan. He stated the Riverwalk was removed from the plan. Concerns were raised regarding the fagade program including moving forward without a historic preservation plan, using public funds to pay for private improvements and increasing property values may lead to higher rents for downtown merchants. EPURA FUNDING IN THE EARLY YEARS. Discussion was heard regarding how EPURA would be funded in the future, i.e. property TIF and/or sales tax TIF. The current plan would fund EPURA through the property tax TIF and all sales tax would be paid into the Town's General Fund. However, the Town and EPURA could enter into an agreement to provide funding prior to the collection of property TIF in the early years. Trustee Blackhurst suggested funding of EPURA for 2009 be a discussion item at the July 25,2008 Budget Study Session. CONDITIONS ANALYSIS AND URBAN RENEWAL PLAN ADOPTION PROCEDURE AND TIMING. EPURA staff and attorney would revise the proposed map to include those areas discussed including the addition of 2nd Street, Elementary building and Stanley Park and minor changes to the plan. The reference to Exhibit C related to the previous plan would be removed from the new plan. The new documents would be presented at the Town Board meeting on May 13, 2008. Trustee Blackhurst request the removal of Elkhorn Avenue from the plan. EPURA NAME CHANGE. Chairman Swank stated the Authority would discuss a possible name change if renewed. Commissioner Cope questioned the current name and stated a more positive name would be beneficial. Including the word "Improvement" in the name would be more descriptive to the work completed by the Authority. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 11:55 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk , .. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 24,2008 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 24th day of April 2008. Committee: Chairman Blackhurst, Trustees Levine and Miller Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Director Zurn, Superintendent Mahany, Facilities Mgr. Sievers, Town Clerk Williamson Absent: None Chairman Blackhurst called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. None. BARK BEETLE ORDINANCE - Request Approval. The Public Works Department requests the approval of an ordinance to regulate the management of the Mountain Pine Beetle on privately owned properties. The proposed ordinance would be similar to the current State and County regulations that are enforceable within Town limits; however, the resources from these agencies are currently limited. The ordinance would be enforced through the municipal court and if required as a referral to the Larimer County Forester office. The proposed ordinance includes language for the management of dwarf mistletoe. Trustee Miller raised concern with the inclusion of dwarf mistletoe within the same ordinance. He stated the ordinance does not address the treatment of an infested tree with mistletoe; therefore, the only option for a property owner would be to remove the infested tree. Discussion followed: concern was raised regarding the timeframe for removing an infested tree through the Municipal Court system - beetles may fly prior to removal; preventative measures are not addressed within the proposed ordinance and should be promoted by the Town; mitigation and prevention of trees on Town owned property; the focus of an ordinance should be narrow; how would infested trees be removed from a property - by whom and at what expense; questioned assessing the property owner twice the removal cost and an administrative fees. Dir. Zurn commented the enforcement process of the proposed ordinance could be done within 60 days; therefore, a season would not be lost in addressing an infested tree. Worse cause the beetles would fly to nearby trees that would need to be removed as well. The Park Dept. is monitoring Town owned property; however, prevention has not been addressed. The upcoming Tree Symposium would provide educational and prevention information to the public. Town Administrator Halburnt stated the proposed fee would provide incentive for the property owner to address the infested tree rather than the Town. The Committee recommends 1) Removal of the dwarf mistletoe from the proposed ordinance, 2) Discuss procedure with the Municipal Court prior to the Town Board meeting, 3) "If left unmitigated" to be added to the second Whereas statement, 4) Action item at the May 13, 2008 Town Board meeting. 1 , . 0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - April 24,2008 - Page 2 POLICY FOR DEVELOPERS PAYING OBLIGATED IMPROVEMENTS AS CASH IN LIEU OF ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION - Request Approval. The Development Code requires that numerous publicly owned improvements such as roads and drainages are required to be improved or replaced adjacent and through proposed developments. The policy would require the Public Works Director to decide whether or not the developer should construct the required improvements or require cash in lieu of construction. All funds collected would be determined by an estimate agreed upon by the Public Works Director and the developer. The funds would be 125% of the estimated current value of the improvements. The developer may appeal all decisions regarding this policy to the Public Works Committee upon written request to the Public Works Department. The funds would be interest bearing to account for inflation and all interest would be retained by the Town and not eligible for reimbursement to the developer. Discussion was heard with regard to the method used to track the funds; establishing a separate fund from the General Fund; establishing a policy on how/when to expend the fund. Dir. Zurn recommended the funds be tracked by address within the General Fun and used when improvements are made within that area. The Committee recommends 1) Approval of the policy as outlined above, 2) A summary on the effectiveness of the policy within a year and 3) Report to the Town Board on May 13, 2008. CONSULTING AND SURVEYING SERVICES FOR PROSPECT AVENUE - Request Approval. The annual Street Improvement Program (STIP) improves the structural maintenance and rehabilitation of local streets and parking lots as outlined by MicroPaver, a Windows based program that measures the Pavement Condition Index (PCI). Fir and Prospect are ranked at the bottom with a PCI of 50 with all streets ranked lower than 69 slated for an asphalt paving overlay. This local collector street would be reconstructed to improve stormwater drainage, add curb and a six foot wide concrete pedestrian sidewalk. Staff would complete most of the design; however, the services of a Surveyor/Engineer are needed to provide accurate mapping and plan and profile sheets to precede the design. A RFP was written in March and proposals have been received from the four consulting companies as follows: Consulting Engineer Address City Proposal Cost Notes Principal $100/hr, Survey Cornerstone 1692 Big Thompson Ave Estes Park $8,500 $85/hr, CADD $55/hr no boundary surveying. T&M offered. Principal $95/hr, Survey $117, CADD Landmark 3521 W. Eisenhower Blvd Loveland, 80537 $17,750 $60/hr Extra work at T&M. $100/hr Mgmt. RG Consulting 1331 17th St. Suite 710 Denver, 80202 $13,260 Survey/CADD $60/hr Principal / PE $105/hr, Survey $120/hr, CADD Van Horn Eng. 1043 Fish Creek Road Estes Park $14,971 $75/hr does not include and utility depth mapping. No title work. $13,620 = Average Dir. Zurn reviewed the bids and stated Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying was the low bid; however, based on the hourly wage submitted with the RFP, the number of . .. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - April 24,2008 - Page 3 hours to complete the work would not be adequate. Staff recommends approval of RG Consulting for the project. Kerry Prochaska/Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying commented the bid price quoted was a lump sum cost not based on an hourly wage. In order to keep staff employed, the company would provide the product for the quoted price and meet Town's specifications for the lump sum with no additional costs to the Town. The Committee recommends approval of Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying to provide the Surveying and Engineering for the annual STIP project along Prospect and Fir at a cost of $8,500 lump sum from account #101-2400-424-22-02. REPORTS. 1. Drainaqe Master Plan RFP - Parts of Estes Park experience seasonal rain generated stormwater and erosion trouble, and those complaints flood into the engineering department. Funds have been allocated to hire a professional consultant to research portions of Town and produce a document with recommendations for future protocols and projects to restore the historic drainage ways. The two study areas are Prospect Mountain southeast and the Elm road area. Staff has written an RFP and has sent it to several specialty civil engineering consultants. Results and findings will be brought back to Public Works Committee on May 22,2008 with a final report scheduled for November 2008. 2. Fall River Trail - Phase 4 Update: (Valley Road west to Castle Mountain Lodge) Van Horn Engineering (VHE) has completed the final design for the next phase of the trail construction and CDOT will complete a review prior to bidding. VHE held a public comment meeting on April 23, 2008 in Town Hall, and those comments will be incorporated. The final approval of the construction bid for the project is anticipated as an action item for either the May or June Public Works Committee. It is anticipated that construction will begin in late September. Public Works was not successful in obtaining a $1 million GOCO grant for the trail system. Dir. Zurn commented the trail location has been approved through a license agreement with CDOT. 3. Town Hall Upgraded Light Fixtures - Phase 2: PRPA and L&P provided the funding for the project with PRPA funding 50% of the cost including labor and material. 120 fixtures were replaced within the Administration and Community Development Departments, and 2nd floor hallway. The electric energy saving will be approximately $2,768/year. (Phase 1, 2007, produced an energy savings of about $900/year) In addition, all portions of the old fixtures were recycled except for the plastic covers. There being no further business, Chairman Blackhurst adjourned the meeting at 9:36 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk .. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 1, 2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 1St day of May 2008. Committee: Chairman Levine, Trustees Eisenlauer and Miller Attending: Chairman Levine, Trustees Eisenlauer and Miller Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Directors Pickering, Kilsdonk and Joseph, Managers Marsh, Winslow, and Mitchell, and Deputy Clerk Deats Absent: None Chairman Levine called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. None CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU. BOND PARK USAGE AND FEE POLICY - DISCUSSION. Staff initiated a discussion regarding charging fees for the usage of Bond Park. Fee schedules are currently in place for Performance Park and other Town venues to help recover costs related to maintenance, repairs, and staff time. The Committee requests additional information on the topic and asks that staff return next month with ideas and suggestions for a fee schedule that differentiates between charges for local non-profit and "for-profit" events. FAIRGROUNDS FEE STRUCTURE - DISCUSSION. Staff is in the process of reviewing the current Fairgrounds fee structure and comparing it to fees charged by comparable facilities in the area. As the summer season is getting underway, staff will return to Committee in the fall with proposed changes to the fee schedule. ESTES PARK FUN RUN AND FUN FESTIVAL - REQUEST APPROVAL. The Estes Park Marathon is requesting the use of Bond Park and MacGregor Avenue for a Fun Run and Fun Run Festival on June 14th, 2008. The festival is scheduled to be held from 1:00 pm until 5:00 pm.; with the Fun Run occurring from 2:00 p.m. till 3:00 p.m. and requiring the closure of MacGregor Avenue from Elkhorn to Wonderview. The free festival will feature a variety of games and educational events related to recycling, conservation, and the environment that are geared towards children and families. Terry Chiplin and Belle Morris, co-directors of the Estes Park Marathon, addressed the Committee stating their desire to create a new event that will draw people into Town and establish Estes Park as a community that supports youth, promotes health, and is the gateway to Rocky Mountain National Park. This event partners with the Estes Park Marathon that will be held on Father's Day, June 15th and organizers estimate 75-100 children plus their families will participate in the Fun Run. The Committee recommends approval of the Estes Park Fun Run and Fun Festival in Bond Park on June 14~h and the closure of MacGregor Avenue as outlined. PRAISE IN THE PARK CONCERT - REQUEST APPROVAL. Chris Moody, Music Director for Rocky Mountain Church, is requesting the use of Bond Park on Friday June 20,2008 and Friday, July 25,2008 from 7:00 p.m. till 8:30 p.m. for . 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Community Development - May 1, 2008 - Page 2 two free concerts featuring a seven-piece, amplified, Chrisitan rock band. The concerts have previously been held in Bond Park in 2001, 2002, and 2003 and at. Performance Park in 2004 and 2006, with the concerts in Bond Park drawing large crowds of up to 300 people. A rental fee of $250 per day will be charged to Rocky Mountain Church for the rental of the Town's mobile stage. The Committee commented that Bond Park is a better venue for amplified music than Performance Park and recommends approval of the Praise in the Park Concert as described. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Marketing â€¢ Public Relations Report â€¢ Visitor's Services Report â€¢ Group Sales Report â€¢ Estes Park Conference Center Report The Committee's discussion of the reports included: programming changes to improve the CVB website; calendar of events postings; Estes Park is listed on the Weather Channel's website as a "top ten family vacation destination"; Jazz Festival posters will be distributed next week; two cancellations at the Conference Center; website can now be accessed at either www.estesnet.com or www.estes.orq; and update on the local marketing district petition process. MUSEUM/SENIOR CENTER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. MUSEUM SIGN BIDS - REQUEST APPROVAL. In 1993 the Museum installed a sign near the corner of Highway 36 and Fourth Street which has since been removed. In order to enhance the visibility of the Museum and Senior Center, staff solicited bids for a double-sided, internally illuminated monument sign with a stone base to replace the former sign. A request for bid was sent to six sign companies with the following four bids returned: Gardner Signs (polycarbonate, aluminum, vinyl).................................$19,681 DaVinci Sign Systems (polycarbonate, aluminum, vinyl)..................$12,552 Schlosser Signs (painted aluminum, acrylic).................................$12,330 Biltrite Sign Service (painted aluminum, acrylic).............................$10,381 Electrical installation will cost $1,245 leaving $12,755 available for sign construction and installation. A sign constructed of a polycarbonate face in a metal frame is consistent with the Museum's existing building and will complement the new marquee sign at the Fairgrounds. Staff recommends contracting with DaVinci Sign Systems to construction and install a monument sign at a cost of $12,552 from account #207-5700-457-32-22 budgeted. The Committee recommends approval of the contract with DaVinci Sign Systems as outlined. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Museum Monthly Report â€¢ Senior Center Monthly Report COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Community Development Financial â€¢ Monthly Building Permit Summary - I Â¢ 1 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development - May 1, 2008 - Page 3 Dir. Joseph identified a typographical error in the financial report that should indicate that 25% of the year has elapsed, and stated that revenues and expenses are tracking normally. There being no further business, Chairman Levine adjourned the meeting at 8:58 a.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk 1. , .. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town o f Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 8,2008. Minutes of a Regular meeting of the UTILITIES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Â· Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 8th day of May 2008. Committee: Chairman Homeier, Trustees Blackhurst and Ericson Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Utilities Director Goehring, Finance Director McFarland, Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent None Chairman Homeier called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT Jon Little, Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) Community Relations Manager, presented an overview of PRPA's role as it relates to the operation the Light and Power Department. He spoke to the partnership between the Town and PRPA; the composition of the PRPA board; new equipment installations; expansion of efficiency programs; new wind acquisitions; and measures being taken to comply with EPA standards to reduce emissions of mercury and carbon dioxide. He stated that PRPA makes every effort to be a steward of the environment and provide reliable power at a low cost. FUNDING REQUEST - SUSTAINABLE MOUNTAIN LIVING CANVAS BAG PROGRAM. This request was removed from the agenda and will be addressed during the upcoming Community Services Grant budgeting cycle. LIGHT & POWER DEPARTMENT SMALL WIND ENERGY PILOT AGREEMENT - REQUEST APPROVAL. In March 2008, the Light & Power Department submitted a form to the State of Colorado Governor's Energy Office (GEO) indicating interest in partnering on a Small Wind Energy Pilot Project. This is part of the Governor's "New Energy Economy" initiative, and integrates with the recent passing of HB-1160 that requires utilities of 5,000 customers or more to provide net metering for small renewable projects. The Light & Power Department has been selected to participate in this 50/50 cash match incentive program. Citing concerns over global warming and climate change, staff recommends entering into an agreement with the GEO for matching funds of $25,000 from account #502-6501-560- 2202, to be used towards the promotion and development of small renewable wind energy in the Estes Valley through incentive rebates. Rebates are calculated at $2.00 per watt for customers who install on-site generation, not to exceed $10,000 for one system. Rebates will be made available upon completion of the project and based upon system manufacturefs output rating. The purpose of the program is to make renewable energy attractive to customers and is geared to reduce their monthly energy bills. Rebates will be available to those installing new residential or commercial systems and not retroactive to previously installed systems. Staff will prepare a press release and advertise the program for a required 30 day period. The Committee recommends approval on the consent agenda of the Small Wind Energy Pilot Agreement with the State of Colorado Governor's Energy Office as outlined, with the initial investment of $25,000 from account #502-6501-560-2202. 0 . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Utilities Committee - May 8,2008 - Page 2 METERING VAN REPLACEMENT - REQUEST APPROVAL. The 2008 Vehicle Replacement Fund includes $42,000 for the replacement of Meter Department Van 93316B. As discussed in budget sessions and at the February Utilities Committee meeting, staff recommends transferring this van from the Meter Department to lighter usage in the IT Department. In addition, staff recommends transferring the Assistant to the Utilities Director's Ford Explorer to the Meter Department, and replacing it with a Hybrid vehicle to be built and delivered late in the fourth quarter of 2008. Bids for the Hybrid vehicle are as follows: Sill-Teri=~ar Ford - Broomfield, CO (State Bid Award) 2009 Ford Escape 4x4 Hybrid $ 27,179 Phil Long Ford - Colorado Springs, CO 2009 Ford Escape 4x4 Hybrid $ 28,800 Spradley Barr Ford - Ft. Collins, CO 2009 Ford Escape 4x4 Hybrid $ 28,909 Burt Arapahoe Ford - Centennial, CO No Response Staff recommends transferring the above vehicles within the Utilities Departments and purchasing the 2009 Ford Escape 4x4 Hybrid from Sill-Terhar Ford at a cost of $27,179 from account #635-7000-435-34-42. The Committee discussed the fuel efficiency of the hybrid, the need for a 4x4 vehicle, and the impact transferring vehicles has on the vehicle replacement fund. Finance Officer McFarland stated that the IT Department will begin to pay into the vehicle replacement fund if there is a continued need for a vehicle within the department. The Committee recommends approval to purchase a 2009 Ford Escape 4x4 Hybrid from Sill-Terhar Ford at a cost of $27,179 from account #635-7000-435- 34-42 budgeted. NET METERING POLICY AND INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT - REQUEST APPROVAL. In November 2007, staff was preparing to implement a net metering policy and tariff to allow customers to install a form of renewable energy generation such as small wind or solar for the purpose of reducing their monthly electric bill; and permit the Utility to buy any net excess generation from the customer at an avoided cost of $0.021/kWh. At the same time, House Bill 1160 was introduced which would make it mandatory for municipal utilities with more than 5,000 meters to offer net metering. Staff chose to wait for the passage of HB 1160 which occurred on March 70, in order to implement a net metering policy that would comply with this legislation. The law stipulates that energy, and only energy, at a one-to-one will be credited on the customer's bill, and establishes limits on the size of the systems that can be installed at 10 KW for residential customers and 25 KW for commercial customers. The net metering policy that staff is proposing includes the substantive language included in HB 1160. It allows the Utility to credit the customer at one kWh for one kWh month-to-month for up to one year. The policy stipulates that if a customer has produced any net excess electricity at the end of one year, the Utility purchases that electricity from the customer at an avoided cost of 0.021/kWh. It should be noted that the customer must continue to pay the monthly minimum, as this charge covers the cost of billing and reading their service meter. The proposed Interconnection Agreement provides a mechanism that allows for the safe connection of privately-owned and maintained renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, to our distribution system. Discussion followed: most meters, with the exception of demand meters, will run forward and backward; the cost of meters; safety mechanisms in place to insure that if the Town system goes down, the residential system also stops operating; the Utility's purchase of excess electricity; legislation related to the installation of wind turbines; and the number of customers who have shown an interest in net metering. The Committee directed staff to remove the reference to an "avoided cost of 0.021/kWh" to be replaced with "avoided cost" within the policy. The Committee recommends approval on the consent agenda . .. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Utilities Committee - May 8,2008 - Page 3 of the amended Net Metering Policy and Interconnection Agreement; and a report to the Town Board on May 13, 2008. REPORTS Finance Officer McFarland stated that the details of the loan agreement with the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority for improvements to the Mary's Lake Water Treatment Plant are close to being finalized and that bonds are scheduled to go to auction in mid-June. LIGHT & POWER 1. Financial Reports - Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the financial reports for the 1St quarter of 2008 that indicate revenues are at 30% of budget and expenses are at 19% of budget. He stated that a payment made to PRPA in April has since brought expenses to 24% of budget. WATER 1. Financial Reports - Reports for the 1St quarter of 2008 show revenues at 19% due to development and building permit fees being down during the first part of the year. In response to a question from Trustee Blackhurst, staff stated that the Town has adequate water supplies through 2020 and possibly beyond, with no current need to purchase new water rights. 2. Public Hearing for MLWTP - As a condition of the bonding process a public meeting will be held on Thursday, May 15, 2008, at 8:00 a.m., to outline the basis for proceeding with improvements to the Mary's Lake Water Treatment Plant. 3. Consumer Confidence Report - The Annual Water Quality Report was mailed to 1 customers two weeks ago. Dir. Goehring stated that the department purchased lab management software to aid in tracking testing schedules. Staff reported on EPA pharmaceutical removal guidelines that are being determined and proposed for future implementation. 4. Hazardous Waste Roundup Report - This joint event sponsored by the Town and Larimer County will be held June 14th from 9:00 a.m. till 2:00 p.m., at the Estes Park Water Department at 577 Elm Road. Staff reported that this event may be out growing its current location and that a larger venue may be needed in the future. There being no further business, Chairman Homeier adjourned the meeting at 9:29 a.m. Cynthia A. Deats, Deputy Town Clerk ,' . .. IM !1 TOWN of ESTES PARK ESTES PARK Public Works Department COLORADO Policy DATE: April 18, 2008 FROM: Scott Zurn P.E. Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Developer obligation cash in-lieu of improvements Background: The current development code requires that numerous publicly owned improvements such as roads and drainages are required to be improved or replaced adjacent and through proposed developments. As a policy the Director of Public Works has the authority to decide whether or not it's in the best interest of the Town to have the developer construct the required improvements or require cash in lieu of the required improvements. All funds collected as cash in lieu of construction shall be determined by an estimate mutually agreed upon by both the Director and the Developer. The required cash value will be 125% of the estimated current value of the required improvements. This will cover future design, administrative and construction costs. The developer may appeal all decisions regarding this policy to the Public Works Committee upon written request to the Public Works Dept. As a general policy the funds will be interest bearing to keep up with inflation and all interest in the fund shall be solely retained by the Town and not eligible for reimbursement. This fund will be utilized for future system improvements within the scope of improvements from which the funds were received. . ./ Town of Estes Park Public Vvorks Engineering Room 100, Town Hall P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3586, gsievers@estes.org Memo To: Town Board From: Greg Sievers Date: May 9,2008 Re: Town Hall light replacement project report Background: The Town Hall building was reconstructed in 1973. The existing 277-volt, fluorescent, office light fixtures were installed at that time and operate using oil-based ballasts and T-12 lamps. These fixtures are suspended in the drop ceiling grid and are 2' wide x 4' long in size. The ballasts and bulbs have been obsolete for many years, and we've been rebuilding them as they break or fail. Platte River Power Authority has a program called "Lighter, Up". This program will pay up to 60% of the replacement cost (materials & labor) to re-lamp properties for the purposes of energy efficiency. Light & Power funded this program in 2007 & 2008 to replace all the lighting fixtures in the Engineering, Administration, and the Community Development department. Fixtures Town cost PRPA cost Kwh / watt Annual replaced of of reduction electric bill installation installation reduction (approx) PHASE 1 48 $ 3218 $ 2246 9900 kwh $ 929 PHASE 2 121 $ 7511 $ 7545 33000 kwh $ 2,768 TOTAL 169 $ 10,729 $ 9,791 42,900 kwh $ 3,697 Platte River power authority / lighten up program site - http:Uprpa.org/productservices/lightenup.htm LIGHTEN ~akellierg,r~Â»tri>4)-337-Fll , ~,sove-Mon-ky. 6 7 5~.:.51 -f :=~ 2 -,--fil~ WP i' L'-i, alf; . Â·rk Save the Environment. 3. Platte River Power Authority Cash /ncentives for Energy-Efficient Lighting /mprove Your Environment What you Need to Know /// LIGHTENUP iis our w ay of helping â€¢ You are eligible if your business IF / .0. '. . trh . you improve the natural environment purchases electricty from any of the ,1./.fif 1 I in addition to your indoor environment four owner communities' utilities. by replacing your outdated lighting with lighting that is more efficient and â€¢ Incentives; cover up to 60 percent of - ---=.m i I.1:29- visually appealing. Platte River Pc,wer the project cost and are based on watt- Authoritv and its four owner commu- age reduction and the type of lighting nities' utilities-Estes Park Light and installed. Power, Fort Collins Utilities, Longmont Power & Communications and Love- How to Participate land Water and Power--offer cash in- centives to help you change your world. 1. Identify a project with help from a F.ificient li@tint shows true colors lighting contractor, vendor, electrician, or Platte River Energy Services. " We've also made the envi- Do You Have Ineffecient ronment better for our guests. 2. Complete a LIGHTENUP applica- Lighting? tion to determine the incentive amount Complaints from guests and submit the application for pre- about light bulbs have been o .\re Your lights humming or flickering? approval to Platte River I:nergy eliminated." Services. â€¢ Do your fluorescent lights make Bob VanNest, Assistant Genera/ Manager, Rocky people look pale and pasty? Projects with proposed incentives of Mountain Park Holiday inn less than $1,000 do not require pre- â€¢ Are you replacing ballasts and fixtures approw"al. more and more these daysi it's a Win. Win, Win 3. Complete the lighting project. ' Do vou have incandescent bulbs that Proposition burn out frequently? Win with energy savings and lower 4. Update the application to reflect energy bills. changes to specifications or quantities â€¢Are there places where lights are on all (if anv), sign the Request for Payment the tillie and do not need to be? Win by improving your environment portion of the application and submit indoors and out. the entire application to Platte River Energy Services. Include copies of anv Applications and a list of participat- Win with funding for new equipment. project-related inv ()lets. ing vendors and contractors with R your old equipment, reduce customer satisfaction ratings are yo aintenance costs and realize a 5. Receive incentive check in four to six available at www. prpa.org. better return on your investment. weeks. POWER AUTHORITY *w,*broaeora~ E-maile liah#enun@nroa.ora. 4~ PLATTE RIVER TOWN of ESTES PARK Utilities Depatiment ESTES PARK COLORADO INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Bob Goehring Date: May 13,2008 Re: Adoption of Net Metering Policy and Interconnection Agreement Background In November of 2007, staff was preparing to implement a net metering policy and tariff. This policy would have allowed our customers to install a form of renewable energy generation such as Small Wind or Solar for the purpose of reducing their monthly electric bill. It would also have allowed the Utility to buy any net excess generation from the customer at our avoided cost of $0.021 /kWh. This rate was established through our IGA with Loveland Engineering. As we moved forward with our proposed net metering policy, House Bill 1160 (HB 1160) was introduced. This bill, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Judy Solano, would make it mandatory for Municipal Utilities to offer net metering. Rather than completing a policy that would likely have to be revised once HB 1 1 60 was passed, sta ff opted to wait to implement a net metering policy until the passage of HB 1160. HB 1160 passed March 7,2008. This bill requires all utilities with more than 5,000 meters to offer a net metering program to customers. This bill also stipulates "energy and only energy at a one-to- one will be credited on the customer's bill." It also establishes limits on the size of the systems that can be installed: 10 KW for residential customers and 25 KW for commercial customers. (See allached HB 1160) Now that HB 1160 has passed, staff is ready to implement a net metering policy. The policy staff is proposing includes the substantive language included in HB 1160. It allows the Utility to credit the customer at one kWh for one kWh month-to-month for up to one year. The policy stipulates that if a customer has produced any net excess electricity at the end of one year, the Utility purchases that electricity from the customer at our avoided cost. It should be noted that the customer always has to pay the monthly minimum as this charge covers the cost of billing and reading their service meter. (See attached Net Melering Policy) The Proposed Interconnection Agreement provides a mechanism that allows the connection of privately owned and maintained renewable Energy sources such as wind and solar to connect to our distribution system in a safe manner. (See Attached Town of Estes Park Agreement for Interconnection and Parallel Operation of Customer Generation System) NOTE: This bill has been prepared for the signature of the appropriate legislative . Â· officers and the Governor. To determine whether the Governor has signed the bill or taken other action on it, please consult the legislative status sheet, the legislative history, or the Session Laws. ~(Aect 99 HOUSE BILL 08-1160 BY REPRESENTATIVE(S) Solano, Green, Madden, Benefield, Borodkin, Ferrandino, Fischer, Kefalas, Kerr A., Labuda, Levy, Marshall, MeGihon, Merrifield, Peniston, Garza-Hicks, Pommer, Riesberg, Todd, Weissmann, Butcher, Carroll M., Carroll T., Frangas, Jahn, Looper, Massey, MeFadyen, Primavera, Rice, Roberts, Romanoff, Rose, Scanlan, Soper, Stafford, Summers, Witwer, Hodge, and Middleton; also SENATOR(S) Shaffer and Isgar, Tochtrop, Williams, Tupa, Bacon, Boyd, Gibbs, Gordon, Groff, Schwartz, Veiga, and Windels. CONCERNING NET METERING FOR CUSTOMER-GENERATORS OF ELECTRIC UTILITIES. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado: SECTION 1. Repeal. Part 3 of article 9.5 of title 40, Colorado Revised Statutes, is repealed. SECTION 2. Part 1 of article 9.5 of title 40, Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read: 40-9.5-118. Net metering -rules. (1) Definitions. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES: Capital letters indicate new material added to existing statutes; dashes through words indicate deletions from existing statutes and such material not part of act. (a) "CUSTOMER-GENERATOR" MEANS AN END-USE ELECTRICITY CUSTOMER THAT GENERATES ELECTRICITY ON THE CUSTOMER'S SIDE OF THE METER USING ELIGIBLE ENERGY RESOURCES. (b) "ELIGIBLE ENERGY RESOURCES" HASTHEMEANING ESTABLISHED IN SECTION 40-2-124. (2) EACH COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION SHALL ALLOW A CUSTOMER-GENERATOR'S RETAIL ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION TO BE OFFSET BY THE ELECTRICITY GENERATED FROM ELIGIBLE ENERGY RESOURCES ON THE CUSTOMER-GENERATOR'S SIDE OF THE METER THAT ARE INTERCONNECTED WITH THE FACILITIES OF THE COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: (a) Monthly excess generation. IF A CUSTOMER-GENERATOR GENERATES ELECTRICITY IN EXCESS OF THE CUSTOMER-GENERATOR'S MONTHLY CONSUMPTION, ALL SUCH EXCESS ENERGY, EXPRESSED IN KILOWATT-HOURS, SHALL BE CARRIED FORWARD FROM MONTH TO MONTH AND CREDITED AT A RATIO OF ONE TO ONE AGAINST THE CUSTOMER-GENERATOR'S ENERGY CONSUMPTION, EXPRESSED IN KILOWATT-HOURS, IN SUBSEQUENT MONTHS. (b) Annual excess generation. WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER THEEND OF EACH ANNUAL PERIOD, OR WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER THE CUSTOMER-GENERATORTERMINATES ITS RETAIL SERVICE, THE COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION SHALL ACCOUNT FOR ANY EXCESS ENERGY GENERATION, EXPRESSED IN KILOWATT-HOURS, ACCRUED BY THE CUSTOMER-GENERATOR AND SHALL CREDIT SUCH EXCESS GENERATION TO THE CUSTOMER-GENERATOR IN A MANNER DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION. (c) Nondiscriminatory rates. A COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION SHALL PROVIDE NET METERING SERVICE AT NONDISCRIMINATORY RATES. (d) Interconnection standards. A COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION AND A CUSTOMER-GENERATOR SHALL COMPLY WITH THE INTERCONNECTION STANDARDS AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED IN THE RULES PROMULGATED BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 40-2-124; EXCEPT THAT THE PAGE 2-HOUSE BILL 08-1160 L I .. I I COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION MAY REDUCE OR WAIVE ANY OF THE INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AND EXCEPT THAT THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION SHALL INITIATE A RULE-MAKING PROCEEDING NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 1, 2008, FOR .THE PURPOSE OF ADDRESSING COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION SYSTEM ISSUES IN ITS SMALL GENERATOR INTERCONNECTION PROCEDURES. A COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION SHALL NOT PREVENT OR UNREASONABLY BURDEN THE INSTALLATION OF A NET METERING SYSTEM IF SUCH SYSTEM INCLUDES PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT THAT PREVENTS ANY EXPORT OF CUSTOMER-GENERATED ELECTRICITY FROM THE CUSTOMER'S SIDE OF THE METER. (e) (I) Size specifications. EACH COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION SHALL ALLOW: (A) RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER-GENERATORS TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY SUBJECT TO NET METERING UP TO TEN KILOWATTS; AND (B) COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMER-GENERATORS TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY SUBJECT TO NET METERING UP TO TWENTY-FIVE KILOWATTS. (II) EACH COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION MAY ALLOW CUSTOMER-GENERATORS TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY SUBJECT TO NET METERING IN AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF THE MINIMUM AMOUNTS SPECIFIED IN SUBPARAGRAPH (I) OF THIS PARAGRAPH (e). IF THECOOPERATIVE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION DENIES INTERCONNECTION TO A CUSTOMER-GENERATOR THAT HAS REQUESTED INTERCONNECTION OF A SYSTEM WITH A CAPACITY OF TWENTY-FIVE KILOWATTS OR LARGER, THE ASSOCIATION SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN TECHNICAL OR ECONOMIC EXPLANATION OF SUCH DENIAL TO THE CUSTOMER. (3) THE COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION AND THE CUSTOMER-GENERATOR SHALL INDEMNIFY, DEFEND, AND SAVE THE OTHER PARTY HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES, LOSSES, OR CLAIMS, INCLUDING CLAIMS AND ACTIONS RELATING TO INJURY TO OR DEATH OF ANY PERSONORDAMAGE TOPROPERTY, DEMAND, SUITS, RECOVERIES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, COURT COSTS, ATTORNEY FEES, AND ALLOTHEROBLIGATIONS BY OR TO THIRD PARTIES, ARISING OUT OF OR RESULTING FROM THE OTHER PARTY'S ACTION OR FAILURE TO ACT IN RELATION TO ANY OBLIGATIONS UNDER THIS SECTION, EXCEPT IN CASES OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR PAGE 3-HOUSE BILL 08-1160 INTENTIONAL WRONGDOING BY THE INDEMNIFIED PARTY. SECTION 3. 40-2-124, Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SUBSECTION to read: 40-2-124. Renewable energy standard - definitions - net metering. (7) (a) Definitions. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SUBSECTION (7), UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES: (I) "CUSTOMER-GENERATOR" MEANS AN END-USE ELECTRICITY CUSTOMER THAT GENERATES ELECTRICITY ON THE CUSTOMER'S SIDE OF THE METER USING ELIGIBLE ENERGY RESOURCES. (II) "MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITY" MEANS A MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITY THAT SERVES FIVE THOUSAND CUSTOMERS OR MORE. (b) EACH MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITY SHALL ALLOW A CUSTOMER-GENERATOR'S RETAIL ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION TO BEOFFSET BY THE ELECTRICITY GENERATED FROM ELIGIBLE ENERGY RESOURCES ON THE CUSTOMER-GENERATOR'S SIDE OF THE METER THAT ARE INTERCONNECTED WITH THE FACILITIES OF THE MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITY, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: (I) Monthly excess generation. IF A CUSTOMER-GENERATOR GENERATES ELECTRICITY IN EXCESS OF THE CUSTOMER-GENERATOR'S MONTHLY CONSUMPTION, ALL SUCH EXCESS ENERGY, EXPRESSED IN KILOWATT-HOURS, SHALL BE CARRIED FORWARD FROM MONTH TO MONTH AND CREDITED AT A RATIO OF ONE TO ONE AGAINST THE CUSTOMER-GENERATOR'S ENERGY CONSUMPTION, EXPRESSED IN KILOWATT-HOURS, IN SUBSEQUENT MONTHS. (II) Annual excess generation. WITHINSIXTYDAYSAFTERTHEEND OF EACH ANNUAL PERIOD, OR WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER THE CUSTOMER-GENERATOR TERMINATES ITS RETAIL SERVICE, THE MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITY SHALL ACCOUNT FOR ANY EXCESS ENERGY GENERATION, EXPRESSED IN KILOWATT-HOURS, ACCRUED BY THECUSTOMER-GENERATOR AND SHALL CREDIT SUCH EXCESS GENERATION TO THE CUSTOMER-GENERATOR IN A MANNER DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITY. PAGE 4-HOUSE BILL 08-1160 I - .. I I (HI) Nondiscriminatory rates. A MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITY SHALL PROVIDE NET METERING SERVICE AT NONDISCRIMINATORY RATES. (Iv) Interconnection standards. EACH MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITY SHALL ADOPT AND POST SMALL GENERATION INTERCONNECTION STANDARDS AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR TO THOSE ESTABLISHED IN THE RULES PROMULGATED BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION; EXCEPT THAT THE MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITY MAY REDUCE OR WAIVE ANY OF THE INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. IF ANY CUSTOMER-GENERATOR SUBJECT TO THE SIZE SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFIED IN SUBPARAGRAPH (V) OF THIS PARAGRAPH (b) IS DENIED INTERCONNECTION BYTHE MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITY, THE UTILITY SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN TECHNICALOR ECONOMIC EXPLANATION OF SUCH DENIAL TO THE CUSTOMER. (V) Size specifications. EACH MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITY MAY ALLOW CUSTOMER-GENERATORS TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY SUBJECT TO NET METERING IN AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF THOSE SPECIFIED IN THIS SUBPARAGRAPH (V), AND SHALL ALLOW: (A) RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER-GENERATORS TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY SUBJECT TO NET METERING UP TO TEN KILOWATTS; AND (B) COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMER-GENERATORS TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY SUBJECT TO NET METERING UP TO TWENTY-FIVE KILOWATTS. SECTION 4. Effective date. This act shall take effect at 12:01 a.m. on the day following the expiration of the ninety-day period after final adjournment of the general assembly that is allowed for submitting a referendum petition pursuant to article V, section 1 (3) of the state constitution, (August 6,2008, if adjournment sine die is on May 7,2008); except that, if a referendum petition is filed against this act or an item, section, or part of this act within such period, then the act, item, section, or PAGE 5-HOUSE BILL 08-1160 . I , part, if approved by the people, shall take effect on the date of the official declaration of the vote thereon by proclamation of the governor. Andrew Romanoff Peter C. Groff SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE PRESIDENT OF OF REPRESENTATIVES THE SENATE Manlyn Eddins Karen Goldman CHIEF CLERK OF THE HOUSE SECRETARY OF OF REPRESENTATIVES THE SENATE APPROVED Bill Ritter, Jr. GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF COLORADO PAGE 6-HOUSE BILL 08-1160 ' May 1,2008 ESTES MEÂ® PARK COLORADO Town of Estes Park Renewable Energy Policy-Net Metering All customers requesting connection of equipment that generates electricity on the customer's side of the meter must submit a complete Town of Estes Park Agreement for Interconnection and Parallel Operation of Small Customer-Generation System before connecting generation equipment to the customer's or the Town's system. This agreement shall be completed by the customer and submitted to the Light and Power Department for review. If after review the agreement is accepted, the Customer may construct and install but not connect the Customer-Generation System (CG system) to the Town's electric system until the Town has received written authorization to connect from the appropriate electrical inspector. Within 15 days after notice from the electrical inspector that the CG System is ready for interconnection to the Town's electric system, the Town of Estes Park will inspect the CG System conformance to submitted Agreement and will provide a written authorization to connect the CG System. If after review of the interconnection agreement or inspection of the installation the customer is denied interconnection by the Town of Estes Park Light and Power Department, the Town shall provide a written technical or economic explanation of such denial to the customer. Failure to comply with this policy will result in discontinuance of service. DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THIS POLICY: A. "Customer-Generator" means an end-use electricity customer who generates electricity on the customer's side of the meter using eligible renewable energy resources, i.e. wind/solar. B. Monthly excess generation. If a customer-generator generates electricity in excess of the customer-generator's monthly consumption, all such excess energy, expressed in kilowatt-hours, shall be carried forward from month to month and credited at a ratio of one to one against the customer-generator's energy consumption, expressed in kilowatt-hours, in subsequent months. C. Annual excess generation. Within sixty days after the end of each annual period, or within sixty days after the customer-generator terminates his/her retail service, the Town of Estes Park shall account for any excess energy generation, expressed in kilowatt-hours, accrued by the customer- generator and shall credit such excess generation to the customer at our avoided cost. SIZE SPECIFICATIONS: A. Residential customer-generators to generate electricity subiect to net metering up to 10 kilowatts (No exceptions) B. Commercial or industrial customer-generators to generate electricity subiect to net metering up to 25 kilowatts (No exceptions) May 1,2008 liu ESTES WIÂ®PARK COLORADO TOWN OF ESTES PARK AGREEMENT FOR INTERCONNECTION AND PARALLEL OPERATION OF CUSTOMER GENERATION SYSTEM This Agreement for Interconnection and Parallel Operation of Customer Generation System ("Agreement") is made and entered this day of ,20 , by and between the Town of Estes Park, Colorado and , ("Customer"). CUSTOMER INFORMATION SYSTEM INSTALLER INFORMATION Recommended: State Licensed Electrician NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER UTILITY ACCOUNT # In consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: Scope and Purpose of Agreement This Agreement describes the conditions under which the Town of Estes Park and the Customer agree that the Customer Renewable Generation system described in Exhibit A ("CG System") may be interconnected to and operated in parallel with the Town's electric distribution system. The following exhibits are incorporated and made a part of this Agreement: ' Exhibit A: Description of Customer's CG System o Manufacturer's data and specifications for all equipment including test ports, voltages, wire size A wiring diagram detailing all connections to your service and proposed location of equipment on structure. A brief statement outlining the operation of the equipment Manufacturer maintenance schedule, warranty and expected life of equipment A phone number for technical questions for installation 1. Term and Termination A. The term of this Agreement begins on the date first set forth above (regardless of the date that the Customer is authorized to interconnect the CG System pursuant to Section 5 below) and continues until terminated by either party pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. B. Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time by providing 30 days written notice to the other party. C. The Town of Estes Park may terminate this Agreement at any time for violation of this Agreement upon written notice to the Customer. LP3c. 1 000 0 D. This Agreement will extend to new owner upon the sale of the Customer's premises. , E. At the time of termination of this Agreement for any reason, the Town of Estes Park may perform lock out procedures to disconnect the Customer's CG System from the Town's electric system. Summary and Description of Customer's CG System to be Included in Exhibit A The Customer's CG System is a self-contained electric generation system including direct current disconnect apparatus, if applicable, alternating current disconnect/lockout, over-current protective device, and all related electrical equipment upstream of the over-current protective device, as set forth on Exhibit A. The CG System begins and continues up-stream towards the distributed generation from the over-current protective device on the Customer's premises. However, the meter socket and related electrical connects are part of the CG System and are the responsibility of the Customer (i.e., all equipment from the main disconnect except the meter is Customer equipment). F. Capacity the CG System is limited tol 0 kW for residential and 25kW for commercial. G. The rated capacity of the CG System is kW. H. The expected date of initial operation of the CG System is 2. Installation and Permitting A. The Customer and the CG System must comply with all applicable current National Electric Code (NEC), UL and IEEE requirements, including, but not limited to: UL 1741 - Inverters, Converters, and Controllers for Use in Independent Power Systems; IEEE Standard 1547 B. The Customer or its contractor must construct the CG System as specified in Exhibit A. C. The Customer, at the Customer's expense, must pay for any additional equipment required to connect the CG System to the Town's electric system. D. The Customer, at the Customer's expense, must obtain all necessary electrical permits for installation of the CG System and obtain and maintain any government authorizations or permits required for the operation of the CG System. The Customer must reimburse the Town of Estes Park for any and all losses, damages, claims, penalties, or liability the Town of Estes Park incurs as a result of the Customer's failure to obtain or to maintain any governmental authorizations and permits required for construction and operation of the Customer's CG System. 3. Warranty is Neither Expressed nor Implied The Town's inspection and approval, if any, of the CG System is solely for the Town's benefit and does not constitute a warranty, express or implied, as to the adequacy, safety, or other characteristics of any structures, equipment, wires, appliances, or devices owned, installed, or maintained by the Customer or leased by the Customer from third parties, including without limitation the CG System and any structures, wires, appliances, or devices appurtenant thereto. LP3c. 2 . I .. I I 4. Indemnity and Liability A. The Customer releases and agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Town, its agents, officers, employees, and volunteers from and against all damages, claims, actions, causes of action, demands, iudgments, costs, expenses of every kind and nature, predicated upon iniury to or death of any person or loss of or damage to any property, arising, in any manner, from the Customer's activities, actions, or omissions under this Agreement. B. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as a waiver by the Town of Estes Park of any rights, immunities, privileges, monetary limitations to iudgments, and defenses available to the Town of Estes Park under common law or the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Sec. 24- 10-101 et seq., C.R.S. 5. Location of CG System The CG System will be installed at the Customer's premises located at in the physical location specified or depicted in the attached Exhibit A. The Customer cannot relocate and connect the CG System at another premises or physical location without the Town's prior written consent, and if given, this Agreement shall be amended to allow for connection at the alternate location. In the event that such consent is given, any relocation and installation of the CG System will be at the Customer's sole expense. 6. Metering This Town of Estes Park will install and maintain, at the customers expense, a metering system at the Customer's premises at a level of accuracy that meets all applicable standards, regulations, and statutes. This system will be suited for the selected electrical rate class chosen by the customer. 7. Billing Billing will be done in accordance with and subiect to the current net-metering policy. 8. Access to Premises The Town of Estes Park shall have access to the Customer's property during normal business hours to conduct any investigation or inspection of the Customer's CG System and connection to the Town's electric distribution system. In case of an emergency, the Town shall have access to the Customer's property at any time for inspection or investigation of Customer's CG System and/or the Town's electric distribution system. 9. Mainlenance of Equipment Safety The Customer, at the Customer's sole cost and expense, will install, operate, and maintain the CG System, including, but not limited to, all over-current protective equipment, in a safe and prudent manner and in conformance with all applicable laws, codes, and regulations, including, but not limited to, those contained in Section 4 above. The Customer must retain all records for such maintenance. These records must be available to the Town of Estes Park for inspection at all reasonable times. LP3c. 3 ' 1 10. Interruption or Reduction of Deliveries; Disconnect A. The Town of Estes Park may require the Customer to interrupt or reduce deliveries: (1) when necessary in order to construct, install, maintain, repair, replace, remove, investigate, or inspect any of the Town's equipment or part of its electric system; or (2) if the Town of Estes Park determined that curtailment, interruption, or reduction is necessary because of emergencies or compliance with good electrical practices as determined by the Town of Estes Park. To the extent reasonably practicable, the Town of Estes Park shall give the Customer notice of possible interruption or reduction of delivered. B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, if at any time the Town of Estes Park determines that the Customer's CG System may endanger Town of Estes Park personnel, or that the continued operation of the Customer's CGS system may endanger the integrity of the Town's electrical system, the Town of Estes Park shall have the right to disconnect the Customer's CG System from the Town's electrical system. The Customer's CG System shall i remain disconnected until such time as the Town of Estes Park is satisfied that the condition(s) that caused the problems have been corrected. 11.Force Maieure Neither party will be liable for delays in performing its obligations to the extent that the delay is caused by an unforeseeable condition beyond its reasonable control without fault or negligence, including but not limited to, riots, wars, floods, fires, explosions, acts of nature, acts of government, or labor disturbances. 12. Compliance with Ordinances and Regulations The Customer shall perform all obligations under this Agreement in strict compliance with all applicable federal, state, and Town of Estes Park laws, rules, statutes, charter provisions, ordinances 13. Miscellaneous A. The provisions of this Agreement with respect to indemnification and liability will survive the termination of this Agreement. B. This Agreement, together with its attachments, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all previous written or oral communications, understandings, and agreements between the parties unless specifically stated otherwise within this Agreement. This Agreement may only be amended by a written agreement signed by both parties. 14. Acknowledgements Regarding Agreement By signing below, the Customer acknowledges understanding of the terms of this Agreement and that the Customer may not connect the CG System to the Town's electric system until the Town has received written authorization to connect from the appropriate electrical inspector. Within 15 days after notice from the electrical inspector that the CG System is ready for interconnection to the Town's electric system, the Town of Estes Park will inspect the CG System and will provide a written authorization to connect the CG System . LP3c. 4 . I. I I The parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. Town of Estes Park, Colorado By: Title: Attest: Town of Estes Park Clerk Approved as to Form: Town of Estes Park Attorney Customer: By: Title: State of Colorado ) ) ss. County of Larimer ) The foregoing Agreement was acknowledged before me this day of , 20__ by as of Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires LP3c. 5 I . , Exhibit A To the Agreement for Interconnection and Parallel Operation of Small Distributed Generation Resources between the Town of Estes Park and Dated ,20 <Insert description of CG System> LP3c. 6 1 . Exhibit B To the Agreement for Interconnection and Parallel Operation of Small Distributed Generation Resources between the Town of Estes Park and dated , 20_. Section A: Authorization The CG System may be connected to the Town of Estes Park electric system The CG System has been inspected and tested and the Customer is authorized to connect the CG System to the Town of Estes Park electric system. Signed by: Printed Name Printed Title: Date: LP3c. 7 ,, .. . Administration Memo To: The Honorable Mayor Pinkham and Board of Trustees From: Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Date: May 9,2008 Subject: Campground Shuttle Routes Background Consistent with the 2003 Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study, in 2006, the town began a three-year program to provide free public transportation to residents and guests during the busiest times of the summer season. The town was able to provide a cost effective service by joining Rocky Mountain National Park's contract with McDonald Transit (locally known as Rocky Mountain Transit.) McDonald Transit provides transportation to RMNP and uses the surplus bus inventory to provide transportation to the town. The 2003 study showed local bus service was the highest rated transportation improvement priority among residents and more than 60% of tourists indicated a willingness to use a bus around town orto RMNP. Shuttle riders spend less time parking and locked in traffic jams and more time shopping and enjoying our scenic town. Fewer cars on the road translates to less pollution and fuel used. Discussions to add the campground route began in the fall of 2006. Care was taken to ensure the campground route would connect with RMNP's hiker shuttle and our shopper shuttles. The surplus bus inventory used for the town routes are 30 feet in length, can seat 28 passengers and are ADA accessible. 2007 Complaints I received complaints from Highway 66 residents in 2007 when the campground route was added, specifically regarding the EP Campground stop. I explained it was an experimental route and adjustments would be made if necessary. I later explained that we thought the EP Campground had good ridership numbers and did not think it should be eliminated. Residents from Peakview Drive also complained about the bus. We were able to use an alternate route to accommodate their request via Highway 7 and Marys Lake Road. . 1 2008 Complaints Highway 66 residents made it perfectly clear they want the bus stop at EP Campground eliminated. If that isn't possible they are asking us to use a small bus because they are concerned with safety, speed and noise. They also asked if we could stop every other hour. The residents said people could walk or drive to the YMCA if they wanted to ride the bus. Staff believes driving defeats the purpose of a bus and the YMCA is not a transit hub designed to accommodate additional cars. Walking 1.3 miles on the road to the YMCA is unreasonable. The residents suggested a shortcut of y mile, but this would most likely cross private property and still remains unacceptable in staffs mind to ask anyone to walk ]4 mile to a bus stop. Consistency is the key with transit routes. An hour-long route is lengthy to begin with and if we changed the route to every 2 hours, it wouldn't be viewed as a reliable service. Because the YMCA was added to the campground route we expect ridership to increase. We also believe the totality of the route must be considered. We can't choose a small bus for the route because of one stop. The residents further said this area was a wildlife corridor and they have higher property values than other houses on Highway 66 because they've fought for 30 years to keep it a quiet, serene area. The residents' complaints are outlined in attachments C, D, E and F. Proposed Action Meeting - Staff invited the residents to a meeting on 5/6/08 to discuss how we can work together on this issue. In attendance were Jacquie Halburnt, Lowell Richardson, Tom Pickering, Joe Walsh (RMT), Kurt Oliver (RMT), Tom Elder (RMT), and residents Carol Beidleman, Dorothy Lehmkuhl, Ann Vernon, David Tiemeyer, and another resident. This meeting was largely unproductive because the residents were so upset they refused to work on compromises. Speed - Rocky Mountain Transit representatives indicated they take their role seriously and if there are speeding violations they will be appropriately addressed with their drivers. Additionally, we will ask the LarCo Sheriff's Office to increase patrol in this area. Noise - The police department will measure ambient noise in the area compared to noise due to the bus being present. We also reduced the hours of operation this year by 3 hours. There will be 11 stops per day at the EP Campground. The residents count this number twice saying the bus comes "up" the road and "down" the road for every stop. Environment - RMT has agreed to use 100% biodiesel fuel in its buses. Bus size - Tom Pickering and RMT representatives have located a gasoline powered 22 passenger bus and will review it on Monday. At this time, we have no idea if this is a viable option or what the cost increase would be to buy or lease this bus, but Tom will have more information at the meeting. . . I I Closing Comments According to Matt Reilly, the manager of the Estes Park Campground, it has 68 spaces with over 5,000 site nights with average of 3 people per site. This can result in 2-3,000 people every 2-3 days with turnover. Attachment B is a letter from Mr. Reilly indicating the importance of this shuttle stop to the campground. Attachment A is a draft schedule. The schedules have not been printed, but we would like to print the schedules in the next week for distribution in June. With rising gas prices, we think the shuttle system will be in demand more than everthis summer. The Campground shuttle ran July, August and weekends in September 2007. A total of 8,265 people rode the campground shuttle and approximately 680 (8%) were from the Estes Park Campground. There were 17 bus stops along the way. If all things were equal (which they aren't) and we wanted an equal amount of people to use each bus stop, we would expect approximately 486 people to use each stop throughout the 2 month and 8 day season based upon our total ridership numbers for the route. Highway 66 is classified by the county as a minor collector road and in our opinion, is a logical road for transit. A collector road is designed to provide a connection between destinations. It is not a local, neighborhood street. The residents of Highway 66 will be present at the board meeting to ask the board to make changes to the campground route. Attachments: A - Proposed Transit Map B - Letter from Matt Reilly, Estes Park Campground CD,E- Email correspondence from Carol Beidleman, Highway 66 resident F - Email correspondence from Dorothy Lehmkuhl, Highway 66 resident O m gÂ· W h o Woo m Ln i I g & 5 005 ~ 9 9 9 9 9 ---: N N N 49 . ' = 2 2-3 0 . N M I. . 0 6 6 .L L , e -322 0 rO 5 52% N 0., i M 2 fu J 5% 22 ' 2 E E .2 2 v & c * a 2 O i 0 8 25 M ;E aE E E 5 2- E =. 62 O t B O.W < O * L r .E 0. 22-Â»=e ' W I K =- 5 f E 4 & I u GliIDINI,Ii:II:ip>â€¢r . J J E.: :g g- E a, 4, - al N - . a. 553 .= ,Â£2-ZEBEZ LE.0 - - 2 >mooo=acka:=0> E C q E 0 >C Li_ â‚¬ 2-i -1 ........... 54 A. C - 2 EE r- u .A 'ls 4,4 z <Ci)* M ii 2'2 - ILS ... rm==mÂ» â€¢ . CiIiaozgui1 01Â· Ri Ide Dr.. {nE:9,9W"921'1 WIERD Â· ~' E 0 - I â‚¬NTIENTI .m / I4 % f \ U .000"9 O-0191Â£ g FA M (T! E If! Lf! Lf! if] LA l.6.41 E- 'C 00 0, .'-. O 9- O h CO e h 0 - 7, C MS ms. al 5 0000 00--WN Â· E-0 - ro M = 9-> 0 @F - U L 10. J '51 0 w.w -r 40 . g 2 MI 0 7% E 56 ~ = UU CNC . I C al U 0- > e . 7 4 2 03 1 / 6 6:1 L M 22 ~ E $ 147 0 0 0 12; u f > flo u 4 c J $ m.Ila k zad S C 0 0, 3%- 0 02- ........ a; _ Â·c 10 .r -< J (0 (D 47 + 'o 0 -76 Cott; L %~a~ ' 0 - ONEr COON- L I .tA ro C O. *-' R L 2 C .16 0 5-2 2 2 2 0 9 '= r: r: = 0! 2%822@28;68 ~ ~ ~ ME m J ..........il E. 059 .. O C iNi M < l# 05 j - = =8, 8 0-E < 5 g E 0 V CD C L - - - O L Â» U O 2% - 0 4 3 T Za & fo - 1.- -ofo k 'f t,1 = 2 -â€¢ 0 E 5 4 3 6.2 3 1& <A wu FLTr M TITE"Ell#E/~t, â€¢ iZ LL 2 Sa~zE 25 10 ....... OTE: During the busiest traffic periods, shuttles may experience departure delays of minutes. Is to s Cente t 1 a. ference Only. Map Not to Scale. *Routes and Stops are significa tl altered on 6 & 7 to Cottages CDaily June 28 through is~loncente ~'~~eftemm: er Jewa) SJOUS!/\ MJed 58153 84 4 12 u!baq sainoJ liv .11 0 lilli 0 00.. OE: VOINA - Jatual MJed sals:3 M leA! ised s! jois le!)ads ejepolilluoooe 444 ea 041 Jo aIUn4S 1SJ!.3 IN JaAeag Center at 10 a. aienbs hour an t e hal hour. orldmark ezeld MOIJeg 93 punoJbdule) 5TES PARK r~:en~eordge Park Vill . I Attachment B . May 7,2008 To Estes Park Town Trustees: Today we were made aware that there is a petition to the Town Board to discontinue the free shuttle bus service from the Estes Park Campground. This letter is our response to this petition. Last seaNon was the first season the free shuttle bus service was offered. We advertised the free shuttle bus service to our guests only as they arrived in our office at check-in. It turned out to be a nice surprise for our guests and a many of them took advantage of this free service. We received 100% positive feedback from those that used the free shuttle bus service from the campground. This season we added the free shuttle bus information to the campground map (5,000 maps) that will be issued to all of our guests. We are in the process of adding the free shuttle bus service information to our website. By phone, we include this free shuttle bus service information to prospective cami)ers that are interested in additional campground information. This free shuttle bus service has now become a "reservation decision maker" for many customers shopping for Colorado camping destinations for the following reasons: > Guests are now more comfortable flying into Denver, riding the Estes Park shuttle bus from the airport to Estes Park, without having to rent a vehicle while in Estes, knowing that a regular shuttle service exists from the Campground. 1 Many of our guests rent or own RV's and do not bring a tow vehicle. The free shuttle bus service is a huge benefit for these campers. These guests can now count on reliable transportation to and from town to purchase supplies, shop and dine at our local businesses, and enjoy the Estes Park experience without worrying about parking or traffic issues. I 1 ' 1 We all know what gas prices are these days and the free shuttle bus service from our campground is even more attractive to our guests on a tight budget. Basic camping vacations are expensive and the benefit of the free shuttle service for these guests has been the decision maker for many of our reservations this season. In addition to the consumer benefits, which we believe sets Estes Park apart from other competing destinations, it is our opinion that the following economic and environmental benefits are also created with the free shuttle service: > If the free shuttle service is discontinued, many of our guests will choose to drive their RV's or automobiles to the National Park or town. This only increases traffic in the campground, on Highway 66, in town, and in the National Park. The increased traffic not only increases safety issues within the campground itself, but also creates excess noise and emissions for the community that can be avoided. > Lost hikers from the National Park are fairly common during the season and this is an issue that needs to be taken into consideration. In past seasons we would either have to give these hikers a ride back to their camp because they could not reach their camping party by phone or the lost hikers have to call a taxi (a lot of times waiting several hours until the taxi could pick them up) to get a ride to their camp site. Now they take the free shuttle bus. > Our children and their friends and other families in the area used the free shuttle bus service a lot last season. It was a huge benefit not only for them, but for us as business owners for very obvious reasons. 1 The free shuttle bus service runs for a very short time during the summer. Many guests have mentioned that they would like to see the timeframe extended from Memorial Day Weekend through the Scottish Highlands Festival weekend. > The free shuttle bus service probably (we don't ask) cuts down on drinking and driving. . .. This season we anticipate free shuttle bus ridership to increase due to advertising we have done this year. The free shuttle bus service to the Estes Park Campground in our view is 100% positive 0% negative. We trust the Town Board will make the right decision concerning this matter. Sincerely, Matt and Nancy Reilly Concessionaires Estes Park Campground Attochment c . Jacqueline Halburnt From: Jacqueline Halburnt Sent: Wednesday, April 23,2008 4:50 PM To: BeidlemanC@aol.com CC: Trustees; Lowell Richardson; Tom Pickering Subject: Campground Routes Carol, Thanks for your email about the campground bus route. This is the third and final year of our commitment to run a three year "experimental" bus route system in Estes Park in the summer. We were able to piggyback off of Rocky,Mountain National Park's contract and pay a low rate ($45 / hour) to move people around our valley in the congested summer months. Mobility continues to be a challenge for the town and we continue to take opportunities to improve the situation. The Campground shuttle ran July, August and weekends in September 2007. This was the first year we tried a "campground" bus route. The idea was to stop at the campgrounds and bring people who may not have a car into town. I mentioned last year that it was a work in progress and we would be evaluating ridership numbers with the potential of tweaking the route as the season progressed. A total of 8,265 people rode the campground shuttle and approximately 680 (8%) were from the Estes Park Campground and 740 (9%) were from the YMCA. There were 17 bus stops along the way. If all things were equal (which they aren't) and we wanted an equal amount of people to use each bus stop, we would expect approximately 486 people to use each stop throughout the 2 month and 8 day season. In July, 3,151 people rode the campground shuttle and approximately 370 were from the Estes Park Campground. In August, 3,780 people rode the campground shuttle and approximately 240 were from the Estes Park Campground. We stopped at the YMCA the last 10 days of the month and 450 people used the shuttle. Weekends in September, 1,334 people rode the campground shuttle and approximately 70 people were from the Estes Park Campground and 290 were from the YMCA. We have changed the operating hours of all shuttles this year. They will leave the Visitor's Center at 10 a.m. and make their final stop back at the Visitor's Center at 9 p.m. Spur 66 is classified by the county as a minor collector road and in our opinion, is a logical road for transit. A collector road is designed to provide a connection between destinations. It is not a local, neighborhood street. We wholeheartedly want to work with our constituents. In the case of Peak View Drive, we were able to find an alternate route to reach the Mary's Lake Campground. Unfortunately in Spur 66's case, there are no alternatives to reach the YMCA and the EP Campground. If you'd like more information or to discuss this further, please feel free to contact me at 577-3705. Sincerely, Jacquie Halburnt 1 bate: 4/8)2008 10:08:19 PM Mountain Daylight Time 1 From:.BeidlemanC To: ihalburnt@estes.org 'CC: Irichardson@estes.orq, iwilliamson@estes.orq, sbpinkham@charter. net, sbpinkham@beyondbb.com, EB@ericblackhurst.com, dslsp, Ike287@msn.com, rockyhome@airbits.com, estesparkchuck@yahoo.corn On a quiet snowy day like today, it is easy to forget how our peaceful valley was so severely disrupted last summer, thanks to a decision perpetrated by the Town of Estes on Larimer County residents along Spur 66 [Larimer County 69B; Tunnel Road] to include the Estes Park Campground stop on the Brown Shopper Shuttle Route. Thus I have been particularly irked during the recent local pre-election coverage to hear the Estes Park candidates trumpet the success of the Shopper Shuttle last year and praise how "green" it is. While the ridership on some of the routes may warrant this perception, I would beg to differ on the Brown Route's inclusion of Spur 66. This portion of the Brown Route is neither environmentally nor fiscally responsible, and we are insisting that it be abandoned. Twenty eight times a day last summer, over 2,000 times from late June through September, starting at 8:30 in the morning and ending at a rude 9:30 at night, large loud buses thundered up Spur 66 past our house, audible from half a mile away because of the strain of the 5.5% grade uphill to the dead end at the Estes Park Campground shuttle stop. Then, having turned around, they would come roaring back down the road, sometimes going 50 mph in a 35 mph zone, without consideration for the safety of residents or visitors trying to pull out of driveways, walking or cycling along the road, or of the possibility of animals suddenly appearing along the tree-lined road. From anywhere inside our house we could hear these buses coming and going every hour like clockwork, fracturing our peace. And these large buses were ALMOST ALWAYS EMPTY. Early last summer, at the urging of neighbors with similar concerns who are signatories to this letter, I called the Town about the problems and inefficiency of the Brown Route's stop at the Estes Park Campground. Suzy Blackhurst said the Town was "not beyond changing the route," but my repeated communications Jacquie Halburnt, then Deputy Town Administrator, including concerns about safety, resulted in nothing more than her praising the success of the Brown Route, despite the low ridership. Jacquie did not mention, but I later found out, that similar concerns from the Peak View Drive neighborhood had led the Town to abandon that portion of the Brown Route, even after the shuttle route map had en printed. Why, then, did the Town not listen to our complaints about the Spur route in Larimer County? After all, re were only a few small shuttle stops along the entire three-mile length of Spur 66, and during the 73 days the shuttle , an, l never saw anyone at these other stops except for a couple local children, grabbing some free fun. According to the Town's own ridership statistics which Jacquie provided last October, the Estes Park Campground stop accounted for only 8% of the Brown Route's total ridership. Despite the capacity of these large buses, which could transport almost 500 people per day from the campground to town, the actual ridership averaged only 9 people per day. This would only save the use of perhaps three personal vehicles a day, minimal compared to 14 trips of a large bus which represents a huge waste of gas, and increased traffic, air and noise pollution, and expense (driver, leasing, fuel). It seems to me that in supporting the Spur route, the Town is ignoring the obvious rationale for efficient public transportation-reducing gas consumption, air pollution, and traffic congestion. It should also serve a broader community purpose, helping residents get to work or school and run errands, not just for promoting tourist purchases. Thus, not even considering the waste of the Town's budget and taxpayer dollars, we feel strongly that the Town should abandon the Spur portion of the Brown Route and respect the peace and quiet of this county residential area. Carol Beidleman and David Tiemeyer 3245 Tunnel Road Dorothy and Bruce Lehmkuhl 3255 Tunnel Road Jack and Ann Vernon 3175 and 3215 Tunnel Road Maxine and Dennis Kelly 3235 Tunnel Road ncy Berryman 3295 Tunnel Road 3 Mtoch ment -D I , Jacqueline Halburnt ' From: Jacqueline Halburnt Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 7:04 PM To: 'BeidlemanC@aol.com' Subject: RE: Campground Routes Carol, would you like to set up a time when we can sit down and have a discussion? I think we might be able to better communicate in person. My staffand I would be happy to talk with you and any of your neighbors at your convenience. Let me know Thanks Jacquie From: BeidlemanC@aol.com [mailto:BeidlemanC@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 29,2008 8:29 AM To: Jacqueline Halburnt Cc: Trustees; Lowell Richardson; Tom Pickering; Jackie Williamson; gwhite@estes.org; Bill Pinkham personal; Eric Blackhurst; dslsp@aol.com; Dorla Eisenlauer; Richard Homeier; Chuck Levine; fac026@binghamton.edu; annfrickvernon@yahoo.com; dorlehmkuhl@estesvalley. net; mlkelly@kingwoodcable.net; dmkelly@kingwoodcable.net; Besterman1320@yahoo.com; dmcontm@msn.com Subject: Re: Campground Routes Dear Jacquie, Thank you for your response on 23 April to our email of 8 April representing neighbors in the upper Spur 66 neighborhood regarding concerns over the inclusion of the Estes Park Campground on the Brown Shopper Shuttle Route. I am copying the mayor and trustees, none of whom responded directly to me, and am also including our original email below. I am also copying Town Attorney Greg White, as I am sure he would be interested in the safety concerns we raised. Neighb who have provided input are copied on this letter, and other neighbors have expressed similar concerns. Please respo to all of us in the future. We were greatly disappointed that your response did not address, nor express regret about, any of the concerns we expressed in our letter about the Estes Park Campground shuttle stop, not the noise and neighborhood disruptions, not even the speed and safety issues. And, surprisingly, given the Town's frequent bemoaning over limited resources and tight budgets, you did not express any concerns about the waste of Town resources related to shuttle fuel and operational expenses, even given the high cost of fuel which will undoubtedly rise during the peak visitor season. Your response relayed last year's Estes Park Campground ridership statistics, which you had provided me with when we spoke on October 23,2007. These statistics were, indeed, the same ones we based our assessment of inefficiency and other concerns on in our email. This 8% ridership represents less than one person picked up at that campground per bus trip, on buses which can accommodate from 28+standing (shopper shuttle bus) to 46 (school bus) riders. We also realized from your assertion that Tunnel Road is not "a local, neighborhood street" that you may not be familiar with the upper Spur 66 area. All of us live in the residential neighborhood between the YMCA and the Estes Park Campground, an area which includes residential houses in the Wind Cliff, Thunder Mountain and other homeowners associations on the south side and the Woodside neighborhood on the north side. It is, indeed, a local, neighborhood street, which dead ends at the East Portal Dam and Alva B. Adams water diversion tunnel, for which the road was built and named. This is, in fact, a key point in our message to you, because if this were not a dead-end road, the shuttle buses would not have to travel back and forth by our houses twice in rapid succession due to the road ending just uphill from us. You also mention that Tunnel Road is "a collector road, designed to provide a connection between destinations". That is applicable to the upper Spur residents only in that the destinations are our houses! It is great that the YMCA decided to allow a Brown Shopper Shuttle Route stop there-that is a location which can benefit from this service, and the town too, due to the high volume of visitors there. We were unaware of this inclusion until your message, but it explains why the only time we ever saw a number of riders on the bus coming up to the campground [b not picked up/dropped off at the Estes Park Campground] was during a couple weekends in September. Thus we woul advocate that the YMCA should be the turnaround on the Brown Route along Spur 66, with the buses returning to town 1 from there'and not continuing up to the Estes Park Campground. And we, therefore, continue to insist that the Estes Park I Campground shuttle stop be eliminated from the Brown Route. Nothing in your reply addressed any of the inefficiencies, documented through your own statistics, of that campground stop, and the YMCA can serve as a safe and effective shuttle terminus for the Brown Route along Spur 66, without disrupting county residential neighborhoods up the road. Perhaps you could review the county data gathered several years ago on traffic along Spur 66 above and below the ICA, which would show the major arterial traffic flow stops at the Y. If you were to refuse careful consideration of our direct request, perhaps there are other options we might negotiate, such as smaller buses and fewer runs up to the campground. Several times last summer, a smaller bus was used which was much quieter (and certainly more gas efficient) than the large school and shopper shuttle buses which were regularly used. Also, given that most times the buses did not pick up or drop off anyone at the campground with 14 runs a day [I can clearly see the number of passengers in the buses from my window], perhaps you should check your statistics to see which of the runs were most utilized (such as 3 times a day; morning, lunch hour and before dinner), so fewer runs could be scheduled and only during the heaviest use periods. However, reducing the Brown Route schedule by a couple runs a day (10 am -9 pm), which you stated is planned for this year, will not significantly decrease the disruption or waste of including the Estes Park Campground. We would greatly appreciate it if you would read our original letter again and respond to our specific concerns, especially about noise, speed, safety, and schedule, in order to find a compromise that will work for everyone. We are certainly willing to place a letter to the editor in the newspaper, since it would allow others impacted by the Shopper Shuttle routes around town and in the county to become aware of our concerns, as they may share them also. But we had hoped that you would opt to address our concerns directly with us first and not dismiss them outright. Also, if this year's shuttle operation is going to be considered on a Town meeting agenda, we would like to know so we can attend for giving comment; if not, we would like to have it put on a Town meeting agenda with sufficient lead time before the summer to consider possible alternatives. We also personally invite you and anyone else interested to come up here to experience a "test drive" of the bus going by as we experience it from our houses, so you can hear the noise as it strains up the hill and races back down at 50 mph! As long-time county residents in this upper Spur area, we continue to feel that the Town is more focused on providing tourist services rather than considering the needs and concerns of local residents. The Town needs to be more sensitive to the implications of its planning beyond its jurisdiction. rol Beidleman and David Tiemeyer 0Â£45 Tunnel Road beidlemanc@aol.com dtiemeyer@aol.com Dorothy and Bruce Lehmkuhl 3255 Tunnel Road dorlehmkuhl@estesvalley. net Jack and Ann Vernon 3175 and 3215 Tunnel Road fac026@binghamton.edu annfrickvernon@yahoo.com Maxine and Dennis Kelly 3235 Tunnel Road mlkelly@kingwoodcable. net dmkelly@kingwoodcable.net Nancy Berryman 3295 Tunnel Road Besterman1320@yahoo.com Donna Clark 2728 Cumulus Drive dmcontm@msn.com Subj: Eliminate Spur on Brown Shopper Shuttle Route 2 Mach ment E Jacqueline Halburnt # From: Jacqueline Halburnt Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 9:51 PM To: 'BeidlemanC@aol.com' CC: fac026@binghamton.edu; annfrickvernon@yahoo.com; dorlehmkuhl@estesvalley. net; mlkelly@kingwoodcable.net; dmkelly@kingwoodcable.net; Besterman1320@yahoo.com; dmcontm@msn.com; DTiemeyer@aol.com Subject: RE: Campground Routes Carol, the empty shuttles you are seeing are the bus company conducting required training for its drivers. The shuttles will run from June 28 through August 31 and weekends in September. The Estes Park Campground is included in the campground "brown" route this year and will run from 10 a.m. - 9 p.m. I thought it would be good to put a face on this discussion instead of using email, where words can be misinterpreted. As I mentioned before, the staff recommendation is to include the EP Campground. I've spoken with the manager Matt, and he confirmed they view the stop as a big benefit, which adds another layer to the campground experience. Especially with high gas prices, we anticipate more people using the shuttle and fewer cars on the road once they reach their destination. If we remove them from the route, it will leave him wondering why we stop at all the other campgrounds and not his. The buses we use are part of Rocky Mountain National Park's contracted fleet. They are allowing us the use their "leftover" buses and - they are all the larger buses. We also believe we need the capacity since we are including the YMCA this year. I hope this answers your questions, but let me know if not. I spoke with Dorothy Lehmkul today and we have a meeting set for tomorrow at 4 p.m. in the town administration conference room. Anyone who's available is more than welcome to attend Thanks Jacquie From: BeidlemanC@aol.com [mailto:BeidlemanC@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 11:59 PM To: Jacqueline Halburnt Cc: fac026@binghamton.edu; annfrickvernon@yahoo.com; dorlehmkuhl@estesvalley.net; mlkelly@kingwoodcable.net; dmkelly@kingwoodcable.net; Besterman1320@yahoo.com; dmcontm@msn.com; DTiemeyer@aol.com Subject: Re: Campground Routes Hi Jacquie, Thank you for your response. I regret that, due to my busy work schedule, I am not easily able to meet during the day, only on weekends and evenings. This coming week is definitely a busy one, but perhaps the week after. I cannot speak for my neighbors, who also have busy and varied schedules, and would need to check with them. At this point, I am wondering what the purpose of the meeting would be--what you might be able to tell us or negotiate about with the neighbors along the upper Spur, past the YMCA? I have already seen several empty Shopper Shuttles driving past our house this week (why?) and, based on Friday's Estes Park Trail Gazette and The Town Bugle, it sounds as if everything is already set for this year. Both articles state that the Shopper Shuttle system will include the YMCA of the Rockies this year, daily starting June 28, and mention the Brown - Southwest "campground" shuttle, but do not specifically mention the Estes Park Campground stop. If you can please provide us with more specific information about this year's plans related to the Estes Park Campground stop, and possible alternatives, then we can communicate about getting together with you. Carol Beidleman (cc the Upper Spur neighbors) ************** Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. (http:#food.aol.com/dinner-ton ight?NCI D=aolfod00030000000001) 1 Mach,nent F I Jacqueline Halburnt 'From: dorlehmkuhl@estesvalley.net -ent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 11:13 AM : Trustees c: Jacqueline Halburnt Subject: Brown Shuttle Route stop Re: Request to end Brown Shuttle Route at YMCA First, let me say that we fully support the shuttle bus system in general and believe it to be a good thing for our valley on many levels. I feel I know three of you (Dorla Eisenlauer, John Ericson and Richard Homeier) to varying degrees, and hope you know that I am a level-headed citizen who cares deeply about our community. One of the agenda items on next week's board meeting will be my neighbor's and our request that you reconsider the shuttle stop at the EP campgrounds at the end of Tunnel Road / Spur 66, ending the route instead at the YMCA. All of us bought and live in our particular properties because of the peacefulness of living on a dead-end road in a rural atmosphere, and our property values are partially based on low traffic. It is normally very quiet out here; so much so that many of our visitors often revel in that tranquility. We and they did, that is, until last year when the shuttle busses shattered our peacefulness 28 times a day (14 trips a day, up and back) seven days a week, for over two of the most beautiful months here! though we understand the hours have been slightly shortened for 2008, last year your busses , ssed our homes over 2,000 times (not counting practice drives) - during the hottest times of the summer when we had no option but to have our windows open and hear these noisy intrusions into our lives two times every hour for 14 hours a day. They were loud enough to be audible in the back of our log home with the windows closed, and that conversations on the deck were negatively impacted until the busses passed by. Ridership from the campground was less than one person per bus trip. While this is an average, no doubt there were few individual riders; more likely the riders were in groups of 2 to 4 people, since couples and small families tend to camp out there. On average my guess is these 14 bus trips every day saved perhaps three car trips that those 9 riders would have taken. We understand that one of the purposes of this bus is less pollution. It is a fact that three (or even 4 or 5) car trips a day would cause far less pollution than 14 bus trips a day. It is 1-1/3 miles from the YMCA entrance to the EP campgrounds; 2-2/3 miles round trip. That means that last year your 1,000 bus trips totaled 2,666 miles just between the YMCA and the end of the road. I don't know what your per mile cost is, but that is a significant number of miles and cost that could be saved in 2008 if the route terminated at the YMCA, so say nothing of safety issues avoided. We maintain that anyone in the campground got there some way in the first place, so 99% of the campers have vehicles of their own, and could easily drive to a bus stop to board the bus ro town or the Park if they so oose. Many campers are also hikers who could easily hike down to catch the bus at the YMCA. 1 One argument we have heard from the town is concern about ADA, but we cannot understand 'what ' this has to do with whether a stop is made or not. While we, too, are very concerned about ADA issues, the shuttle system is no more responsible for a person with disabilities at the EP campground this year, for instance, than they were at the YMCA (where the bus did not stop) last year. We understand the shuttle route was moved from Peakview last year for the same reasons, and Hwy. 7 is being used as an alternative route. There is no alternative route for Spur 66, but a compromise alternative would be to end the route at the YMCA. Some of you on the Board may not be aware of the Spur 66 Corridor Management Plan drawn up in Feb., 1996 by a coordinated effort between the residents of Spur 66, the National Park, CSU, YMCA, Town of Estes, Larimer County, the EV Recreation & Park District, and others. The 69 page document contains non-binding guidelines including "maintaining the unique assets of the area;" "minimal commercial development;" "low... density;" a "rural feeling;" and cites keeping "all man-made intrusions" to a minimum. Finally, it is not only the residents who are negatively impacted by the shattering of tranquility along this route: A designated trail parallels the length of the route, which is heavily frequented in summer by bikers, hikers, runners, horseback riders, dog-walkers, excursion groups from the YMCA and others whose serenity is also burst by the offensive intrusion of these loud, metropolitan style busses. Not only that, large groups of trail-riders on horseback cross the road from between the trees on a steep trail on each side before the Thunder Mountain entrance, causing a significant safety issue. In conclusion, we strongly believe that it is wrong for the Town of Estes to encroach upon the peacefulness of Spur 66 when it makes no economic nor pollution-saving sense to do so. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dorothy Lehmkuhl 2 .. May 13, 2008 My name is Carol Beidleman, and I have lived at 3245 Tunnel Road (upper Spur 66) for the past 20 years. I am here representing other Tunnel Road neighbors who were not able to make it to this meeting. I appreciate that Jacquie Halburnt extended the invitation to be on the agenda tonight. We are seeking to eliminate the Estes Park Campground stop from the Town's Brown Shopper Shuttle Route, thereby eliminating the negative impacts of these shuttles on the county residents of the Upper Spur 66 (aka Tunnel Road), beyond the YMCA. I would first like to ask if any of the Town staffor trustees live on a road where the Shopper Shuttle goes by right in front ofyour house 28 times a day? If so, you would understand our perspective. Jacquie, the Mayor and Trustees have seen our emails since April 8, Jacquie's response two th weeks later, and our reply on April 29 . These represented the comments of 10 residents ofthe Upper Spur, and there were others who have expressed similar concerns. The Mayor and Trustees would also know from those messages that I spoke with Jacquie several times last year about the same issues, from immediately after the first weekend the shuttles started running to October after they had concluded. Nothing we said last summer received any response or resolution from the Town, thus we contacted Jacquie again this April about this summer's plans. Jacquie suggested a meeting with the neighbors, which was held on May 6th, saying, "I think we might be able to better communicate in person." I would hazard a guess that Jacquie got more than she bargained for at that meeting, as I am sure she and her staff were unprepared for the strength ofthe neighbors' reaction to both the shuttle and the political posturing ofthe Town staff and one ofthe drivers present, which made things worse. Here are a few salient points, to refresh you about our concerns. We had to endure the Shopper Shuttle roaring by our houses 28 times a day, for a total of over 2,000 times, from last July through September. These large loud buses, sometimes a school bus, sometimes an actual Shopper Shuttle bus, were audible coming from halfa mile away because ofthe strain up the 5.5% grade straight uphill to the dead end at the Estes Park Campground shuttle stop. They then turned around just up from our houses and roared back down the hill, often in excess ofthe 35 mph speed limit, without being mindful of residents or visitors trying to pull out of driveways, recreating along the road, or the possibility of wildlife and horses suddenly crossing the road. From anywhere inside our house we could hear these buses coming and going every hour like clockwork; it absolutely fractured our peace all day every day, and during the most precious months of the year. And our frustrations were magnified by the fact that these large buses were almost always empty. Thus our complaints about the shuttle to Jacquie and others have been simple and consistent from the start. The buses that run beyond the YMCA to the Estes Park Campground stop are TOO BIG, TOO LOUD, TOO FAST, TOO FREQUENT, TOO DISRUPTIVE, TOO IRRITATING, TOO INEFFICIENT, TOO WASTEFUL, TOO POLLUTING, AND represent TOO blatant an overreach of the Town's authority into a county residential area, catering to commercial interests without any consideration of the impacts on the neighborhood. This is absolutely another case of implementation without representation. And this is not a suburban residential area; it is an area that is mostly natural and protected (by design and defense), and has a very rural feeling, where noise carries a great distance. .. The Town will give you statistics that they say show that the Estes Park Campground shuttle stop was a resounding success, from the standpoint of ridership. However, that stop represented only 8% ofthe Brown Route's ridership, 667 ofthe 8,265 total on that route. And when measured by the capacity ofthese large buses, that means less than one person per bus (2/3 of a person to be exact), 9 per day, instead of the 500 people per day which could be accommodated. Of course, the real picture, which we can see from our window (we all either work at home or are retired), is that the buses were usually empty. So, occasionally, there must have been a small family group. Thus if you weigh the infliction on the neighborhood, if one cared, against the inefficiency of this form of transportation, you would have to question how 9 people on a total of 14 trips of a large empty bus, which might get 6-10 miles per gallon, would be more "green" than a couple cars which might get anywhere from double to triple to, as for our Prius, over 5 times, the gas mileage of a large bus. This realty makes the argument proffered at our recent meeting, that the Town's higher purpose for instigating this shuttle system was to save the environment and to serve the park seem a bit misplaced and/or disingenuous. Were it a hybrid fleet, such as Boulder has, sized for the ridership, and not called a "shopper shuttle", it might get you closer to that lofty goal. We also heard at our meeting last week that these Shopper Shuttle buses were needed at the Estes Park Campground to provide ADA services. Apparently, the Town staff didn't realize that a small, quiet ADA bus already serves the neighborhood, and the school buses used last year didn't meet ADA criteria anyway. In addressing our concerns about speed and safety, one of the bus drivers at our meeting last week stated that these buses couldn't go 50 mph (which I clocked one at). He also stated that the speed limit on our stretch of road was 45 mph one way and 35 mph the other. It was a bit of an embarrassment when another bus driver corrected him. Perhaps he needs more training. Again, who would know the speed limit better than the neighbors? In the end, we continue to be amazed by the Town's disregard ofthe concerns ofthe county residents, more interested in the Estes Park Campground manager's comment that "they view the stop as a big benefit, which adds another layer to the campground experience." What about the experience of this residential neighborhood? Thus we are simply asking that the Town take a positive action to respect and resolve these issues, which, from our perspective would be, first and foremost, to eliminate the Estes Park Campground stop from the Brown Shopper Shuttle Route. If that is absolutely not possible at this point, for this year (which I can't see why it wouldn't be; after all the Peak View Route was eliminated last year due to neighborhood complaints after the shuttle map was printed), then we would ask forthe use of smaller buses, which are quieter, more gas efficient, and can hold speed down and stop more quickly if necessary, and less runs per day and only when the maximum number of passengers might use the shuttle. Thank you for your time and consideration. I would ask forthis to be an action item on the agenda. Estes Park -412# -- =finÂ·.... ILU.11.UJJ 1.ItzÂ·=Er:=611LLL~iLU.1 m -FE~-Wipit.,74â€žhkA,4?7 -, Mi#Ii#IH.ma ....9144 . H ousing Autnority May 14,2008 Honorable Mayor Bill Pinkham Town of Estes Park. P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mayor Pinkham: It is with great pleasure that the Board of Commissioners for the Estes Park Housing Authority recommends Mr. Matthew Heiser to fill the current vacant commissioner position on the Estes Park Housing Authority Board of commissioners. If approved by the Board of Trustees, Mr. Heiser will serve a five-year term commencing on May 14, 2008 and expiring on May 14,2013. We respectfully request the Board of Trustees accept our recommendation. The EPHA commissioners are excited about Matthew's pending appointment and are confident that his commitment to our board and to affordable housing will both compliment and mirror that of the Trustees. Matthew brings a passion and energy to our board and we are anxious to have this recommendation approved. Should you have any questions or concerns on this matter, please do not hesitate to call. S*cerely, Rita Kurelj a Executive Director Estes Park Housing Authority 170 MacGregor Avenue, RO. Box 1200 â€¢ Estes Park, CO 80517 â€¢ (970) 577-3730 â€¢ Fax (970) 586-0249 , .. I . Finance Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board ofTrustees Town Administrator Halbumt From: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer Date: May 13, 2008 Subject: In regards to Resolutions to create Fire Services Fund and to supplementally appropriate funds for the 2008 Budget Background Following the adoption of the 2008 budget, circumstances have arisen that require reallocation of funding. The recommended adjustments and explanations are as follows: 1. Creation of a Special Revenue Fund entitled "Fire Services Fund". The purpose of the fund is to segregate activities previously listed under the General Fund (Fire Department - #101- 2200). With the creation of the Fire Services Special Revenue Fund, monies collected specifically for fire services can be retained within the Fund, and can be carried over from year to year specifically for purposes set forth by the Fund. Presently (the Fire Department as part of the General Fund), monies collected for fire services would not necessarily be segregated for future fire department-related uses. 2. In order to provide financial wherewithal to the Fire Services Fund, the budgeted revenues and expenditures need to be transferred from the existing Fire Department (#101-2200) portion of the General Fund to the Fire Services Fund. Nonnally, this would require transferring monies in an amount adequate to "cover" the $921,027 appropriated by the Fire Department portion of the General Fund. However, it is currently estimated that the fire services billing will yield approximately $125,000 in collections. As a result, staff estimates that the General Fund needs to provide only $800,000 to the new fund through transfers, rather than the budgeted $921,027. Documentation Attached please find two spreadsheets that demonstrate the financial effects of the creation o f the Fire Services Fund. To summarize, 1. In the General Fund, ., .. ,. a. Revenues will decrease $16,600 , b. Expenditures will decrease $921,027 c. Transfers out ofthe General Fund will increase $800,000 d. General Fund balance will increase $104,472, to $3,581,389 2. In the Fire Services Fund, "new" and "amended" line items have been noted. New items include the estimated proceeds from the $130/parcel fire services fees ($125,000), interest income ($427), and the $800,000 transfer from the General Fund. The fire truck estimate has also been updated. Public Works Supeiinten(tent Mahany reported that the price of steel has increased 68% since the 2008 budget was put into place. We have therefore increased the estimated purchase price on the fire truck from $270,000 to $291,000. The resulting transfers of activity from the General Fund, coupled with the estimated adjustments, will result in a targeted ending fund balance as of December 31,2008, of$0. Action steps requested Staff requests creation ofthe Fire Services Special Revenue Fund and the appropriation ofmonies that will allow the General and Fire Services Funds to operate under accordance of the proposed amended 2008 budget. This may be accomplished by passing the two resolutions accompanying this document. â€¢Page 2 1 ... 05/06/08 Projected Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balance General Fund Town of Estes Park 2008 Budget Revised Budget Budget 2008 2008 1 Revenues $10,293,877 $10,277,277 Expenditures Personnel Services 4,785,409 4,442,950 Operations and Maintenance 3,179,909 2,881,341 Total Current Expenses 7,965,318 7,324,291 Capital 736,000 456,000 Subtotal 8,701,318 7,780,291 2006 Rollovers 0 0 Total Expenses $8,701,318 $7,780,291 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over expenditures 1,592,559 2,496,986 Other financing uses (cont/transfers out) (3,165,418) (3,965,418) Proceeds from EP Housing Authority Loan 860,000 860,000 Other financing sources (transfers in) 1,007,611 1,007,611 Increase (decrease) in fund balance 294,752 399,179 (Estimated) beginning fund balance 3,182,165 3,182,165 (Estimated) ending fund balance $3,476,917 $3,581,344 Gen fund bal/Total current expenses 44% 49% Gen fund bal/(Total Expenses + Transfers Out) 29% 30% t , '1 I ' Fire Services Fund ' Special Revenue Fund, #TBD Town of Estes Park 2008 Budget Scope * Response services diresuppression,rescues, hazmatspills, EMS of * Water supplies -dry hydrants, cisterns, hydrant jlow tests Services: * Education/outreach - public,fire safety, firefightereducation, child all-hazard, wild land safety/mitigation, town employees * Records management - incidents, grants, ISO, personnel/training * Misc- assists tootheragencies, standby events, plan reviews,firesafety inspections (GENERAL FUND) (FIRE FUND) Budget Budget 2008 2008 REVENUES Grants absorbed by General Fund $15,000 Charges for fire services 125,000 <<new Other absorbed by General Fund 1,600 Investment/interest 427 <<new Total Revenues 0 142,027 Perionnel Services $342,459 $342,459 Operation! & Maintenance 298,568 298,568 Total Current Expenses 641,027 641,027 Capital 280,000 301,000 Rollovers 0 0 Total Expenditures $921,027 $942,027 inc/dec over prior year Excess of revenues over/(under) expenditures (921,027) (800,000) Other financing sources (transfers in - General Fund) N/A 800,000 <<new Other financing uses (transfers out) N/A 0 Increafe/(decrease) in Fund balance N/A 0 Beginning Fund balance N/A 0 Ending Fund balance N/A $0 Budget Comments 2008 (General Fund) 2008 (Fire Services Fund) Revenues (totals) 16,600 16,600 95% match from FEMA grant for mobile data terminal 0 0 WUI Educ Coordinator seasonal position grant 10,000 10,000 50% match for thermal imaging camera FD/Grant 5,000 5,000 National fire academy reimbursement 1,600 1,600 Personnel Levels Fire Chief 1.00 1.00 Secretary 1.00 1.00 Admin Training Captain 1.00 1.00 I , . 4 Fire Services Fund Special Revenue Fund, #TBD Town of Estes Park 2008 Budget Scope * .Response services -fire suppression. rescues, hazmatspills. EMS of * Water supplies - dry hydrants, cisterns, hydrantflow tests Services: * Education/outreach-public fire safety, firefightereducation. chitdall-hazard. wild land safety/mitigation, town employees * Records management - incidents, grants, ISO, personneUtraining * Misc -assists toother agencies, standby events, plan reviews,firesafety inspections (GENERAL FUND) (FIRE FUND) Budget Budget 2008 2008 Wildland Coordinator 0.50 0.50 Volunteer Firefighters 33.00 33.00 Fire pension contribution 81,000 81,000 to fund to max level in 2008 Operations & Maintenance IT Services 14,764 14,764 Maintenance contracts 21,325 21,325 Buildings ('08 = upgrade security system) 12,724 12,724 Vehicle equipment/fuel 37,900 37,900 Future vehicle purchases/replacement 111,173 111,173 Other equipment/machinery 2,000 2,000 Data processing equipment (PCs) 5,400 5,400 Communication equipment 7,700 7,700 Other equipment (fire hose replacement) 11,322 11,322 Personal Safety equipment 20,476 20,476 Education/training 14,820 14,820 Utilities 19,491 19,491 Capital Volunteer Firefighter statue 0 0 Vehicle 0 0 Mobile data terminals contingent upon grant 0 0 Equipment (thermal imaging camera) 10,000 10,000 Replace pumper Mack G-80 (truck only) 270,000 291,000 <<amended 280,000 301,000 . 1 .. . RESOLUTION NO. 09-08 WHEREAS, the operation of the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department is currently funded through the Town's General Fund; and WHEREAS, beginning in March of 2008, the Town has received subscription fees for fire service from property residents and owners located within the Service Area of the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department within unincorporated Larimer County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the subscription fees for fire service were authorized by the terms and conditions of the Larimer County Fire Agency Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town, Larimer County, Colorado, and the Larimer County Sheriffs Office; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Board of Trustees of the Town to account for all revenues and expenditures of the Fire Department in a special revenue fund separate from the Town's General Fund; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Board of Trustees that all subscription fees for fire services be deposited within the special revenue fund to partially fund the operation of the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: 1. That a special revenue fund is hereby created and entitled the "Fire Service Fund". 2. That sufficient revenues shall be transferred from the Town's General Fund to meet all budgeted expenditures for the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department for 2008 and all future years. 3. That all subscription fees for fire services received by the Town shall be deposited in the Fire Service Fund. 4. That the Fire Service Fund be subject to applicable budgetary, appropriation and contract review requirements previously approved for all revenues and expenditures associated with the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department (#101-2200) as more specifically set forth in the Town's General Fund. e . , I INTRODUCED, READ, AND PASSED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK on this day of 2008. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk % 1 .. . RESOLUTION NO. 10-08 A RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING SUPPLEMENTAL SUMS OF MONEY TO FUNDS AND SPENDING AGENCIES IN THE AMOUNTS AND FOR THE PURPOSES AS SET FORTH BELOW FOR THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO FOR THE BUDGET YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 2008, AND ENDING THE LAST DAY OF DECEMBER 2008. WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has adopted the annual budget in accordance with the Local Government Budget Law on November 27,2007; and WHEREAS, additional appropriations from the following fund in the following amount is necessary: 1. $800,000 from the unappropriated surplus of the General Fund WHEREAS, it is not only required by law, but also necessary to appropriate the surpluses provided in the budget from the fund listed above, so as not to impair the operations of the Town. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the above amount is hereby appropriated from the unappropriated surplus of the General Fund, to the Fire Services Fund. ADOPTED this day of ,2008. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk '. 0 .. I . TOWN of ESTES PARK ESTES PARK Public Works Department COLORADO INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: May 8,2008 TO: Town of Estes Park Board FROM: Scott Zurn P.E. Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Mountain Pine Beetle Management Ordinance Background: The Mountain Pine Beetle is beginning its proliferation in the Estes Park valley and its immediate adjacent forests. The Town is in a position to decide to actively manage this infestation through education, identification and enforcement. Estimates are that most of all Lodge Pole pines will be lost and up to 60% of Ponderosa pines will be lost without active mitigation. The Public Works Dept. is recommending the adoption of an ordinance which requires removal and elimination of invested trees on privately owned properties. Action: Staff seeks authorization of an ordinance regulating the management of the Mountain Pine Beetle on privately owned properties. This ordinance is similar to the current State and County regulations. Both the State and Larimer County regulations are enforceable within the Town limits; however the resources from these agencies are currently stressed. After adoption of this ordinance the community may call the Public Works Dept. for education and identification of infected trees. This ordinance can be enforced through the municipal court and if required as a referral to the Larimer County Forester's office. The Town has currently trained three employees and three members of the Tree board to investigate and do beetle identification. This training has been provided by U.S. Forest Service area foresters. At this time there will be no budget impacts for this service. , .. 4 ORDINANCE NO. 08-08 AN ORDINANCE DECLARING THE FAILURE TO MITIGATE THE INFESTATION OF BEETLES WITHIN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK AS NUISANCES AND PROVIDING FOR THE ABATEMENT OF SAID NUISANCES WHEREAS, the presence of beetles and beetle infested trees presents a real and substantial risk to the health of the lodgepole, spruce and ponderosa pine forests located in and around the Town; and WHEREAS, the presence of mountain pine beetles and beetle infested trees within the Town is predicted to result in mortality rates of 100% of infested lodgepole pines and 60% of infested ponderosa pine if left unmitigated; and WHEREAS, the presence of the spruce ips beetle and beetle infested trees presents a real and substantial risk to the health of the spruce forest located in and around the Town; and WHEREAS, the presence of the douglas fir beetle and beetle infested trees presents a real and substantial risk to the health of the douglas fir forest located in and around the Town; and WHEREAS, the presence of beetle infested trees within the Town also presents a real and substantial risk to the public health, safety and welfare in the form of an increased risk of a rapidly spreading fire, and a significant threat to the aesthetic values which are of great importance to the social and economic vitality of the Town; and WHEREAS, there exists a growing beetle epidemic within the Town which threatens our community and its valuable natural and scenic resources, and WHEREAS, there exists an urgent need for a Town-wide policy to effectively manage the existing and future threats to public and private property caused by the beetles, and the provisions of this Ordinance reflect such a policy; and WHEREAS, Section 31-15-401 (1)(c) C.R.S. provides that the Town of Estes Park may declare what is a nuisance, abate the same, and impose fines upon parties who may create such nuisance or fail to abate such nuisance; and WHEREAS, Section 31-20-105 C.R.S. provides that the Town of Estes Park, by ordinance, may cause any and all delinquent charges made or levied to be certified to the Treasurer of Larimer County and be collected and paid over by the Treasurer of Larimer County in the same manner as taxes; and WHEREAS, the provisions of this Ordinance are necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare; and 1 } '1 WHEREAS, the inspection provisions contained in this Ordinance are necessary in the interest of public safety within the meaning of Rule 241 (b)(2) of the Colorado , Municipal Court Rules of Procedure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO. Section 1: The Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park shall be amended by the addition of Chapter 8.05 entitled "Beetle Infested Trees" as follows: 8.05 Beetle Infested Trees 8.05.010 Definitions: In this chapter, include the following words shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly requires otherwise: "Infested Tree" means (i) a tree alive or dead, which is infested with the mountain pine beetle, spruce ips beetle, and/or douglas fir beetle; and (ii) any species or variety of tree that is dead or substantially dead, and all deadwood to which the bark is still attached which, because of their condition, may serve as a breeding place for the mountain pine beetle, spruce ips beetle, and/or douglas fir beetle. "Destruction" means cutting and chipping an infested tree; or other method of disposing of an infested tree approved by the Director. "Director" means the Public Works Director of the Town or his/her designated agent(s). "Mountain Pine Beetle" means the species Dendroctonus ponderosae. "Spruce Ips Beetle" means the species ips hunter and ips pilifrons. "Douglas Fir Beetle" means the species dendroctonus pseudotsugae. "Occupant" means any person in physical possession of any Lot, tract or parcel of real property located within the corporate limits of the Town who is not the owner of such property. For the purposes of this chapter, "occupant" does not include the owner of an easement or right-of- way across property. "Owner" or "landowner" means any person who owns any lot, tract or parcel of real property located within the corporate limits of the Town. 2 1% 8 . "Person means an individual, association, partnership, . corporation or other legal entity. "Property" means any lot, tract or parcel of real property located within the corporate limits of the Town. 8.05.020 Duty of Landowner and Occupant to Permit Inspection: An owner or occupant whose property may have located on it one more infested tree(s) shall allow the Director to enter such property for the purpose of immediate inspection of the trees located upon such property when at least one of the following events has occurred: A. The owner'or occupant has requested the inspection; B. A neighboring landowner or occupant has reported a suspected infested tree and requested an inspection; or C. The Director has made a visual observation from a public right-of-way or area and has reason to believe that infested tree or trees exist on the property of the owner or occupant. 8.05.030 Inspection for Infested Trees: A. Subject to the requirements and limitations of this section, the Director shall have the right to enter upon any property, whether public or private, during reasonable hours for the purpose of inspecting for the existence of an infested tree when at least one of the three events described in Section 8.05.020 has occurred. However, no agent or employee of the Town shall enter upon any property to inspect for an infested tree without the permission of the owner or occupant, or without an inspection warrant issued pursuant to this section. B. If verbal permission to inspect the property from the affected owner or occupant is not obtained, the Town shall send written notice to the landowner and any occupant of the property advising that the Director desires to inspect the property for an infested tree. The notice shall be sent by certified mail. The notice may be sent to the landowner at the address to which tax notices are sent according to the records of the Larimer County treasurer and to the occupant at the property address. Alternatively, the Director may personally serve such notice upon the affected owner or occupant. Where possible, inspections shall be scheduled and conducted with the concurrence of the owner or occupant. C. If permission to enter upon and inspect the property is not obtained within 10 days after the notice described in subsection B of this section has been received, or within 10 days of date of service if the notice is personally served, the Director may request that an inspection warrant be issued by the Municipal Court. The Municipal Court Judge shall issue an inspection warrant upon presentation by the Director of an affidavit satisfying the 3 ' requirements of Rule 241 (b)(2) of the Colorado Municipal Court Rules of Procedure. The municipal court judge may issue an area-wide inspection , warrant pursuant to this section unless otherwise prohibited by law. D. In case of an emergency involving imminent danger to public health, safety or welfare, the Director may enter the property to conduct an emergency inspection without a warrant and without complying with the requirements of this section. 8.05.040 Notice of Infestation and Removal: A. If the Director determines that property contains one or more infested tree(s), the Director shall notify the owner and any occupant of the property. Such notice shall be given either by certified mail or personal delivery. B. The notice shall: 1. advise the owner and occupant that the property contains one or more infested trees; 2. advise the owner and occupant of Town-approved methods for the removal and destruction of infested trees; and 3. advise the owner and occupant that all infested trees must be removed within 10 days following receipt of the notice, or that an acceptable plan and schedule for removal of the infested trees must be submitted to the Director within such 10 day period. 8.05.050 Abatement Order: A. In the event the owner fails to comply with the Director's notice as described in Chapter 8.05.040 by removing the infested trees or submitting an acceptable schedule for such removal within the applicable 10 day period, the Town has the authority to provide for and complete the removal by obtaining and acting on an abatement order. B. Upon the expiration of the period of notice, or at any time thereafter if the required action has not taken place, the Town may apply to the municipal court for an abatement order. C. An application for an abatement order shall be accompanied by an affidavit affirming that: 1. the Director has determined that the subject property has one or more infested trees; 2. the Director has complied with the notice requirements of Chapter 8.05.040; and 3. the owner has failed to remove the infested trees, has failed to submit an acceptable plan for removal of the infested trees within the required time, or has failed to remove the infested trees pursuant to the accepted plan. 4 1 +.. I I D. The Town shall give notice to the owner and any occupant of the property of , its application for an abatement order either by certified mail or by personal service of the notice. E. The notice of application for an abatement order shall include a copy of the Town's application and its affidavit in support thereof, as well as the date, time, and place at which the Town will appear before the Municipal Court to request entry of the abatement order. F. At the stated time, date, and place, the Municipal Court Judge shall review the Town's application for an abatement order, the affidavit, any statement of the Town offered in support thereof, as well as any statement and evidence presented by the owner or occupant, if present. G. The Municipal Court Judge shall issue an abatement order if: 1. the subject property has one or more infested trees; 2. the Director has complied with the notice requirements of Chapter 8.05.040; and 3. the owner has failed to remove the infested trees, has failed to submit an acceptable plan and schedule for removal of the infested trees within the required time, or has failed to remove the infested trees pursuant to the accepted plan. H. An owner is responsible under this chapter for any infested trees permitted to remain on the owner's property by an occupant after the Director has given notice of a violation pursuant to Chapter 8.05.040. 1. In case of an emergency involving imminent danger to public health, safety or welfare, the Town may authorize immediate removal of any infested tree without notice or an abatement order. J. The Town may pursue the remedies set forth in this section with or without filing a complaint in the Municipal Court, at the Town's sole discretion. K. The owner shall be assessed twice the whole cost of removal of the infested trees from the property, including administrative fees, incurred by the Town. If all of the costs and charges incurred by the Town are not paid within 30 days of the date of the assessment, the unpaid costs shall be certified to the Larimer County Treasurer for collection in the same manner as real property taxes. 8.05.060 Unlawful Acts: A. It shall be unlawful and a violation of the Municipal Code for any owner to fail or refuse to remove all infested trees from their property within the time - period provided for in a notice of violation sent by the Director pursuant to section 8.05.040 of this section. 5 , 1 I 1 4 I ' B. It shall be unlawful and a violation of the Municipal Code for any owner or occupant to deny the Director access to the property owned or occupied by , the owner or occupant if the Director presents an inspection warrant issued pursuant to this section. C. It shall be unlawful and a violation of the Municipal Code for any person to expose for sale, offer for sale, transfer, give away or offer to give away any infested tree anywhere within the Town. 8.05.070 Applicability: The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all public and private lands within the corporate limits of the Town. WHEREAS, there is an immediate threat of infestation within the Town of Estes Park that needs to be abated immediately and therefore an emergency exists, this Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced immediately after its passage, adoption and signature of the Mayor. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO THIS DAY OF ,2008. TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2008, and published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on the day of ,2008. Town Clerk 6 . .. Administration Memo To: The Honorable Mayor Pinkham and Board of Trustees From: Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Date: May 9,2008 Subject: URA Resolution The URA resolution was not available in time for packet distribution. We will forward it to you as soon as it becomes available and will have hard copies available at the meeting. The three new issues the resolution will address are: 1. Sales tax TIF will belong to the town until a project is identified and an IGA is established to share the revenue with the URA. 2. The URA will return 10% of the TIF of the county mill levy returned to the County as it is collected. 3. Town board approval of URA projects. ,. .. Memorandum May 7,2008 TO: Mayor Pinkham and Town Board of Trustees From: Wil Smith, Director of EPURA and Gerry Swank, Chairman of EPURA Re: Conditions Analysis, URA Plan and Urban Renewal Area At the joint meeting of the Town Board and the EPURA Board on April 30,2008, there was much good discussion relative to the Urban Renewal Plan and the future of EPURA. One topic was the configuration of a new Urban Renewal Area (URA). There were four suggestions relative the recommended URA. These are shown on the attached map and summarized as follows: Add the area of the ball fields and elementary school east of Stanley Park. Add the triangular area east of the intersection of Highway 36 and St. Vrain Avenue, bounded by Second Street. Add Lots 4,5 and 6 in the Stanley Historic District and Stanley Village. Eliminate the businesses fronting on East Elkhorn Avenue. We have considered and discussed these possible changes to the recommended URA. We suggest that the recommended URA be revised to include the addition of the ball fields and elementary school and triangular area east of the intersection of Highway 36 and St. Vrain Avenue. We strongly oppose the elimination of the businesses on East Elkhorn Avenue because we think our contemplated fagade improvement program should be available to this area as well as the rest of downtown. Finally, we see no basis for including Lots 4,5 and 6 in the Stanley Historic District, nor Stanley Village. The delineation of the URA is based on blight factors as determined by the Conditions Analysis (Blight Study). In our opinion, the Conditions Analysis provides no justification for inclusion of this area. In order for Urban Renewal to continue community improvements in an uninterrupted manner, we ask that the Town Board adopt the Conditions Analysis and the Urban Renewal Plan. In addition, we ask that the Town Board expeditiously approve a Cooperation Agreement that will enable EPURA to have funding for a workable program in the early years of the new tax increment funding cycle, wherein both the property tax increment and the sales tax increment reset to zero. It is the community improvements that create the tax increments, in large part, and we need to continue work in order for the increments to grow. ,. .. . RESOLUTION NO. 11 - 08 A RESOLUTION MAKING CERTAIN LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND APPROVING THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT WHEREAS, in January of 2007, the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (the Authority) commissioned a conditions survey and retained Terrance Ware Associates (the Consultant) to conduct studies and surveys of the area (Area) described therein to determine i f the Area contains factors included in the definition o f blighted area in the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, Sections 31-25-101, etseq., C.R.S., (the Act); and WHEREAS, the Consultant prepared, submitted, and presented to the Authority and the Board of Trustees o f the Town o f Estes Park, Colorado (the Town) a conditions survey entitled An Analysis of Existing Conditions Relating to Blight Town o f Estes Park (the Survey) dated August 2007, which Survey is incorporated herein by this reference, and which describes in detail the conditions in the Area; and WHEREAS, the Authority has prepared, approved, and submitted for review by the Board of Trustees the Urban Renewal Plan for the 21St Century Urban Renewal Area (the Plan), a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, the aforesaid Plan is a matter o f public record in the custody of the Town Clerk and is available for public inspection during business hours o f the Town; and WHEREAS, notice o f the public hearing on the Plan was published as required by Section 31-25-107(3), C.R.S., at least thirty days prior to the public hearing; and WHEREAS, written notice was mailed or delivered to each property owner, business, and resident of the area included in the Plan informing them o f the public hearing at least thirty days prior to the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has submitted written recommendations to the Board of Trustees that portions of the Plan comply with the 1996 Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan (the Comprehensive Plan), which is the general plan for the development of the Town as a whole, and also stated that the tax increment financing provisions and proposed projects of the Plan do not comply with the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Authority and the Town have entered into a Cooperation Agreement dated September 1,1998 (the Cooperation Agreement) and an Intergovernmental Agreement dated August 16, 1990 including four Amendments to the Intergovernmental Agreement dated October 11,1994, March 25, 1997, March 26,2003 and October 15,2003 (collectively, the Intergovernmental Agreement) which provide for the trans fur o f property and sales tax increment ' 't * 0 , I revenues from the Authority to the Town and concept review approval by the Town of certain agreements related to carrying out the Urban Renewal Project; and WHEREAS, on March 25,2008, the Board of Trustees conducted a public hearing and reviewed said Plan pursuant to the procedural and notice requirements of the Act, and the Board ofTrustees having considered the evidence presented in support of and in opposition to the Plan, the Survey, the Comprehensive Plan, and staff recommendations and so having considered the legislative record and given appropriate weight to the evidence, including evidence that the tax increment financing provisions and proposed projects of the Plan do comply with the Comprehensive Plan, makes the findings set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The Urban Renewal Area described in the Plan is found and declared to be a blighted area as defined in the Act. This is a legislative finding by the Board of Trustees based upon the Survey and other evidence presented to the Board of Trustees. Section 2. The boundaries of the Urban Renewal Area have been drawn as narrowly as the Board of Trustees determines feasible to accomplish the planning and development objectives of the Plan. Section 3. The Plan has been submitted to the Board of County Commissioners o f Larimer County, Colorado, (the County) together with the information required by Section 31- 25-107(3.5) ofthe Act. Section 4. Park School District No. R-3 has been permitted to participate in an advisory capacity with respect to the inclusion in the Plan of the tax allocation provisions authorized by Section 31-25-107(9) of the Act. Section 5. It is not expected or intended that the Authority will relocate any individuals and families in connection with the Plan, but to the extent that any such relocation may be required, a feasible method exists for the relocation of individuals and families in decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling accommodations within their means and without undue hardship to such individuals and families. Section 6. It is not expected or intended that the Authority will relocate any business concerns in connection with the Plan, but to the extent that any such relocation may be required, a feasible method exists for the relocation of such business concerns in the Urban Renewal Area or in other areas that are not generally less desirable with respect to public utilities and public and commercial facilities. Section 7. The Board o f Trustees has taken reasonable efforts to provide written notice of the public hearing prescribed by Section 31-25-107(3) of the Act to all property owners, residents and owners of business concerns in the proposed Urban Renewal Area at their last . .. I I known addresses at least thirty days prior to the public hearing on the Plan. Section 8. Section 31-25-107(4)(d) of the Act does not apply because no more than 120 days have passed since the commencement of the only public hearing on the Plan. Section 9. Section 31-25-107(4)(e) of the Act does not apply because the Board of Trustees did not fail to previously approve this Plan. Section 10. The Plan conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, which is the general plan for the development of the Town of Estes Park as a whole. Section 11. The Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs o f the Town of Estes Park as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the Urban Renewal Area described in the Plan by private enterprise. Section 12. All of the Urban Renewal Area is within the corporate limits of the Town and is an area that has been built-up for many years. It consists of the principal governmental, commercial, and retail areas of the Town. Construction of public improvements and provision of services in the Urban Renewal Area will be the primary responsibility o f the Town, the Authority, private enterprise, and providers o f public services other than the County. The Authority and the Town have reached agreement with the County pursuant to Section 31-25- 107(11) of the Act whereby the Authority will remit to the County 10% of the annual property tax increment revenue collected by the Authority from the County levy in the Urban Renewal Area as allocated to the Authority pursuant to Section 3 1-25-107(9) of the Act. The Authority is authorized and directed to enter into an agreement with the County confirming this understanding. Section 13. The Urban Renewal Area described in the Plan is a built up area and does not consist of open land within the meaning of Sections 31-25-107(5) and 107(6) of the Act. The principal public purpose for the urban renewal plan is to facilitate redevelopment in order to prevent the spread of physically blighted areas. Section 14. The Authority shall obtain the approval o f the Board o f Trustees prior to pledging any Sales Tax Increment Financing revenue for the payment o f the principal of, the interest on, or any premiums due in connection with bonds, loans, advances and indebtedness incurred by the Authority to finance activities and undertakings under the Plan. Section 15. Prior to December 31,2008, the Authority and the Town shall negotiate and enter into an appropriate Agreement to replace the current Cooperation Agreement and Intergovernmental Agreement between the parties which shall address the financing o f the administration of the Authority, the review and approval o f future activities and undertakings pursuant to the Plan, and use of Sales Tax Increment Financing for financing such activities and undertakings. '' , I Section 16. The Urban Renewal Plan for the Estes Park 21St Century Urban Renewal Proiect Area has been duly reviewed and considered and is hereby approved. The Authority is hereby authorized to. take any and all actions pursuant to the Act to carry out the Plan. ADOPTED AND APPROVED THE DAY OF ,2008. TOWN OF ESTES PARK ATTEST: Mayor Town Clerk I . .. I I EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ESTES PARK 21 ST CENTURY URBAN RENEWAL AREA The boundaries o f the Estes Park 21St Century Urban Renewal Area are described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the east line of Section 24, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 64 P.M. and the northeasterly right-of-way line of Steamer Drive; thence southeasterly along said northeasterly right-of-way line to its intersection with the southerly line of Lot 1, Stanley Hills Subdivision; thence easterly along said southerly line to the northerly right-of-way line of Highway 34 (Big Thompson Avenue); thence southerly, crossing Highway 34 (Big Thompson Avenue), to the northeasterly corner of Lot 1A, Replat o f a Portion of Lot 4 and all of Lot 1, Stanley Meadows Addition; thence southeasterly along the easterly line of said replat of Stanley Meadows Addition to the southerly line of said replat; thence westerly along said southerly line to the southwesterly corner of said replat and the southeast corner o f Lot 2, Stanley Meadows Addition; thence westerly along the southerly line of said Lot 2 to the southwest corner thereof; thence south to the northerly right-of-line of Highway 36 (St. Vrain Avenue); thence easterly along said northerly right-of way line to the northwest corner of Lot 44, Little Prospect Mountain Addition; thence easterly along the northerly line o f said Lot 44 to the northeast corner thereof; thence southeasterly along the northeasterly line of said Lot 44 to the northerly right-of-way line of Highway 36 (St. Vrain Avenue); thence southeasterly along the northerly right-of-way line of Highway 36 (St. Vrain Avenue) to a point due north of the intersection of the southerly right-of- way line of Highway 36 (North St. Vrain Avenue) and the northwest corner of Reclamation Subdivision; thence south to the northwest corner of Reclamation Subdivision; thence southwesterly along said southerly right-of-way line to its intersection with the northeasterly right-0 f -way line of Highway 7 (South St. Vrain Avenue); thence southeasterly along said northeasterly right-of-way line to the northwesterly right-of-way line of 5th Street; thence northeasterly along said northwesterly right-of-way line to the southwesterly right-of-way line of East Lane; thence northwesterly along said southwesterly right-of-way line to an extension thereof with the northwesterly right-of-way line of 4th Street; thence northeasterly along said northwesterly right-of-way line to the southerly right of way line of Highway 36 (North St. Vrain Avenue); thence southeasterly along said southerly right-of-way line to the easterly right-of-way line o f Community Drive; thence southeasterly along said easterly right-of-way line and the extension thereo f to the southerly right-o f way line o f Manford Avenue; thence westerly along said southerly right-o f-way line to the northwesterly corner o f the Lone Tree Village Apartments; thence southerly along the westerly line of the Lone Tree Village Apartments and the extension thereof to the southerly right-o f-way line o f Graves Avenue; thence westerly along said southerly right-0 f-way line and its extension thereo f to the southwesterly right-o f-way line of Highway 7 (South St. Vrain Avenue); thence northwesterly along said southwesterly right-of-way line to the southerly right-of-way line of Stanley Avenue; thence northwesterly and norther]y along the southerly, southwesterly, and westerly right-of-way line of Stanley Avenue to the southwesterly right-of-way line of Highway 36 (St. Vrain Avenue); thence westerly along said southwesterly right-of-line of Highway 36 (St. Vrain Avenue) to the southerly high water mark of the Big Thompson River; thence westerly along said high water line to the easterly line of Riverside Subdivision; thence southerly along said easterly line to the southeast corner of Lot 26 of 1 '' , I Riverside Subdivision; thence westerly along the southerly line of said Lot 26 to a point that is N , 02 degrees 42 minutes E 85.3 feet from a point on the southerly line of Lot 25, Riverside Subdivision and S 81 degrees 53 minutes E 138.0 feet from the baseline of Riverside Subdivision; thence S 02 degrees 42 minutes W to the southerly line of said Lot 25; thence westerly along said southerly line 32.5 feet; thence S 30 degrees 10 minutes W 86.5 feet to the southerly line of Lot 24, Riverside Subdivision; thence westerly along said southerly line 5.2 feet; thence S 28 degrees 33 minutes W to the southerly line of Lot 23, Riverside Subdivision; thence southwesterly to a point that is N 7 degrees 45 minutes E 50 feet from a point on the southerly line of Lot 22, Riverside Subdivision and 15 feet easterly from the baseline of said Riverside Subdivision; thence S 7 degrees 45 minutes W to the southerly line of said Lot 22; thence easterly along said southerly line to the westerly line of Lot 1, Cyteworth Resubdivision; thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot 1 to the southwest corner thereof; thence southerly across Cyteworth Road to the northwesterly corner of Lot 5, Mocassin Addition; thence southwesterly along the northwesterly lines of Lots 5, 4, 2, and 1 of said Mocassin Addition to the southerly corner of said Lot 1; thence S 51 degrees 55 minutes W 25.4 feet; thence S 78 degrees 50 minutes W 29.0 feet to the southerly line of said Mocassin Addition and the southerly right-of-way line of East Riverside Drive; thence westerly along said soutlierly right-of-way line to the east right-of-way line of Crags Drive; thence westerly crossing Crags Drive along the southerly right-of-way line of Riverside Drive to the southwesterly line of Lot 4, Prospect Village Subdivision extended southeasterly to the said southerly right-of-way line; thence northwesterly along said southeasterly extension of said Lot 4 and southwesterly line of Lot 4 to the west line of Prospect Village Subdivision; thence northerly along said west line and the extension thereof to the northerly right-of-way line of US Highway 36 (Moraine Ave.); thence easterly along said northerly-right-of-way line to the east line of Lot 7, 1St Resubdivision of Buenna Vista Terrace; thence northerly along said east line to the northeast corner of said Lot 7; thence easterly to the northwest corner of Lot 5 0 f the Amended Plat o f Lot 5 and the East 95 Feet of Lot 6 of Buenna Vista Terrace; thence easterly, northerly, and easterly along the northerly lines of said Lot 5 to the east line of Lot 16B o f 1St Resubdivision of Buenna Vista Terrace; thence northerly along the east line of said Lot 168,158,148,138,128,118, and 108 of said resubdivision to the northeast corner o f said Lot l OB; thence westerly along the north line of said Lot 10B to the northwest corner thereof; thence north along the west line of Lots 9B, 8B, 7B, 6B, 5B, and part of 4B of said resubdivision to the north line of Lot 39B of said resubdivision extended easterly; thence westerly along said north line extension and the north line of Lots 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43 of said resubdivision to the northerly right-of-way line of Courtney Lane; thence westerly along said northerly right-of-way line to the southeast corner of Lot 44 of said resubdivision; thence northerly along the easterly line of said Lot 44 to the southwest corner of Lot 45 of said resubdivision; thence easterly, northeasterly, and northwesterly along the property lines of Lot 45 of said resubdivision to the north boundary line of said resubdivision; thence westerly along said north boundary line to the Town Limits; thence northerly along the boundary o f the Town Limits to the southerly right-o f-way line of Business Highway 34 (West Elkhorn Avenue); thence westerly along said southerly right o f way line and the boundary line o f the Town Limits to the southeast corner of Elkhorn Addition; thence along the southerly lines of Elkhorn Addition and said boundary line o f the Town Limits to the southeast corner of Elkhorn Club Estates; thence northerly and easterly along the easterly boundary lines of Elkhorn Club Estates to the southerly right-of-way line of Business Highway 34 (West Elkhorn Avenue); thence easterly along said , .. 4 southerly right-of-way line to the westerly right-of-way line of Far View Drive; thence northerly and easterly along the westerly and northerly right-of-way lines of Far View Drive to a point on the right of way line at the westerly extension of the northerly lot line of Lot 7, Fall River Village Final P.U.D; thence easterly to the northwest corner of said Lot 7; thence southwesterly along the westerly lines of Lot 7,6 and 5 of Fall River Village Final P.U.D to the northwest corner of Lot 8 Fall River Village Final P.U.D; thence easterly along the northerly line of said Lot 8 and the northerly line o f Lot 1, Amended Plat of Block 2, West Park Center Resubdivision to a point on the westerly line of Mountain Gate Condominiums; thence south along the westerly line of said Condominiums to the southwest corner of said Condominiums; thence easterly along the southerly line o f said Condominiums to the northwesterly right-of-way line of Spruce Drive; thence easterly, crossing Spruce Drive, to the corner of the easterly right-of-way lines o f Spruce Drive and Lawn Lane; thence northeasterly to the north corner of Piltz Resubdivision (also the north corner of Lot 23, Block 10, Town of Estes Park); thence southerly along the easterly line of said Lot 23 to the southeast corner of said Lot 23 and the north line of Block 8, Town of Estes Park; thence easterly along the north line of said Block 8 to the northwest corner of Lot 2, Block 8, Town of Estes Park; thence easterly, crossing Big Horn Drive, to the southwest corner of Lot 19, Block 10, Town of Estes Park; thence easterly along the south lines o f said Lot 19 to the southwest corner of Lot 18, Block 10, Town of Estes Park; thence northerly 212.23 feet along the west line of said Lot 18; thence N 88Â°51 '52" W 25 feet; thence N 00Â°45'08" E 100 feet; thence north 95 feet; thence east 30 feet to the common line between Lots 15 and 16, Block 10, Town of Estes Park; thence north along said common line to the southerly right-of-way line of Virginia Drive; thence easterly crossing Virginia Drive to the western most corner of Lot 6, The First National Subdivision; thence northerly along the westerly line of said Lot 6; thence easterly along the north line of said Lot 6 to the southwest corner of that property at Book 468, Page 659; thence northerly along the westerly line of said Book and Page to the northwest corner of said Book and Page; thence easterly along the northerly line of said Book and Page and the extension thereof to the easterly right-of-way o f MacGregor Avenue and a point on the westerly line of Lot 1, Birch Resubdivision; thence southeasterly along the westerly line of Birch Resubdivision to the southwest corner of Birch Resubdivision; thence easterly along the southerly lines o f Birch Resubdivision, Birch Addition, and Cli ffs Addition to the southeast corner of Cli ffs Addition and a point on a southerly line of Lot 1, Stanley Knoll Subdivision; thence southerly and northeasterly along the southerly lines of said Lot 1 to the southeast corner of Stanley Knoll Subdivision and the westerly right-of-way line of Highway 34 Bypass (East Wonderview Avenue); thence southerly to the northerly right-of-way line of Highway 34 Business (East Elkhorn Avenue); thence easterly along said northerly right-of-way line crossing Highway 34 Bypass (East Wonderview Avenue) to the intersection of the northerly right-of-way line o f Highway 34 (Big Thompson Avenue) and the easterly right-of-way line of Highway 34 Bypass (East Wonderview Avenue) which is also the southern most corner of Tract 3, Stanley Addition; thence easterly along the northerly right-of-way line of Highway 34 (Big Thompson Avenue) to the southeast corner of Tract 3, Stanley Addition and a point on the east line of Section 24, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M.; thence northerly along said east line of Section 24 to the True Point of Beginning. All in the Town of Estes Park. County of Larimer, State o f Colorado */ 1 1. %4411 1.-1 1 -111 1 2.6-4.07 . : :i ./ 1- .' , /1/ 1 79 : 1.3~ 1 .- 6,4-b/BTAN:50R : 1 1 4 iÂ» Iâ€¢ (1 - i '10 J 4 jif Â· { tif -1,- Â· L &61 - I 2MMUNJ}V OR C Â· 1,7./ . 3 I , All \ , 1 7 9 2 1 ' 75Ki#*r--1 . , 1 ' 4 - 1 2 5 --9..coul . ..\94 19 117) 1 1 1. C 0 5 -3.4. _ 1, 5, Â·' 0 - ~ ./: 4Â·.. : P i "11951 -4101Â·~ 1 4 6 If 4 12 - ~ 1 90MMNITY I .... 11 61 M ~ 4 ~~~ JEA; v: j 4/4 r - ~ 4 DESTASDH / : iiI / ~ ' 1 f Â£ .,,,NE --- ai A /' i.-01 1 / 1 -,1 7, Il'w 1 .. 1 U...'f-z--g[7\ 1 ,?' II i :, ' 1 31/ 1 1 1.5 .1. 1 1 $ 5#*..< 15 1 r j ' 1 W j Â¢ 72'.31 /11*i , / 94 % l:/ , - 1, ~03#4~ 4 ' 11 j L- 1 - 7/ 3 jÂ°:* - 2- 1- $ i 4 .47, , b Â£ 1 0,1 %1 1 \ 1 41/j l.,0,7 N 0, , m . .u_ -7 5 \ J -aÂ°479--- / : 2 6 ) / 'P. il i fil 5 ,Â·ti Â¢ idp"AVE $ 1 1 L I 1'=Â·z Mi' , 'L g'.~|| AVE ~ 4 ... 1 f el' ~~ 1~ 1 4 m --1 7-~ -7- ---b - .---,-3 1 /9 -, 7 ->/ 1 + j 4, 5-2,51 - I B 7 , 1 \ \ a 1 %\ . A. 1 ..1- BA~*alNV1~5~N:i: 1 1- r.zili.U'1*i:,1_~ 41_l,Y 4~414. 9 : 1 ' 1 . B.Â¥ 91â€¢5.111Â£1' o / 1 2. 2. *Ne> 1 1- 4, iii -IL _it 1 1.11 ' 1 1, /, / .p#f' 'r' r- i -611102 1 1 ./.0 0 : ~ ~ 144 p 4.'.'Â·'M!,In.D.i,rv,~m* p /Â·~/0-,2 I 1 1. , I . .1 I.i 'Lf Fl-~ I N , , I . 118 44_* FIR.M*11_ 8 t'Â·Â· - I Â· r ' ' / T . J.. 1 Vt.Â·' n 2,-~1. Ell*f -~44-*pj 4%-1*- -EU *.--fe: //,~ 1 1 t.l 7 -) , u .:Clk/U 2 44,:i ,& 923 1 4 1 7.-4... FINDLEYCTI -i t..4 / \ 1 7~ .. t? i Q,N " P ~ ' 2 ...A P 9 K N, \\ .A. 0, 1 nt. rt , OP i ./ /2, 4 P E 11, ~-334 j~,c ' f 1,.A 47 x Â· 1 9/ S t ' * Â·2 f k ~1 - E +. 1 J Â·Â·4,1 , u '-rÂ·'.- t. 6 1 # I. /'* . 141 lull! Fl 1 1.Al f ' (,4 E , }'' 1,1 1, 9:T' i ,e.*44,7 1 1 1 ,\1 f L O/7 ) - 1 1 J 'kl.4 .1 I ' ,\, t, - -0- .?~I @03 1 ' 1 AA Ji Â·?\ 1 -' 1 , 1 1.,L-7 9 . Pjoa / ' . ...INE* ' )2.12:, . !*flry'ERS"â€¢FF'i/-21/1 /--1// ~~~f. nil 1 i ---- i t h , 4<4'123-0 , qu,-J;i~ : 1 0. , 1 2.j Â·~. 4~1~ ' 1 -1-4. . $1 , i + 23Â¢.- .,0,4..EAWT - 3'G"41* i el 14 1 0 i 3 3 R H i r---~. 4 I. d -Lth i* t. 1 1 0 ' Â· 1 9.- 1 3.---'f 11 >iD- ST b iii ii- 1 -a . 11; 't / \/ - -;t 1.'..RA, 4,130 23/7.i' / 6 ~- ~ 4/f / Â· r.1 'i .122 ---*C. h\L. # ' J J:usl AU 1 / . 4 : 4 .1 iÂ·,WA ~41 t't L Er' \ t..:lip./ f ,/1 1 ' ~ Â·Â·\4 0 4\\3 1 . 1 \ . 1 4. U: ..': f 10,7/,1 +4.- ' 11 231 et a .. le ,) V /1 \.r @"44 * f ~Nati,J Â¢013. tul__1 1 -W.__-Â»~--1 . i\\ 0 , 1 \4 C 1 Â»40-1- X -2 1 - if 2, ..il . ID 1 -1 3 -O 3 -1, Â°1 1 -l-5 j L - /ift 34:,... #,\ u 9\ .0 P > , . ?j,,tl , '3Â£. AX i 3 , \ , NX i <4 .. 1 \40 1 . 'Al 0 ,/9 , .\. :,9 \S A .k ./ ' 1~ / ~ : - ~Ld 4 \ \ I 49 12 1 \ /0%~ C.- *i ./ f i 1/ 4 -~-t, . 3 . ' Â·' u & f ti x 1 1 . & 1. , C -3, 0 I f I 44Â« 83 i i * ./ '.7 1, 1 ki 1 1 11 Â· , N 3AV 3100% *OdNVI'V Gip'OUOB/UAU 124'Op" Iuue HIGMLAt.D 1 43.ows.0,0,â€¢ Hel Â©DWBI 1331Â¥ {EAQUJ~I IR WEI VAttEY RD I . .. THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE ESTES PARK 21 ST CENTURY URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT 1 '' THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE ESTES PARK 21 ST CENTURY URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT I. DEFINITIONS The terms used in this Urban Renewal Plan shall have the following meanings. Act means the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, Part 1 of Article 25 of Title 31, of the Colorado Revised Statutes. -- Area or Urban Renewal Area means the area o f the Town included within the boundaries of this Urban Renewal Plan as depicted in Exhibit A and described in Exhibit B. Authority means the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority. Comprehensive Plan means the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1996 as such comprehensive plan may be supplemented and amended in the future. Plan or Urban Renewal Plan means this urban renewal plan as it may be amended in the future. Proiect or Urban Renewal Proiect means all of the activities and undertakings described in or permitted pursuant to this Urban Renewal Plan and the Act. Town means the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. II. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Plan is to implement those provisions o f the Comprehensive Plan that apply to the Urban Renewal Area and to continue the redevelopment of Estes Park begun under the Estes Park Downtown Redevelopment Program by financing and constructing needed public improvements and encouraging and cooperating with private enterprise. To the extent that the Comprehensive Plan is re-enacted, supplemented, or amended in the future, this Plan shall be considered automatically modified to conform with the re-enacted, supplemented, or amended Comprehensive Plan. This Urban Renewal Plan has been prepared for the Town Trustees o f the Town pursuant to the provisions of the Act. The administration o f the Project and the implementation o f the Plan shall be the responsibility o f the Authority. III. URBAN RENEWAL AREA BOUNDARIES The location and boundaries of the Urban Renewal Area within the Town are shown in Exhibit A. The Urban Renewal Area contains approximately 230 acres and is described in Exhibit B. . . a I I IV. SUMMARY OF STATUTORY CRITERIA The Authority contracted with Terrance Ware & Associates to survey and document whether conditions that constitute a blighted area, as defined in the Act, exist in the Area. The result of the survey is included in a document entitled An Analysis of Existing Conditions Relating to Blight (the Conditions Survey) dated August 2007 consisting of 34 pages, related exhibits, a description of existing conditions, and numerous photographs. The Conditions Survey is incorporated herein by reference. The Conditions Survey shows that the following factors listed in the Act are present in the Area and that these conditions qualify the Area as a blighted area as defined in the Act: Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures; Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout; Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness; Unsanitary or unsafe conditions; Deterioration of site or other improvements; Inadequate public improvements or utilities; Defective or unusual conditions o f title rendering the title non-marketable; Buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in because o f building code violations, dilapidation, deterioration, defective design, physical construction, or faulty or inadequate fucilities; The existence of health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings, or other improvements. V. DESCRIPTION OF URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT This Plan will be implemented as part o f a comprehensive program to eliminate and prevent blight in the Urban Renewal Area. The Authority and the Town, with the cooperation and active participation of private enterprise and other public bodies, will undertake a program to eliminate the conditions o f blight identified in the Conditions Survey while implementing the Comprehensive Plan and implementing and completing redevelopment activities and undertakings begun under the Estes Park Downtown Redevelopment Program. 3 ' A. Urban Renewal Plan Goals and the Plan Relationship to Local and Regional Objectives . 1. Goals ofthe Plan This Plan has been adopted to achieve the following goals in the Area: a. The Plan will implement the Comprehensive Plan, including, without limitation, the following: (1) The Plan encourages existing and future commercial uses to locate within a compact, well-defined downtown business district. (2) The Plan provides a pedestrian-friendly downtown environment that provides for pedestrian movement, areas for relaxing, gathering and window shopping. (3) The Plan encourages outdoor public spaces, including spaces for outdoor gathering, dining, nature and people watching. (4) The Plan encourages infill of older core areas in order to reduce infrastructure costs and stabilize residential neighborhoods. (5) The Plan encourages an adequate blend o f public and private parking for residents and visitors. (6) The Plan will provide a means of redeveloping existing substandard areas. b. The Plan will promote a balance o f complementary land uses in the Area. c. Implementation ofthe Plan will eliminate and prevent conditions of blight in the Urban Renewal Area. d. Through the maximum possible participation of private enterprise and the cooperative efforts o f the public sector, implementation o f the Plan will eliminate and prevent economic deterioration in the Urban Renewal Area and the community at large. The Plan will promote creation of value in the Area. e. The Plan will upgrade public facilities, infrastructure, access, traffic, pedestrian and bicycle circulation, public utilities, public amenities, recreation and drainage in the Urban Renewal Area. 4 . .. f. The Plan will help attract capital investment and new retail businesses, retention and development of a competitive regional retail market, thereby providing employment and strengthening the Town economic base. g. The Plan will expand retail opportunities for the citizens o f and visitors to Estes Park and the surrounding area and create a stable and growing sales tax base for the Town. h. The Plan will improve conditions and correct problems in the Area related to vehicular access and circulation, public utilities, drainage, environmental contamination, public safely, and public amenities. i. The Plan will provide the means for completing the activities and undertakings begun under the Estes Park Downtown Redevelopment Program and attached to this Plan as Exhibit C. 2. Relationship to Local and Regional Obiectives The Plan conforms with and is designed to implement the Comprehensive Plan, including the following regional objectives in the Area: a. Urban land use should occur within the Town limits of Estes Park; b. Encouraging cooperation among governments and government agencies in the Area; c. Encourage a comprehensive and balance transportation system for the Estes Valley, while maintaining a local road system consistent with the rural mountain resort character of the Valley; d. Create a comprehensive and integrated trail system for the Estes Valley; e. Ensure that new development minimizes the impacts to visual and environmental quality within the Estes Valley; f Establish the basis for a sound tourism market and sustainable economic climate; g. The Town and Larimer County will work together to implement the Comprehensive Plan, to ensure that future development takes place in an orderly fashion that takes advantage o f existing urban services and avoids non-contiguous, scattered development within the Estes Valley; 5 ' 4 1 I ' h. A joint partnership between the Town, the Authority, Larimer County, , Rocky Mountain National Park and other state and federal agencies will be created to promote integrated planning that meets the goals o f the various entities and creates a model for natural resource preservation, tourism, and sustainable communities. B. Land Use Regulations and Building Requirements The Plan will provide a comprehensive and unified plan to promote and encourage high quality development o f the Urban Renewal Area by private enterprise. In addition to the land use and building requirements contained in the Estes Park Development Code and the provisions of this Plan, the Authority may adopt design guidelines and standards (Design Guidelines and Standards) that will apply to owners o f real property that enter into redevelopment or rehabilitation agreements with the Authority. If adopted by the Authority, the Design Guidelines and Standards shall apply to both public and private improvements. The Plan and the Design Guidelines and Standards will implement the provisions of Section 31- 25-107(8) of the Act, which provides that, upon approval of the Plan by the Town Trustees, the provisions of the Plan shall be controlling with respect to land area, land use, design, building requirements, timing, or procedure applicable to the Area. In the event of a conflict involving the provisions of Town codes, the Plan, and the Design Guidelines and Standards, the most restrictive provision shall govern. 1. Uses Permitted uses for properties in the Urban Renewal Area shall be those uses allowed in the Estes Park Development Code and this Plan. 2. Plan Review Process The purposes o f the Plan are to eliminate and prevent blight in the Urban Renewal Area and to achieve development o f the highest quality in the Urban Renewal Area. To assure that those purposes are accomplished, the Authority shall review all plans or proposals for development in the Area where owners of real property that enter into redevelopment or rehabilitation agreements with the Authority, to determine compliance with the Plan and, i f applicable, the Design Guidelines and Standards. No building permit shall be issued prior to and unless the Authority makes a finding that such plans or proposals comply with this Plan and, if applicable, the Design Guidelines and Standards. a. Site Development Plan. 6 . Each plan or proposal shall be accompanied by a site development plan. The site development plan shall be submitted to the Authority in a form required by applicable Town codes, as such provisions may be amended from time to time. b. Review Standards. The decision o f the Authority shall be based on whether a proposed site development plan meets the following standards. (1) The proposal should be consistent with the purposes and standards ofthis Plan and the Town codes, regulations, and policies. (2) The proposal should identify and specify factors that mitigate any potential negative impacts on nearby properties. (3) The proposal should identify and specify factors that maximize potential positive impacts on nearby properties. (4) The proposal should include adequate facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. (5) The proposal should optimize conservation of energy, water, and other resources on a site-specific scale. (6) The land uses within the proposal should be compatible with one another. (7) The proposal should include any common areas serving the site, and contain adequate provisions for ownership and maintenance of such areas. (8) The proposal should include adequate public improvements (both on and off site) to be provided in a timely fashion. (9) The proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines and Standards, i f applicable. (10) The proposal includes pedestrian-friendly design features. VI. PROJECT ACTIVITIES The following provisions shall apply to the Area. In accordance with the Act, the Authority may 7 , undertake these activities directly or, to the extent authorized by applicable law, contract with , , third parties to do so. A. Land Acquisition In order to carry out this Plan, the Authority may exercise any and all of its rights and powers under the Act and any other applicable law, ordinance or regulation. The Authority may acquire any interest in property by any manner available, including by exercise of the power o f eminent domain, provided the Authority first complies with all provisions of applicable law. The Authority may acquire property in the Area for the following reasons: to eliminate or prevent conditions of blight; to carry out one or more objectives o f the Plan; to assemble property for redevelopment; for needed public improvements; and for any other lawful purpose authorized by the Plan, the Act or any other applicable law. B. Relocation If acquisition o f property displaces any individual, family, or business concern, the Authority may assist such party in finding another location, and may, but is not obligated to make (unless applicable law requires otherwise) relocation payments to eligible residents and businesses in such amounts and under such terms and conditions as it may determine and as may be required by law. C. Demolition, Clearance and Site Preparation The Authority may demolish and clear those buildings, structures, and other improvements from property it acquires i f such buildings, structures, and other improvements are not to be rehabilitated in accordance with this Plan. The Authority may provide rough and finished site grading and other site preparation services as part o f a comprehensive redevelopment program. D. Property Management During such time as any property is acquired by the Authority, for disposition for redevelopment, such property shall be under the management and control of the Authority and may be rented or leased by it pending disposition for redevelopment or rehabilitation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Authority may acquire property, develop, construct, maintain, and operate thereon buildings and facilities devoted to uses and purposes as the Authority deems to be in the public interest. E. Public Improvements If applicable, the Design Guidelines and Standards will be applicable for all public improvements and infrastructure. The Design Guidelines and Standards shall include criteria and standards to address street, streetscape, utility, drainage and flood problems in the Area as well as other 8 I. 2 ... , elements deemed necessary by the Authority to eliminate and prevent conditions of blight and to carry out the provisions of the Act and the Plan. The Plan will provide the means for completing the activities and undertakings begun under the Estes Park Downtown Redevelopment Program and attached to this Plan as Exhibit C. F. Land Disposition, Redevelopment and Rehabilitation Purchasers or owners of property within the Area will be obligated to develop, redevelop or rehabilitate such property in accordance with the provisions of this Plan and, if applicable, the Design Guidelines and Standards. The Authority may dispose o f property it acquires by means o f a reasonable competitive bidding procedure it establishes in accordance with the Act and pursuant to redevelopment agreements between the Authority and such purchasers. The Authority may also enter into owner participation agreements with property owners in the Area for the development, redevelopment or rehabilitation o f their property. Such agreements will provide for such participation and assistance as the Authority may elect to provide to such owners. The Authority may develop, construct, maintain, and operate buildings and facilities devoted to uses and purposes as the Authority deems to be in the public interest. All such redevelopment, owner participation and other agreements shall contain, at a minimum, provisions requiring: 1. Compliance with the Plan and, if applicable, the Design Guidelines and Standards and Town codes and requirements; 2. Covenants to begin and complete development, construction or rehabilitation of both public and private improvements within a period of time deemed to be reasonable by the Authority; 3. The financial commitments of each party (but nothing herein shall obligate the Authority to make any such financial commitment to any party or transaction). G. Cooperation Agreements For the purposes of planning and carrying out this Plan in the Area, the Authority may enter into one or more cooperation agreements with the Town or other public bodies. Without limitation, such agreements may include project financing and implementation; design, location and construction of public improvements; and any other matters required to carry out this Project. It is recognized that cooperation with the Town and other public and private bodies may be 9 1 . required to coordinate such issues as the design, construction, maintenance, operation, and timing ' of public and private improvements within and outside ofthe Area to properly and efficiently , carry out the goals and objectives of this Plan. Cooperation agreements addressing such issues are deemed necessary and incidental to the planning and execution of the Project. H. Other Proiect Undertakings and Activities Other Project undertakings and activities deemed necessary by the Authority to carry out the Plan in the Area may be undertaken and performed by the Authority or pursuant to agreements with other parties or public bodies in accordance with the authorization o f the Act and any and all applicable laws. VII. PROJECT FINANCING The Authority is authorized to finance activities and undertakings under this Plan by any method authorized by the Act or any other applicable law, including without limitation, appropriations, loans or advances from the Town; loans and grants of any kind; interest income; pay as you go arrangements; annual appropriation agreements; agreements with public and private parties or entities; sale o f securities; loans, advances and grants from any other available source. Any and all financing methods legally available to the Town, the Authority, any private developer, redeveloper or owner may be used to finance in whole or in part any and all costs, including without limitation, the cost of improvements described or anticipated in the Plan and begun under the Estes Park Downtown Redevelopment Program and attached to this Plan as Exhibit C or in any manner related or incidental to the development or redevelopment o f the Urban Renewal Area. Such methods may be combined to finance all or any part of activities and undertakings throughout the Urban Renewal Area. Any financing method authorized by the Plan or by any applicable law, including without limitation, the Act, may be used to pay the principal o f and interest on and to establish reserves for indebtedness (whether funded, refunded, assumed or otherwise) incurred by the Authority or the Town to finance activities and undertakings authorized by the Act and this Plan in whole or in part. The Authority is authorized to issue notes, bonds or any other financing instruments or documents in amounts sufficient to finance all or part of the Urban Renewal Plan. The Authority is authorized to borrow funds and to create indebtedness in carrying out this Plan through reimbursement agreements or otherwise as authorized by the Act. The principal, interest, and any premiums due on or in connection with such indebtedness may be paid from any funds available to the Authority. The Project may be financed by the Authority under the tax allocation financing provisions o f the Act. Under the tax allocation method of financing the Project, property taxes levied after the effective date o f the approval o f this Plan upon taxable property in the Urban Renewal Area each year by or for the benefit o f any public body and all o f the municipal sales taxes, collected within 10 1 . . the Urban Renewal Area, or both such taxes, shall be divided for a period not to exceed twenty- five (25) years after the effective date of the adoption of this tax allocation provision, as follows: A. Base Amount That portion of the taxes which are produced by the levy at the rate fixed each year by or for such public body upon the valuationÂ·for assessment of taxable property in the Urban Renewal Area last certified prior to the effective date of approval of the Plan or, as to an area later added to the Urban Renewal Area, the effective date ofthe modification ofthe Plan and that portion of municipal sales taxes collected within the boundaries of the Urban Renewal Area in the twelve- month period ending on the last day of the month prior to the effective date of the approval of the Plan shall be paid into the funds o f each such public body as are all other taxes collected by or for said public body. B. Increment Amount That portion o f said property taxes or all or any portion o f said sales taxes, or both, in excess of such base amount shall be allocated to and, when collected, paid into a special fund of the Authority to pay the principal of. the interest on, and any premiums due in connection with the bonds of, loans or advances to, or indebtedness incurred by (whether funded, refunded, assumed or otherwise) the Authority for financing or refinancing, in whole or in part, the Project. Unless and until the total valuation for assessment of the taxable property in the Urban Renewal Area exceeds the base valuation for assessment of the taxable property in the Urban Renewal Area, all o f the taxes levied upon taxable property in the Urban Renewal Area shall be paid into the funds o f the respective public bodies. Unless and until the total municipal sales tax collections in the Urban Renewal Area exceed the base year municipal sales tax collections, all such sales tax collections shall be paid into the funds of the Town. When such bonds, loans, advances and indebtedness, including interest thereon and any premiums due in connection therewith, have been paid, all taxes upon the taxable property in the Urban Renewal Area shall be paid into the funds o f the respective public bodies and all such municipal sales tax collections in the Urban Renewal Area shall be paid into the funds o f the Town. The increment portion of the taxes, as described in this subparagraph B. may be irrevocably pledged by the Authority for the payment of the principal of, the interest on, and any premiums due in connection with such bonds, loans, advances and indebtedness incurred by the Authority to finance the Project. 11 VIII. CHANGES IN APPROVED PLAN This Plan may be modified pursuant to the provisions of the Act governing such modifications, including Section 31-25-107, C.R.S. IX. MINOR VARIATIONS The Authority may in specific cases allow minor variations from the provisions of the Plan i f it determines that a literal enforcement o f the provisions o f the Plan would constitute an unreasonable limitation beyond the intent and purpose of the Plan. 12 I I EXHIBIT A MAP OF URBAN RENEWAL AREA 4\ U n ,_es#-Â« 1 1 :f 21 \ .143%0; 0341__f_ 1 L f -4 11- : -0924\47Â« 1 \ \7 2 i - ' 4, ; ...0- /- 13. b ~1 - 2 :<z-, 94 f )_ Â£.11--h>- \4*b -747//9 1.22-Â©r 2-1 /4,~Li~ \ r , 2.9 1 9 F- ert --16-7174Â«Lan\L-- 1 4 9 ... A ...V + 4 (4- hi .-1 97-760 ' 1 1 , 74-2~ ~A_J i '1, .. - - N ~-/ *ul 3 L_..C~lu< s<At#LtÂ·'~ -'di. 3k 2, \' ~ - -- .9 4< 7 . 1 1-: -Hz #' I ./ -ti ~ -- --22- 2 ./ f_~~~ ~4Ly ,*I,f# ? 4, : l. - - . .. I h \ '12 l-Â»Fl>-\L '12\ / -2.-.1 1.. 1.15,0 *--4-1,... I 1\ f 1 . 40< i \ \.1. P 1 3â€¢ t. ' &.; r.c 4. I. '1// 6 1 it 13 1 4 1.44N \ 7# 1/ \ .../ : 6 -lcue.21) n'./,\%, / 1-4 Â· 1 e * V.4.4., n L.#.b 1 .. .â„¢* *i- Â·41 / )(7-:I ~i:g-//r-n_LI . Â«7' 4 1.-~ 3-4 :lrit t-~j--Al' I'r,Int.1 l 'b.lÂ·: Rli-Lu d \:.. , 1 ' . /'- 0 Â· 13 -1.4 //.9. EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA The boundaries o f the Estes Park 21St Century Urban Renewal Area are described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the east line of Section 24, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M. and the northeasterly right-of-way line o f Steamer Drive; thence southeasterly along said northeasterly right-of-way line to its intersection with the southerly line of Lot 1. Stanley Ilills Subdivision; thence easterly along said southerly line to the northerly right-of-way line of Highway 34 (Big Thompson Avenue); thence southerly. crossing Ilighway 34 (Big Thompson Avenue). to the northeasterly corner of Lot 1A. Replat of a Portion of Lot 4 and all of Lot 1, Stanley Meadows Addition; thence southeasterly along the easterly line of said replat of Stanley Meadows Addition to the southerly line of said replat. thence westerly along said southerly line to the southwesterly corner of said replat and the southeast corner o f Lot 2, Stanley Meadows Addition; thence westerly along the southerly line of said Lot 2 to the southwest corner thereof; thence south to the northerly right-of-line of Highway 36 (St. Vrain Avenue); thence easterly along said northerly right-of way line to the northwest corner of Lot 44. Little Prospect Mountain Addition; thence easterly along the northerly line of said Lot 44 to the northeast corner thereof; thence southeasterly along the northeasterly line of said Lot 44 to the northerly right-of-way line of Highway 36 (St. Vrain Avenue); thence southeasterly along the northerly right-of-way line of Highway 36 (St. Vrain Avenue) to a point due north of the intersection of the southerly right-of- way line of Highway 36 (North St. Vrain Avenue) and the northwest corner of Reclamation Subdivision; thence south to the northwest corner of Reclamatioii Subdivision: thence southwesterly along said southerly right-of-way line to its intersection with the northeasterly right-of-way line of Highway 7 (South St. Vrain Avenue); thence southeasterly along said th , northeasterly right-of-way line to the northwesterly right-of-way line of 5 Street: thence northeasterly along said northwesterly right-of-way line to the southwesterly right-of-way line of East Lane: thence northwesterly along said southwesterly right-of-way line to an extension thereo f with the northwesterly right-of-way line of 4th Street; thence northeasterly along said northwesterly right-of-way line to the southerly right of way line of Highway 36 (North St. Vrain Avenue); thence southeasterly along said southerly right-of-way line to the easterly right-of-way line of Community Drive: thence southeasterly along said easterly right-of-way line and the extension thereo f to the southerly right-of way line of Manford Avenue; thence westerly along said southerly right-of-way line to the northwesterly corner of the I.one Tree Village Apartments: thence southerly along the westerly line of the Lone Tree Village Apartments and the extension thereof to the southerly right-of-way line of Graves Avenue; thence westerly- along said southerly right-o f-way line and its extension thereof to the southwesterly right-of-way line of Highway 7 (South St. Vrain Avenue). thence northwesterly along said southwesterly right-of-way line to the southerly right-of-way line of Stanley Avenue: thence northwesterly and northerly along the southerly. southwesterly. and westerly right-of-way line of Stanley Avenue to the southwesterly right-o f-way line of Highway 36 (St. Vrain Avenue); thence westerly along said southwesterly right-of-line of 1-lighway 36 (St. Vrain Avenue) to the southerly high water mark of the Big Thompson River; thence westerly along said high water line to the easterly line of Riverside 14 .. .Subdivision; thence southerly along said easterly line to the southeast corner of Lot 26 of Riverside Subdivision; thence westerly along the southerly line o f said Lot 26 to a point that is N 02 degrees 42 minutes E 85.3 feet from a point on the southerly line of Lot 25, Riverside Subdivision and S 81 degrees 53 minutes E 138.0 feet from the baseline of Riverside Subdivision; thence S 02 degrees 42 minutes W to the southerly line of said Lot 25; thence westerly along said southerly line 32.5 feet; thence S 30 degrees 10 minutes W 86.5 feet to the southerly line of Lot 24, Riverside Subdivision; thence westerly along said southerly -line 5.2 feet; thence S 28 degrees 33 minutes W to the southerly line of Lot 23, Riverside Subdivision; thence southwesterly to a point that is N 7 degrees 45 minutes E 50 feet from a point on the southerly line of Lot 22, Riverside Subdivision and 15 feet easterly from the baseline o f said Riverside Subdivision; thence S 7 degrees 45 minutes W to the southerly line of said Lot 22; thence easterly along said southerly line to the westerly line of Lot 1, Cyteworth Resubdivision; thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot lto the southwest corner thereof; thence southerly across Cyteworth Road to the northwesterly corner of Lot 5, Mocassin Addition; thence southwesterly along the northwesterly lines o f Lots 5, 4, 2, and 1 of said Mocassin Addition to the southerly corner of said Lot 1; thence S 51 degrees 55 minutes W 25.4 feet; thence S 78 degrees 50 minutes W 29.0 feet to the southerly line o f said Mocassin Addition and the southerly right-of-way line of East Riverside Drive; thence westerly along said southerly right-of-way line to the east right-of-way line ofCrags Drive; thence westerly crossing Crags Drive along the southerly right-of-way line of Riverside Drive to the southwesterly line of Lot 4, Prospect Village Subdivision extended southeasterly to the said southerly right-of-way line; thence northwesterly along said southeasterly extension of said Lot 4 and southwesterly line o f Lot 4 to the west line o f Prospect Village Subdivision; thence northerly along said west line and the extension thereof to the northerly right-of-way line of US Highway 36 *loraine Ave.); thence easterly along said northerly-right-of-way line to the east line of Lot 7, 1St Resubdivision of Buenna Vista l errace; thence northerly along said east line to the northeast corner of said Lot 7; thence easterly to the northwest corner o f Lot 5 of the Amended Plat of Lot 5 and the East 95 Feet o f Lot 6 0 f Buenna Vista Terrace: thence easterly. northerly, and easterly along the northerly lines o f said Lot 5 to the east line of Lot 168 of 1 St Resubdivision of Buenna Vista Terrace: thence northerly along the east line of said Lot 168, LIB, 148,138,128,11 8, and 10Bof said resubdivision to the northeast corner of said Lot 108; thence westerly along the north line of said Lot l OB to the northwest corner thereof. thence north along the west line of Lots 98,8B. 78.68,58, and part of 48 of said resubdivision to the north line of Lot 398 of said resubdivision extended easterly; thence westerly along said north line extension and the north line of Lots 39,40,41,42 and 43 of said resubdivision to the northerly right-of-way line of Courtney Lane; thence westerly along said northerly right-of-way line to the southeast corner of Lot 44 of said resubdivision; thence northerly along the easterly line of said Lot 44 to the southwest corner of Lot 45 of said resubdivision; thence easterly, northeasterly, and northwesterly along the property lines of Lot 45 of said resubdivision to the north boundary line of said resubdivision: thence westerly along said north boundary line to the Town Limits; thence northerly along the boundary of the Town Limits to the southerly right-of-way line of Business Highway 34 (West Elkhorn Avenue): thence westerly along said southerly right o f way line and the boundary line o f the Town Limits to the southeast corner of Elkhorn Addition; thence along the southerly lines of Elkhorn Addition and 15 ' said boundary line of the Town Limits to the southeast corner of Elkhorn Club Estates; thence ' northerly and easterly along the easterly boundary lines of Elkhorn Club Estates to the southerly , right-of-way line of Business Highway 34 (West Elkhorn Avenue); thence easterly along said southerly right-of-way line to the westerly right-o f-way line of Far View Drive; thence northerly and easterly along the westerly and northerly right-of-way lines of Far View Drive to a point on the right of way line at the westerly extension of the northerly lot line of Lot 7, Fall River Village Final P.U.D; thence easterly to the northwest corner of said Lot 7; thence southwesterly along the westerly lines of Lot 7,6 and 5 of Fall River Village Final P.U.D to the northwest corner of Lot 8 Fall River Village Final P.U.D; thence easterly along the northerly line of said Lot 8 and the northerly line of Lot 1, Amended Plat of Block 2, West Park Center Resubdivision to a point on the westerly line of Mountain Gate Condominiums; thence south along the westerly line of said Condominiums to the southwest corner of said Condominiums; thence easterly along the southerly line o f said Condominiums to the northwesterly right-of-way line o f Spruce Drive; thence easterly, crossing Spruce Drive, to the corner of the easterly right-of-way lines of Spruce Drive and Lawn Lane; thence northeasterly to the north corner of Piltz Resubdivision (also the north corner of Lot 23, Block 10, Town of Estes Park); thence southerly along the easterly line of said Lot 23 to the southeast corner o f said Lot 23 and the north line o f Block 8, Town of Estes Park; thence easterly along the north line of said Block 8 to the northwest corner of Lot 2, Block 8, Town of Estes Park; thence easterly, crossing Big Horn Drive, to the southwest corner of Lot 19, Block 10, Town o f Estes Park; thence easterly along the south lines of said Lot 19 to the southwest corner of Lot 18, Block 10, Town of Estes Park; thence northerly 212.23 feet along the west line of said Lot 18; thence N 88Â°51'52" W 25 feet; thence N 00Â°45'08" E 100 feet; thence north 95 feet; thence east 30 feet to the common line between Lots 15 and 16, Block 10, Town of Estes Park; thence nor(h along said common line to the southerly right-of-way line of Virginia Drive; thence easterly crossing Virginia Drive to the western most corner of Lot 6. The First National Subdivision; thence northerly along the westerly line of said Lot 6; thence easterly along the north line of said Lot 6 to the southwest corner of that property at Book 468. Page 659; thence northerly along the westerly line of said Book and Page to the northwest corner of said Book and Page; thence easterly along the northerly line o f said Book and Page and the extension thereo f to the easterly right-o f-way o f MacGregor Avenue and a point on the westerly line o f Lot 1. Birch Resubdivision; thence southeasterly along the westerly line of Birch Resubdivision to the southwest corner o f Birch Resubdivision; thence easterly along the southerly lines of Birch Resubdivision, Birch Addition, and Cliffs Addition to the southeast corner of Cliffs Addition and a point on a southerly line of Lot 1, Stanley Knoll Subdivision; thence southerly and northeasterly along the southerly lines o f said Lot 1 to the southeast corner o f Stanley Knoll Subdivision and the westerly right-of-way line of Highway 34 Bypass (East Wonderview Avenue); thence southerly to the northerly right-of-way line of Highway 34 Business (East Elkhorn Avenue); thence easterly along said northerly right-of-way line crossing Highway 34 Bypass (East Wonderview Avenue) to the intersection o f the northerly right-o f-way line o f Highway 34 (Big Thompson Avenue) and the easterly right-of-way line of Highway 34 Bypass (East Wonderview Avenue) which is also the southern most corner of Tract 3, Stanley Addition; thence easterly along the northerly right-of-way line of Highway 34 (Big Thompson Avenue) to the southeast corner of Tract 3, Stanley Addition and a point on the east line of Section 24, 16 I , .. , Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 68 P.M.; thence northerly along said east line of Section 24 to the True Point of Beginning. All in the Town of Estes Park. County of Larimer, State of Colorado 17 1 I . t, 1. EXHIBIT C POSSIBLE EPURA ACTIVITIES BEYOND 2008 The project activities listed below are representative of the objectives o f EPURA over the next 25 years. Numbering represents a West to East order through the Area, not a priority for action. The actual activities undertaken will be decided annually based on available financing, private development interest, and input from the Town Board o f Trustees. Other activities could be undertaken and some o f those listed may not be. ./ Y *1"liamDrotbmdht'fitdlicts(. .* <* ....... Â·..,Â· i.'.., i::r: I.,.4.rtÂ·Â·2 ' 43 9*-U~:.:43.<FL,~94.:r-Â·;1*46~ Â·11 4 OvICÂ¢mtilent , D. r .ExDectedlnipactf 1. Riverwalk Improvements and Enhancements An allocation for Broad- based upgrades and benefit improvements to throughout the Riverwalk. district and Includes Tregent specific adjacent Park, Elkhorn properties Extension and unspecified future improvements. 2. West Elkhorn Streetscape Create a pedestrian Elkhorn lodge link between and downtown downtown and businesses Elkhorn Lodge redevelopment. 3. Wiest Lot Parking Improvements Decking the Wiest Shops within parking lot and structure and possible retail on adjacent ground level. properties Construction and design challenge. 4. Cleave Street Parking and Streetscape Plan has been Cleave Street done. Make one frontage way, add angle redevelopment parking. 18 . 1 8 . . 5. .Moraine Avenue Streetscape Improvements Elkhorn to Moraine Piccadilly Square frontage, Piccadilly Square ,. West Riverside Drive Streetscape Improvements Old houses, could Riverside combine frontage, w/Moraine through to frontages to create Moraine two level developments. 7. Transit-related Amenities In town transit stop Broad-based could use some benefit amenities and throughout the definition. EPURA district role depends on long term future of shuttle-both local and into RMNP. 8. Bond Park Improvements Revitalize Bond Virginia Drive Park as a businesses gathering/events place and transit hub. 9. Virginia Drive Streetscape Improvements Was to be a part of Possible redevelopment of reinvestment in commercial adjacent propertied, but that properties deal fell through. Still a need to repair sidewalks and opportunity to add amenities. 10. Signage Plan DSW did a plan Broad-based but needs funding. benefit Possible CVB throughout the funding. district 11. Route 7 Area Improvements Largest possible Private assemblage for redevelopment commercial in the immediate development. area 19 ' 12. Stanley Park Improvements (EPURA Participation) Fairgrounds as a No direct private site for events development, , facility. EPURA broad-based role could expedite improvement to financing a district, facility. increased visitation and expenditures <7-'Â·t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p# 4 :Bj-PritifÂ©BÂ¢veltipmeitâ‚¬Pti,ject# 32Â·4 1343 -2 ... 1 . 'V . . -vâ€¢ .... -â€¢Â·â€¢. 44 â€¢ 23. + s :i 'r..-. .Â·. . -2. Â·,I.Â·, f.' j : 0 k icomftioht'' Fi; 4 Patalwid Eubliak 4 1>.3.1.., 1 0~ i~* -1-4 *dtidhsi.3 Â· *,9 ,â€¢4 , A. Elkhorn Lodge Development Public Riverwalk improvements tied improvements, to redevelopment West Elkhorn agreement. How connection Riverwalk connects to and through the property. B. Piccadilly Square Public Moraine Ave improvements tied Streetscape to redevelopment agreement. C. Fafaâ‚¬le Maintenance and Improvements Continued Grants or loans improvement and to individual maintenance of property owners properties in the or tenants core o f downtown to protect the investment of past EPURA actions. D. Steamer Drive Intersection Public Reconfiguration improvements tied of intersection to redevelopment (not by EPURA) agreement. 20 . 0 AN ANALYSIS of EXISTING CONDITIONS RELATING TO BLIGHT Town of Estes Park August 2007 Prepared by: Terrance Ware + Associates ' ' Table of Contents 1.0 Blight Survey Definition and Scope . 0 2 1.0 Survey Methodology 4 1.0 Existing Conditions Survey Area Description 5 1.1 Location and Boundaries 1.1 Existing Land Use 1.1 Existing Planning and Zoning 1.0 Determination of Blight 9 1.1 S lum, Deteriorated, or Deteriorating Structures 1.1 Predominance of Defective or Inadequate Street Layout 1.1 Faulty Lot Layout .... 1.1 Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions 1.1 Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements 1.1 Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities 1.1 Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title... 1.1 The Existence of Conditions that Endanger Life ..... 1.1 The Existence of Health, Safety, or Welfare Factors ..... 1.0 Summary of Findings 14 1.0 Sources 17 Figures Figure 1: Regional Location Map 5 Figure 2: Base Map 6 Figure 3: Zoning Map 8 Figure 4: Flood Hazard Map 11 Figure 5: Slopes Map 13 Appendices Appendix I: Photo Inventory Sheets 18 Frictino Cnnrlitinnc Qurvev - Town nf Fotpe PArk Torrance Vinre Aignrint~ -1- 1. 1 .. I I 1.0 Blight Survey Definition and Scope The determination that an area constitutes a blighted area is a cumulative conclusion, attributable to the presence of several physical, environmental, social and economic factors. Blight is attributable to a multiplicity of conditions which, in combination, tend to accelerate the deterioration of an area. For the purposes of this survey, the pertinent portion of the definition of a blighted area is articulated in the Colorado Urban Renewal Law (the "Act"), Colorado Revised Statute 31-25-103(2), as follows: A "blighted" area means "... an area that, in its present condition and use and, by reason of the presence ofat least four' Corfive under certain circumstances under the Act), of the following factors, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare: a. Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures; b. Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout; c. Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness: d. Unsanitary or unsafe conditions; e. Deterioration Of site or other improvements; f. Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities; g. Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title non-marketable; h. The existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire and other causes; i. Buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in because of building code violations, dilapidation, deterioration, defective design, physical construction, or faulty or inadequate facilities: j. Environmental contamination Of buildings or property i k.5. The existence of health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels Of municipal services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings or other improvements; or l. If there is no objection by the property owner or owners and the tenint or tenants of such owner or owners, if any, to the inclusion Of such property in any urban renewal area, "blighted also means an area that in its present condition and use and, by reason Of the presence of any one Of the factors specifted in paragraphs (a) to (k.5) Of this subsection (2), substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. For purposes of this paragraph (l), the fact that an owner of an interest in such property does not object to the inclusion Of such property in the urban renewal area does not mean that the owner has waived any rights of such owner in connection with laws governing condemnation. Some legal principles have been developed by Colorado courts to guide the determination of whether an area constitutes a blighted area under the Act, including but not limited to: The absence of widespread violation of building and health codes does not, by itself, ' Under the provisions of C.R.S. 31-25-105.5, "Blighted area" means an area that, in its present condition and use and, by reason of the presence of at least five factors specified in section 31-25-103 (2) (a) to (2)(1), substantially impairs......" F'rictino Conrlitinng qi,rvev - Tnwn nf F<cteg PArk Torranro Ware Awarinter ' . 1 ' preclude a finding of blight. The presence of one well maintained building does not defeat a determination that an area constitutes a blighted area. An authority' s determination as to whether an area is blighted.... is a legislative question and the scope of review by the judiciary is restricted. The principal purpose for determining blight and the related urban renewal plan and programs and/or projects of redevelopment is to eliminate blight or to prevent the spread of blight and/or the further deterioration of blighted areas (Sec. 31-25-107 (4.5) CRS). Terrance Ware Associates were retained by the Town of Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority to conduct an independent survey of the project area and to determine if it constitutes a blighted area as defined above. Based upon the conditions existing in the Survey Area, this document will make a recommendation as to whether the Survey Area contains the characteristics of a blighted area. The actual determination itself remains the responsibility of the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees. Flrictino Can,litinng Q,irvpv - Tawn nf ENteq PArlf Torrnnre Ware Aftnrinte. -1- I - 2.0 Survey Methodology An important objective of this Survey is to obtain and evaluate data, where possible, on a wide range of physical and non-physical conditions present in the Survey Area. Data was collected from various public agencies and field research was conducted on these various topics: parcel and ownership patterns, titles of properties and history; traffic, circulation and parking; utilities; street, building, and site conditions; property titles; land use; environmental conditions; and compliance with the Town of Estes Park's Comprehensive Plan and Town ordinances. Supplemental information was sought from various professionals and public agencies concerning the conditions of public facilities, services and issues in the Survey Area. Several variables have been considered, as required by the state statutes. The Blight Survey is divided into several tasks as follows: Task 1: Collect base data associated with the project and research, as well as prepare base maps of, existing conditions for the central business district survey area Task 2: Conduct interviews with individuals from various departments within the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County. Task 3: Conduct field surveys to determine if conditions of blight, as defined in the Act, exist in the survey area Task 4: Document survey findings in graphic and report forms, and present the findings as required by the signed contract Friftincy Cnnrlitinn: C,11-vev - Tnwn nf Fh:te<: Park Terrance Wave Awn,unter -4 . 3.0 Survey Area Description 3.1 Survey Area Location and Boundaries The Survey Area is located within the Town of Estes Park, which is part of Larimer County, Colorado. It is located approximately 72 miles northwest of Denver and adjacent to Rocky Mountain National Park and near the communities of Allenspark and Glen Haven. A Wyoming Fort Col lirt~ 1-25 1,1 'les Lovelind 'I Rocky Mln. National Park Grand Lake , 267 0 Granby Boulder O Winter Park â€¢ -Central City .... o Golden â€¢ 6*...9 1.14..Â·Â· Â·a- 247*,93>?â‚¬~ 1-70 1-70 r ._-9.-f:t, Â·Â·.;2/#4; 4-3 2Â· ' Vail T)* 1-25 FIGURE 1 The Town and the Survey Area are in a narrow mountain valley through which flow the Big Thompson and Fall Rivers. This physical setting, while responsible for Estes Park attractiveness, places severe constraints on development and/or the utilization of properties within the community. The Survey Area is an irregularly shaped area of approximately 260 acres, generally bounded by Overlook Court and Overlook Lane on the north, Community Drive on the ENU:tino Cnnclitinng Kilrvev - Tr,wn nf I.Ute< Park Terrance Wnro AN,winte: -i- east, Old Ranger Drive on the west and Riverside Drive and Stanley Avenue on the south. (see Figure 2). 3.2 Existing Land Use The Survey Area is composed of a variety of commercial office, retail, civic, institutional, residential, and industrial uses. Retail uses are primarily located along Elkhorn Avenue with additional retail uses along Moraine and St. Vrain Avenues. Office and civic uses are generally located in the central business district along Elkhorn with industrial uses east in the streets off of St. Vrain Avenue. Residential uses are found throughout the study area. The age of structures varies greatly beginning in the early 1900's with new development scattered through the study area. 3.3 Existing Planning and Zoning 3.3.1 Existing Planning The 1996 Estes Park Comprehensive Plan is the applicable land use policy for the area. The survey area contains several districts identified on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the Official Zoning Map, but consists primarily of the Commercial Downtown (CBD) district which is described as: allowing many uses with the purpose of establishing the downtown as the retail, cultural, and entertainment center of Estes park." Additional districts identified in the Comprehensive Plan include: Accommodations (A), Commercial (C), Multi- family Residential (MF), Commercial Recreation (CR) and Accommodations - Low Density (A- 1). Additional policies within the Comprehensive Plan address use, functional operation and design guidelines. The Town of Estes Park Land Use Code is the applicable regulatory document for the Study Area. 3.3.2 Existing Zoning The zoning map provided on the following page indicates zoning designations in the Existing Conditions Survey Area (see Figure x). Currently, the study area is comprised of several zoning districts including: Commercial Downtown (CD); Office (O); Commercial Outlying (CO); Commercial Heavy (CH); Multi-family Residential (RM) and; Accommodations (A and A- 1). The combination of zoning districts permits a wide variety of uses including: civic, public, institutional, industrial, recreational, residential, office, hotels, motels, restaurants and retail uses. Fri qtin o Cnnrlitinng â‚¬ 11 rvev - Tnwn nf Uqtpq Pgrk TerranceVJnre Awn<;mer -6. . .. .. pU': i .:44, ._ ~ j i,, 42â‚¬Off</. . Filytli feut % i?, 4 , IN:fF, , . ..,54Â»Sfit,>: , PE'* .â€¢â€¢33#12 Ey" 62 - r.... - ..9 7Â·c . & _ 0 - 9 -:'.9.2/1;21.,1 -7.,Al. .4 4.212 4 WV:24~~1* i{fl./.~.~:~ 1 4 4 .04,27'.., A), 4 '/ * ./list/*11 1*04 .AffLAÂ¥ T 5 -' 1.jÂ» 11 lt#' c :4"5 "ic.'gld -=%42, 6*418.8...&*f # .E . ..Vull.[ ./i4. pl/'////91~AL/- p r-' 1 2 4*~~ 0./Imt f.#,\ ..1 ... ittÂ« '02 06-~pil ,~9/Weinlim' _,MIÂ·*r-Irlitlic:,e,i,m,i:,~i . :T~ Il '1 .4 , )16"'5'u'ilpl~RM & Â· ~611*nri!"hile#â€¢ir,;In/54:$ .tÂ¢%71 i ~--I. 69&8$4& lig,ii.jtfu.,11,61.1 043,4,11%4 ... , F,1,11*,%,4 41:. ul, 3- â€¢Â¥,itilli-i,-itflk..i,- ..,3.b?~ 9 . 7 45.4'E=.0~ 1, ., 1*8%*ip.' Â£~94.gE. .... 0 t. 1*31/21Â£%.4* , . 107 PSY 4 1-*e Ailifv* ijÂ¢:*20*91a-4~1,9*0 1 ... I vâ€¢Â·â€žr~.4 ~K. . Gle J. .:A tp*MY 44*at b'}44 - -- ) $ ./t . 70~2* /17 2% ty. la w . 01.B * . 1 . ... knli' 1 ke.,41: 9 .74;=. 1- .4Â¥ i & . 491, A â‚¬3.f.:..- le J :.7 2 4,2 1.2 ..... T.:. .. ,#,4 * Â·tÂ®i Jiteâ€¢ 0~*.000*/ 2 .:72*6.- 1 ),ie=~id, . - $2127,24.-- 71634 Â· Â¥aN '11-- i.. 04Â« 4, ' t , - A 4 f '4% Zoning Districts Map of the Estes Valley 1 - .1. 0 0.5 1 2= V Miles 2 3. 6 ..1. .. *. la .1 . g Al ./ .1 2 = -Il.' P % - ;f ..46 1 4;,<,-1.1,11.:, t I . 1 + -411 F 1.Naa 1 W/&151 LEGEND: Existing Private Open Space Extottng Public Op- Stice N Eil-v..yaeve.3Fne,tedo(EVDC)Bolliby /~~V~ Town 01 Eiteâ€¢ Park Boundary Estes Valley Zoning Districts E Single Family Residential Commercial CU] Rural Estate : 10 acre min. (RE-1) - Commercial Outlying (CO) U Rural Estate : 21/2 acre min (RE) I Commercial Downtown (CD) [223 Estate : 1 acre min. (E-1 ) CE] Commercial Heavy (CH) Il Estate : 1/2 acre min. (E) il Office (O) Important Disclaimer Il Residential : 1/4 acre min. (R) Industrial I Residential : 5,000 s.f. min. (R-1 ) I Restricted Industrial (I-1) ' - 0-6 ./ th/ Toll . E-PI' c... c*- .4 30 re 8-â€¢ne Multi-Family Residential Accommodations . r....../04 ......ly I .-Se U .the r....'Ill. y .....2 . /4.-f *1* .r ..4 k. SuhK~*,drit. e~x~~1,4, UG- 01 ...Ni '4*-41 1*Â«>se ou.* e~.. geâ€¢â€¢a I -al,on . z-.ea, ds LE] Two Family : 27,000 S.F min (R-2) I Accommodations (A) M~ Multi-Family : 3-8 dWacre (RM) IE Accommodations (A-1 ) OFFICIAL ZONING MAP CP-rmAn. E.,s ./. PI,r,.re Cedâ„¢,4,6.0~ Adopted Nov.3, 1999 Revised September, 2006 22 00 m LU 4.0 Determination of Blight The significant findings of the Existing Conditions Survey Study Area are presented in this section. This evaluation is based on an analysis of documents and reports, interviews, and several field surveys and title review, conducted in January, February, March and April 2007. Each parcel and building along with all public improvements within the survey area were evaluated and deficiencies noted. The purpose of this existing conditions survey is to determine whether conditions of blight, as defined by the Act, exist within the boundaries of the survey area. The following standards were applied to aid with the consideration of structures and improvements: Standard, Sound These buildings or sites contain no or relatively minor defects, are adequately maintained and require no treatment outside of normal ongoing maintenance. Substandard, Minor Deficiencies These buildings or sites contain deficiencies which require minor/major repairs to secondary structural elements, such as fascia/soffits, gutter/downspouts, exterior finishes, windows, doors, stairwells and fire escapes. Sites with surface pavement deterioration of 25-75% of the survey area are considered minor deficiencies. These types of deficiencies might possibly be corrected through normal maintenance, however, replacement or rebuilding of components by people skilled in the building trades is recommended. Substandard, Major Deficiencies These buildings or sites contain major defects over a widespread area and would be difficult to correct through normal maintenance. Buildings in the major deficiency category would require replacement or rebuilding of components by people skilled in the building trades. Sites with surface pavement deterioration of 75% of the survey area are considered major deficiencies. The following conditions were observed in the Survey Area, and the factors that contribute to the blight conditions are described below. They are not listed in order of importance. Representative photos showing blight conditions in the Existing Conditions Survey Area are provided in Appendix I. 4.1 Slum, Deteriorated, or Deteriorating Structures Within the Existing Conditions Survey Study Area, a significant number of structures show evidence of deterioration. In most instances, the major structural issues resulted from buildings which are adjacent to either hillsides or waterways. Buildings built near or over the Big Thompson or Fall Rivers, are obviously subject to erosion of retaining walls and other structural elements. Buildings adjacent to steep hillsides, have similar issues, these resulting from hydrostatic pressure in the soil pushing against foundation and retaining walls. Runoff also plays a role in these issues. Many structures in the survey area exhibit minor deterioration including: deteriorating exterior finishes, caused by weathering and a lack of maintenance. Exterior walls, gutters, stairways, facades, and fencing require painting, trim repair, and/or tile replacement. Fwigtino Cnnrlitinnw Qi,rvev -Tnwn nf Fctec PorÂ·1,0 T,irrince U/,ire Afenrinte: -0- 4.2 Predominance of Defective or Inadequate Street Layout The Study Area has numerous instances of faulty and defective street layout creating unsafe vehicular and pedestrian movements. Traffic and parking facilities are inadequate to meet peak demands resulting in serious congestion during the tourist season. Several intersections are poorly configured with extremely poor visibility. Roadways are severely constrained by buildings, limited public-right-of-way and/or topography. The limited street width has an impact on the provision of sidewalks throughout the study area as there is inadequate space for pedestrian facilities as well. Numerous parking lots throughout the study area are poorly configured and unsafe. A lack of directional aids (signage, landscape islands and curbs) within the parking facilities is a contributor to vehicular accidents due to confusion of motorists of travel laneage and legitimate parking areas. Some parking areas are unpaved. 4.3 Faulty Lot Layout in Relation to Size, Adequacy, Accessibility, or Usefulness The overall configuration of lots within the survey area is a significant constraint to redevelopment or utilization of the properties as well as the provision of safe vehicular access and off-street parking facilities. The long, narrow lotting pattern particularly along Elkhorn Avenue is a constraint to contemporary development practices. Redevelopment or utilization of many properties would require aggregation of several lots thereby increasing the cost and complexity of development. The multiplicity of small ownerships is an additional hindrance to redevelopment and utilization of properties or areas assembled for such purposes. Building encroachment onto adjacent lots across property boundaries is a fairly common situation in the central business district core, particularly in the Virginia Drive neighborhood north of downtown. 4.4 Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions Drainage facilities lack adequate capacity. This includes curb and gutters, culverts, and drainage channels which are needed to convey stormwater away from the existing facilities. These factors have resulted in the deterioration of the paved areas as well as created hazards for auto and pedestrian movement throughout the study area. During winter months these areas freeze creating hazardous situations for vehicular and pedestrian travel. Sidewalks are missing along streets throughout the survey area and other sidewalk segments are inadequate in size and condition, failing to meet ADA standards. Routes between parking facilities and retail uses are undefined. Police reports indicate that vandalism, crimes against property and persons, auto theft and graffiti have showed consistent increases in the survey area from 2004 through 2006. The Big Thompson and Fall River, while tremendous physical assets are also significant liabilities. A significant portion of the survey area is located in the floodplain. The flood Flvit:tincr Cnnrlitinng Qi,rvpv - Tr,wn nf 14:teg P:irk Terrance\N f. re AL Tnrinter -l A- .. . LL C. 7.21 - 0 fÂ» . 34 ~ e % 4 -44 1-3 Â· ~ - 1 K. 11'r .7.4 - '. 4 1 X ./ -I 4 ..1- 7 2--1 0 11 ./ $ * V == 72 0 i JIni,'12 aIU]2*1, L- -' 2, m LUSE:REE . it- . A. ' y 1 11 r \\ 9 --- 1 / 311 & 3--10 6- 1 I . .A-l- O 3 3*4714 / \ ~fr /> ./Â«4- 0 0 52 r- LO u c J p QUE<. - . , ' 0-4 6-4 cn o C CO 1 \3 , L .1 1% 1 1 .- 31 / Clt.jr t; H (1) i-1 \ 1 1- 1 . / 10 9 11 -- __ r tk 14-Â« . 9 4-11 1 1 ~~~ ~ ~ ~ -tu.i -:~ -~-i, Â· gri - Llb 7524-1 0. 7 / '6.-PU , al jI . \ -I 1 -- 4 - 2*j 7 / 44 , --11~101 -TTT- \.. /-11-3 f --71 1 Â«1411Â» O < - 4AftÂ®442 22% EUWA ooll Jeek O ApnE suo!1!P ALL E]VER RD I . . b I hazard is exacerbated by manmade factors. Several crossings of the Fall River are susceptible to being blocked by debris resulting in overflow of the channel. The rivers have also been encroached upon by the narrowing of the channel to create more buildable land. 4.5 Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements Deferred maintenance is the most common cause of site deterioration within the Study Area. This includes neglect of landscaping, and vacant areas, exterior finishes of existing structures, parking lot surfacing, and business signage. Parking facilities and roadways throughout the study area show signs of moderate to severe deterioration. Several of the buildings within the study area have unscreened trash disposals and service areas, attractive to rodents and other scavengers, which creates an additional health and safety i ssue. 4.6 Unusual Topography or Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities The amount of readily developable (usable/buildable) land in the downtown is limited by the nan-owness and the steepness of the of the valley bottom and surrounding slopes. This is illustrated by the number of cuts into these slopes for buildings, parking lots, and other facilities, resulting in a large number of retaining walls where cuts and fill to create more buildable areas. Vehicular and pedestrian facilities are inadequate. This includes roadways, parking lots and pedestrian facilities. Topography and historic development patterns are factors adding to this condition. Drainage facilities lack capacity. There is lack of sufficient lighting, adequate sidewalks, and drainage facilities. In addition, most of the site infrastructure including drainage, irrigation, water, sanitary and storm systems are nearing the end of their life cycle and are in need of replacement. 4.7 Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title non-marketable; Building encroachment onto adjacent lots across property boundaries is a fairly common situation in the central business district core and in the Virginia Drive neighborhood north of downtown. This condition negatively affects the titles and therefore sales, development and financing of the parcels. 4.8 Buildings That are Unsafe or Unhealthy for Persons to Live or Work in Because of Building Code Violations, Dilapidation, Deterioration, Defective Design, Physical Construction, or Faulty or Inadequate Facilities A significant number of structures show evidence of deterioration. In many instances, structural issues result from buildings built near to the rivers (Big Thompson or Fall River) which are subject to erosion of retaining walls and other structural elements. Buildings built into the hillsides, have similar issues, resulting from hydrostatic pressure in the soil pushing against foundation and retaining walls. UY ktincy PAnclitinn,2 Q,in/ev - Tnwn nf F<:te,2 P,rk Tenni,re Wil vii A : :Arin le I -13 LAM ' â€¢ I 411 . 01 , U- 0- I I H EBOUNK/ -,WL/&~6 -1 1RuTTF Fib L 2- - '41 . 1.1 -- CD C) / A >26 2 T LAP . 1 , 2 ir -#31 \/ 0 >25.-42J 1 1 -.1 1 - An b f , -21 1 ZPÂ» :.. . W,1 .. .'.- - ~:= , 12 h 4, U >k - - " . 1 4.~2 -:- 1 Â¢t-~. 1 / 4 185: C -45 . ' Â£116, A 1 3 - 2 & , --h \ , 9-Â° 1Â»11.- / Â«3**A Â»4 : *-421 :v tbJ rn" l,IIIII!IIIIIII 2,111 5 ! 009' E 00f' C OOZ' 1 009 suo!1!puo) 5uils!)<3 Slope Map Ajepunog ealÂ¥ Apnls . Several buildings pose fire risks, not only to the general public, but to fire fighters as well, due to their age and the minimal standards under which they were constructed. This concerns include poor internal circulation, inadequate ingress and egress, breached or absent fire walls, lack of suppression, and alarm systems and concealed interior spaces. The water distribution system, throughout the study area also lacks sufficient capacity necessary for adequate fire protection. 4.9 The Existence of Health, Safety, or Welfare Factors Requiring High Levels of Municipal Services or Substantial Physical Underutilization or Vacancy of Sites, Buildings, or Other Improvements Fire and police protection, code enforcement, public facilities repair and replacement are all issues within the survey area, each has important public finance and cost implications. The contributing factors are many including: the age of buildings, site improvements and utilities; the impact and constraints imposed by the natural environment in and around Estes Park; changes in the population demographics of the town and; the economic environment. Few vacant properties were identified during the survey of the area. Those that were have moderate to significant topography typical of properties throughout the area, resulting in higher site improvement costs. FYâ€žtin,y Cnnflitinni Qi,rvev - Tr,wn nf F:te: P:irk TerÂ·viniÂ·,Wire A Nor,ink'Â· -14 - Summary of Findings It is the conclusion and recommendation of this survey that the Existing Conditions Survey Area, in its present condition and use, is a blighted area as defined in Colorado Revised Statute/31-25-103(2). By reason of the presence of numerous factors identified in Section 103(2) of the Act and discussed above in Chapter 4, the Survey Area substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the Town of Estes Park, retards the provision of housing accommodations, constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals and welfare. While some properties in the Survey Area are in standard or sound condition, deteriorated and substandard conditions are prevalent throughout the area. It should be noted that this conclusion is for the Survey Area as a whole and is not based on separate individual properties. As described in this survey, conditions existing in the Survey Area constitute at least five of the factors or incidents indicative of a blighted area. The conclusion of this survey is based on the following summaries of the seven blighted conditions found in the Survey Area and described previously in this report: 1. Slum, Deteriorated, or Deteriorating Structures. There is the presence in the survey area of structures which are deteriorating, due to a combination of structural, maintenance and investment issues. 2. Predominance of Defective or Inadequate Street Layout. Narrow roadway widths, constrained by topography and the existing built environment reduces the capacity of the street system and negatively impacts on the pedestrian system as well. Poorly configured streets create hazardous situations throughout the study area. Some parking lots lack capacity, have inefficient internal circulation, improperly located access points. steep grades, and faded parking striping create confusion for vehicular circulation within the Study Area. 3. Faulty Lot Layout. Narrow lot sizes, multiple small ownerships and irregular shapes constrain redevelopment and/or utilization of properties in the survey area. Parking facilities, vehicular and pedestrian facilities are negatively impacted by the lot size and configuration. 4. Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions. This results from one or more of the above conditions and (a) Deteriorating buildings and site improvements; (b) Floodplain hazards; (c) Unsafe vehicular and pedestrian pathways (d) increases in crimes against persons and properly, and; Ce) deteriorating or inadequate public infrastructure. 5. Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements. There are numerous instances of deteriorating site improvements throughout the survey area. These conditions include: retaining walls and other site features, roadways, parking facilities, sidewalks, signage, landscaping and lighting. 6. Unusual Topography Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities. Located within a river valley containing two rivers, the survey area is impacted by floods, Exigtino Cnnilitinng EnrvEÂ·v -Tawn nf Fqte. PArl( Torran,Â·p Wriri, ANnrinto: -1â‚¬- drainage issues and hillsides constraining development and use of properties. There is the presence of inadequate sidewalks, parking, roadways vehicular, drainage facilities, sanitary and storm systems and utilities. 7. Defective or unusual conditions title, sales and redevelopment of the subject parcels. of title rendering the title non-marketable,- Building encroachment onto adjacent lots across property boundaries is a fairly common situation in the central business district core and in the Virginia Drive neighborhood north of downtown, negatively affecting the properties titles, sales, and redevelopment potential. 8. Buildings that are Unsafe or Unhealthy for Persons to Live or Work in.... Poor and unsafe emergency and fire ingress and egress; poor or missing fire suppression systems in several buildings within the study area is present. Building systems in need of repair or replacement; deterioration of structural foundations and retaining walls exist with the survey area. 9. The Existence of Health, Safety, or Welfare Factors Requiring High Levels of Municipal Services or Substantial Physical Underutilization. The existence of conditions necessitating a higher level of services form public works, fire and police services is present throughout the survey area. The lotting pattern throughout the survey area, particularly downtown is in conflict with contemporary development practices. The long, narrow lots restrict redevelopment resulting in physical underutilization. FY,:tino Onnrlitinng Q,iniev - Tnwn nf Fite: Parle Torrnneâ€žWnve Awr,rinto: -16_ 6.0 Sources Town of Estes Park, 1996 Comprehensive Plan Town of Estes Park, Municipal land Use Code Estes Park, 1983 Redevelopment Program Estes Park, Riverfront West Corridor Master Plan Town of Estes Park, Parking Study, 2006, Republic Parking Consultants Town of Estes Park, Website, http://www.estesnet.com Robert Goehring, Utilities Director, Town of Estes Park Robert Joseph, Community Development Director, Town of Estes Park Lowell Richardson, Chief, Town of Estes Park Police Department Wil Smith, Executive Director, Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority David Shirk, Planner II, Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Carolyn McEndaffer, Code Compliance Officer, Community Development Greg Sievers, Construction & Public Facilities Manager, Town of Estes Park, Public Works Department Scott Dorman, Chief, Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department Terrance Ware Associates Field Surveys, January, February and March 2007. F. 1:tino Onnilitinn: Qurvev - Tawn nf Fite. Pirk Ti, rr an,Â·e War, AM:netriter -17- Appendices 1. Photo Inventory Sheets 14 i:tin{, Can,litinng â‚¬,inÂ»v - Tnwn nf Fite. Ps,rk Terrance WAre A ,~worÂ·int,g: -lk- -2,75*Sl,134 ./ *70 3 I , 4 14 1--7 1~ 1) Factors 4.2,4.4,4.6 and 4.8: The narrow width of this street vehicular constrains capacity and the ability to provide for adequate and safe parking, pedestrian movement, building access and trash removal. (Cleave Street) . 1 . '16~ -:4.' .1, 1-,1 Â·,reÂ·/ +3-/,f,9 , 'Â·47 7 : ' '',eft,t-' ' '. / :/ 7 ' ~ Sl : Â»"CD- 6, Â· Ir I . 1 **f.,~?~â‚¬iÂ·Â· ~' -Â·,M~f:# 9.- 9 :Â·,1 4/5 - ' : L . 1Â·.*pt j.'4. + ., t ~.,36% .41.44 -f 2) Factor 4.1: The deteriorating roof of this structure is evidence of poor maintenance and declining investment. (W. Elkhorn Ave.) Frictine Can,-litinng Ki,rvev - Trurn ni Frte< P:irl 'Verinnre UN,re A ,Â·,7}rinfee -10- I . 1. 16 i. *IÂ·ifSUÂ·Â·Â·*Â¢44â‚¬-2-4Â«t:,-~-/ -Fir:imillY:jj:Imilll'Ii.- - -=...=.....B....Tjâ‚¬t- I I -1/ Factors 4.2,4.4 and 4.6: The narrow width of this street constrains vehicular capacity and the lack of sidewalks creates Lin unsafe situation for pedestrians. (W, Elkhorn Ave.) 0.,t"ft T .. I W 4 . I. t 1 -Al,04 Â· Factors 4.2,4.4 and 4.8: The narrow,~ width of this street vehicular constrains capacity and the ability to provide for adequate and safe parking, pedestrian movement, building access and trash removal. (MacGregor Ave.) FID<ti,w Cnnilitinn: qurver _ Tr,wn nf Fcte. P.irlÂ· Torritnce Ulnre AMn,unteq - 30 - c 1.111 -. - F=D I 1 LORE CARÂ« RV WA.SH $7-" 73-7. *4.77 7 7.-47 -94 '.2 44. Factors 4.1 and 4.5: The deteriorating building and site signage are evidence of poor maintenance and declining investment. (S. St. Vrain Ave.) maff':il-~ f 2 - 1.1,- 2 4 #& 443 A d ' .;74 4 - Â»ir - â€¢ â€¢:*#t:/ r 94.. f taÂ·Â·Â·.9 -Â· EL- '1;9'Â·-7#Â· ~ ~ %'2*' p 6 '*'. .1 1 Factor 4.4: The multiple curb cuts along this major roadway creates an unsafe situation for motorists entering or exiting from this high speed roadway. (S. St. Vrain Ave.) Frigtino Ciwilitiang â‚¬,1,Â·wÂ·,1 -Tnwn â€žf F<toc Ps,rl- Ti>Â¥rrince Wive A..neintor -71 - 7,. 1 .Â·: ye 'Mi'Â·UÂ·'~ Â·:~ J; .-7 'g .1 4,2Â¢2 - cistli:-Â· Â· -..-Â¥:t-r , .5 :44% :. f.3 ~.3 1.- . . 31*WAW#N- I - L Factors 4.2,4.4 and 4.6: The narrow width of these streets con strains vehicular capacity and creates an unsafe situation for automobiles pulling into or out of out traffic. The lack of sidewalks also creates an unsafe situation for pedestrians. (Riverside Drive) Ihiqtino Cnnilitinng qi,rvav - Tnwn nf Fctec Pfirk Terrance Wâ€žri, AÂ«niÂ·inte,: -99. ' * .0Â·j, .Â·kt-{7~7*~~,54%4% - / . Ckp 4.= r,34 3 Â·10 99'5:4 -' -.t.-' .. . -ritf- . . 4./-0 e. 944%AF:Rf.:,~~. -I.....1,.. '*frif r . Factors 4.2,4.4 and 4.6: The narrow width of this bridge and street constrain vehicular capacity and creates an unsafe situation for pedestrians. (Craigs Drive; W. Riverside Drive, Moraine Ave) .22 <I- - Kg- t 1 * f < 161 ...>h>. 9- . ~ 04 Mu 2,;; 1.'4* 14 *f~ Mm ----F*//././r --7...... ...413/..1.-7.1/""Ill'll'll Â·. .pi-:v.~x.~.97~Â·-Â· Â«<-GritÂ·m,i*~ ~ --"L'*1:.11,111 - - 76 '1 'Â·1 *1 Factors 4.2,4.4,4.6 and 4.8: There is no physical differentiation (curbs, gutters, signage. sidewalks. etc.), between the roadway, parking lot. and intersection, leading to confusion and creating and unsafe situation for motorists and pedestrians. (W. Riverside Drive and Moraine Ave.) IFYiftinâ€ž Ciwiliticing â‚¬,irvi.v . Tâ€žwn inf F:te: PÂ·irt- Torri,niÂ·,i Wari, Aut,rinter -31- ..91. -Â· mhit#,3 . 1 1 liz 4, r b... , 1:.6~*i' - 9/ '*t#'4'Â£Â¢324'fr ~ - t.i , F .. e , i G Â·... Â·/t .1Â·:'N/:se=G.- .'Â· de+ ~44*19 - '46'k . 334~..Jip/~9*~"0~4~*~ el - ANÂ·-Â·'3â‚¬1Â·Â·14...'i.LA.I-*- -r- - -9:~2_-f--~ I . '/:"//':- -4:1~...gr ...9L..i-- Factors 4.2,4.4,4.6 and 4.8: The layout of this intersection and the lack of signage, curbs. gutters. and sidewalks creates an unsafe situation for automobiles and pedestrians. (W. Riverside Drive and Moraine Ave.) /1 .. u .' 'Wf# 1 4 I k' 24 8/08 , 1 . J . 1 181//i/Â£ ....I._'-Ii.-I- 1 ~Â·- - 1344. L... 4 Factor 4.5: The deterioration of the parking and access drive (cracking and spalding) is common throughout the study area. (W. Riverside Drive and Moraine Ave.) FYI rtin o Câ€žnilitinn r â‚¬,in. pv - Tawn â€žf F qte.. P.11-1 Torrinre W .re A:.rwÂ·inte. -14_ .f /9 - P- IV , l , 0 . 912. Mr 1.302.0/41 f .1 . .*- :-Â· 44 .â€¢69 Â·-- ...a , , 1/ 4 A'*L . IAA. I ' 4.t A Â·t; I 1.-0 + I I. :11 E,u h .! *kt< 3 . - -2.-,4,1.2..... t U . ve - ~~4 ,S' L tÂ·Â¥~4 - t. 8 .9&,15 Factors 4.1 and 4.8: This dilapidated structure is indicative of a lack of maintenance and investment. (Weist Drive) 1 //V ? L= i // f 1 : i._ 36-4165 It j t - 41.r ' /$. t. "wr-- - l L -- _ f*.2-f Â£ -7 stÂ·-2--~ Ir. + -- - 72 -, .14' r i. % 2 ,-4,9-4 '- .,40 'll-// ../.- /grAe-;* Factor 4.5: This crumbling retaining wall dilapidated structure is indicative of a lack of maintenance and investment. (Comanche Street) Th ,<tine Canclitinn< Curvev _ Tr,,un nf F,te< P:irt' Tervine,) Wrive Acrnrint o c I . ~ | .e / K- / *A.f'/''' -4, 4. 2=6-.! 1 713 1 JI -6 -_ *PEÂ· ~ 1401 kl Factors 4.2,4.4 and 4.6: The narrow width of these streets constrains vehicular capacity and creates an unsafe situation for automobiles backing out into traffic. The lack of sidewalks also creates an unsafe situation for pedestrians.(Comanche Street, top photo, Dunraven Street, bottom photo). Fw,ctina Ctinclitinn: Qurvev - Tnwn nf Fct-: PArk- Torrance Wnve A.viÂ·inte: - 36 - .. ' *kÂ» .i-+Ir --- ..#.....=21//FT~..... -/.i...../Â£/ 4Â·7lI Illillillll age*9034 3 fic.... - - .=2:*- e./,wr~~~ r -Â·r A - - 6 Tr=71-1 - f -42-res' tuit-123>-4,42,i'-1.~'i 13 - . t= Â· 2 .... - I Nes/9-357 r. ,-3â‚¬ T...2--LUÂ«16. ..,1.,*.JÂ· -:-.:-4.-i.- keigal#plai,&"1'0= 44 ... 1-- .. t Factors 4.5 and 4.8: These deteriorating improvements are common throughout the survey area. (Comanche Street, top photo, Stanley Avenue, bottom photo). Frittino Cnnilitinn: flin/ev - Tnwn nf Fete. Parlc Tin-ranci, W<,re A.cnrinte. - 77 - 4 . I . - i -_ 22 * B--/*. . -- =04 111 1 4 1 iÂ·.4 /. i ..2 4, r Â· 670-4>3â‚¬Aii ... , - : 1 1': #' 1 2%* 0 i g,1 Â£ .:~33 . 1, i 1 :741 .2. ' Atia :\14=122 ...Â«-, 1 , MO k . 1 L ut 7 11 .. 4 i. 7 1 '70: ~~'~tttl~ t'4~ -1 1 .1 ' 1.9 Â¥*,9 - il. r l. I I 4'V 3 1#. - -â€¢9 - t 1, -c*41 ker . r ././ Factors 4.5 and 4.6: The unusual topography creates drainage, erosion and access issues, as well as accelerating the deterioration of site improvements. (Cleave Street) U Y I ct i n <Â·1 Crinrl it inn . fli rvi.v _ Tnwn rif F :te: P:rk Vin-vance W.ve Aucarnate' -9R- - ~121 1 - ' er--1- Â·< \3/1 WEr-- i.in.... f.... Â¢20.- . , Factors 4.5,4.6,4.7 and 4.8: The unusual topography and presence of two rivers, creates drainage. flood. erosion and access issues for many parcels located adjacent to the rivers. (Moraine Avenue) 21Â· 44*,2 149 49Er. - - - -- =-- - ~ 49â€¢.\W 41- 5 -/ zE- - i 4..2/t _ -_-_._c-7.0-12-2 15-U_; ----ft- - ~1 fif- I Factor 4.1: Secondary deterioration of structures is common throughout the survey area - evidence of poor maintenance and declining investment. (Moraine Avenue). Fridinâ€ž Cnnilitinng â‚¬,i,-viÂ·.v -Tnwn nf FL=te< P.1-1 Teri-rinre Wnre Ae:neinter - 90 - er..uitÂ·.Frfi.Â·-9 EFNIC ESTES PARK MEDICAL CENTER 555 PROSPECT AVENUE â€¢ P,O. BOX 2740 â€¢ ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 P]-IONE 970-577-4470 â€¢ FAX 970-586-9514 E-mail: raustin@epmedcenter.com Robert Austin Chief Executive Officer April 30,2008 Town of Estes Park Jacqueline Halburnt 170 MacGregor Ave. Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Ms. Halburnt: At the April 29,2008 Park Hospital District Board of Directors meeting we discussed the April 15,2008 meeting held at the Town Board Room dealing with the proposed continuation of EPURA. Please accept the following comments from this meeting. The consensus was that EPURA has accomplished a great deal during the last 25 years, but there was also some discomfort about how the projects were financed. As we understand it, in the last year the original EPURA $104,206 of property tax was diverted from the Park Hospital District to EPURA. The Estes Park Medical Center has problems similar to the Town in that we are expected by the public to provide services to residents and visitors to the community for which we are not always ~ reimbursed by the recipient. It then falls on to the public to pay for these unpaid services through taxes. Taxpayers in the Hospital District have a right to expect that taxes they pay for the Estes Park Medical Center actually go to the facility. The Board is very concerned with the tax implications to Park Hospital District from the continuation of EPURA and would object to any proposal which reduced funding to the Park Hospital District approved by the voters within the District. 1Â« 1 U ~obert Austin CEO ce: Park Hospital District Board of Directors Member of American Hospital Association â€¢ Member of Colorado Hospital Association â€¢ Member of Voluntary Hospitals of America, Inc. Claudine Perrault Director Phone (970) 586-8116 FAX (970) 586-0189 cperrault@estes.lib.co.us ESTES PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY Estes Valley Public Library District http://www.estes.lib.co.us May 13, 2008 Mayor & Town Trustees Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Honorable Mayor & Trustees: Thank you for hosting the April meeting on EPURA for government agency boards. Calling such a forum demonstrates a commitment to dialogue and an interest in helping one another become better collaborators in building community. The session generated a number of questions for the Library which we would like to discuss further. As we did not have an opportunity to explore details with Director Smith prior to tonight's vote of the Town board, here are our concerns and the reasons for why the Library does not support renewal of EPURA as proposed on April 15. We appreciate using an URA to solve blight and danger and willingly accept the impact such a solution would have on Library tax revenue. Fortunately, there are no such slums, deteriorated structures or unsafe conditions identified in the EPURA Plan. Library funds must be used for library purposes unless it can be demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt that those funds are absolutely needed to keep the community viable. That cannot be done when all of the sales tax revenue that EPURA receives is channeled back to the town instead of being used for its designated purposes. There is no blight, Library district tax dollars have a statutory purpose, and the EPURA program negatively impacts Library revenue needed to achieve community goals. We appreciate the invitation to comment on the renewal of EPURA. We look forward to future conversation on our collective efforts to better the Estes Valley. Sincerely, 0 i 1/5,60-04<~4>1 14,/uv Barbara T. Lister, President Library Board of Trustees cc: Will Smith RO. BOX 1687 â€¢ 335 EAST ELKHORN AVENUE . ESTES PARK, CO 80517 .. V - - ESTES VALLEY RECREATION and PARK DISTRICT April 21,2008 Mayor & Town Trustees Town o f Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Honorable Mayor & Trustees: Thank you for hosting the session on EPURA and its impact upon other governmental entities in the community. We think it is valuable to look at issues and opportunities in a collaborative fashion. We also appreciate your efforts to make Estes Park a better place, and EPURA certainly provides a mechanism to fulfill that function. As a Board, we had the opportunity to discuss EPURA at the end o f our regular monthly Board meeting last Tuesday, and these are the comments associated with the discussion: â€¢ We think there are values in increasing the boundaries on the east to include Stanley Park and the Elementary School. While both of these entities will not create additional resources because they are tax-exempt properties, they certainly will need improvements in future years. We understand that EPURA improvements are not identified at this time for these areas, but by enlarging the boundaries, it may create some opportunities in the future that will be beneficial to the community. Inclusion at this juncture is probably a lot easier now than in the future. â€¢ On the west we feel that improvements in the new plan for Elkhorn Lodge fulfills the need for re-development. Because of that fulfillment through private development, there is not a need for public involvement of the Elkhorn Lodge properties. In addition, those improvements would provide additional assessed valuation to our base and would impact future revenue. That amount of lost revenue could only be determined by an in-depth review o f the commercial and retail development proposed. If approved, we feel it could be a good sum of lost revenue to our District each year during the life of the new urban development plan Again, thank you for allowing us to comment on the renewal of EPURA and wish you the best in your decision making process. If you would like this to be discussed further, we stand ready to meet with you. Sincerely, 4//40- U Mike Richardson, President Board o f Directors P.O. Box 1379, 690 Big Thompson Avenue email: evrpd@aol.com 970.586.8191 Estes Park, CO 80517 www.estesvalleyrecreation.com Fax: 970.586.8193 .. I . E--13-03 Dear Board Of Trustees, I cannot be at the Board Meeting tonight, but; am sending this letter on my behalf. Would you please read my statement for public comment, concerning the renewal of EPURA. I feel that EPURA has done a decent job in the past, but; I was greatly concerned as well as disappointed by the "expectations" of Board approval without more detailed information. This is not only valuable for the public, but for the Trustees to be able to cast a vote in the best interest of our community. As a businessperson, one must take a step back reevaluate, show how to enhance/improve upon the business. I feel this is healthy and gives you an advantage you would not have otherwise. I would suggest that (if we can) we as a town take a break from EPURA and step back and reevaluate how it is doing, or how we may improve or alter to make it even better. After all, wasn't this established several years ago? And has not many things changed in that time frame? I would entrust that you as our representatives, make a decision tonight to halt EPURA at this time. I would also hope that if given an opportunity to vote a new EPURA, the public and Trustees be well informed which will only make EPURA even better. Thank you for your time. Sandi Gleich Photos By Sandi, Inc. P.O. Box 2842 144 W. Elkhorn Ave. Estes Park, Colorado 80517 (970)577-8187 -21441-Â»LOL d /,41 .. I I Community Development * Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: David Shirk, Planner-rk,6 Date: May 13, 2008 Subject: Stone Bridge Estates Final Plat Request. This is a request by Rock Efffril A ''' I Â·, \'.WI"~MI <#Th// Castle Development for the final plat i ~**'~t[~~'1:*8 =*mali----1 - 'MEN=RI~I of Stone Bridge Estates subdivision, r-M=*-081 r - Bell.="m=1 IL- which received preliminary plat _%441141 lili approval by the Town Board on ~*HAE[*61 18-hole golf l~~- '~ November 27 2007. This final plat 33@WaZAF *2; course rf complies with the approved -32[_ 525 5 Li preliminary plat. ~ A. Pr--r- Subject _ â‚¬1112 ~ 1 i* f /1.22Â»tF property Only the Final Plat is being heard 6 6 2 4% Pro tonight. - -4%411 --6---1/rk . Development Proposal. The Stone Bridge Estates development proposal includes dividing the existing parcel into three platted lots. The northern lot, where the Van Horn Engineering building is located, would be separated into its own lot, and rezoned from the existing "RM" Multi-Family designation to "O" Office, for which is it used. The two southern lots would retain the existing "RM" Multi-Family zoning. The Estes Valley Planning Commission has approved a development plan for these two lots. This final plat will allow these properties to be developed in accordance with the approved development plan to build twenty-four detached residential dwelling units. Background. In January 2007, the planning commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of the Stone Bridge Estates subdivision. That recommendation included a requirement for the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners to grant a right-of-way width modification (granted in May I , .. 2007). In November 2007, the Town Board voted to approve the preliminary plat of the Stone Bridge Estates subdivision. At that same November hearing, the Town Board voted to uphold the planning commission approval of the development plan for this property, as approved by the planning commission. The Fish Creek Water Association brought this appeal. This association has a private water line that crosses the subject property, and would be protected with a formal easement should the Stone Bridge Estates plat be recorded. In addition to its appeal to the Town Board, the Fish Creek Water Association has filed two lawsuits regarding this proposal (memo from Town Attorney White attached). Both suits are pending, though neither prohibits review and/or approval of this final plat. Development Review History. 1. January 16, 2007. Planning Commission: Preliminary Plat/Rezoning, unanimous recommendation of approval of the three lot subdivision and rezoning of proposed Lot 1 (northern lot) from multi-family to office zoning. 2. February 27, 2007. Town Board: Preliminary Plat, request to continue indefinitely, unanimously approved. 3. May 21, 2007. Board of County Commissioners approved request to apply right-of-way standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code instead of those found in the Larimer County Road Manual. 4. August 21, 2007. Planning Commission: Development Plan approval to build twenty-four detached residential dwellings. 5. November 16, 2007. Fish Creek Water Association, Inc., filed action in Larimer County District Court against the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County, applying for a Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief. 6. November 27,2007. Town Board: Appeal of Planning Commission approval of development plan, Preliminary Plat, and rezoning. Town Board upheld planning commission approval of development plan, and approved the preliminary plat and rezoning. 7. January 2008. Fish Creek Water Association filed an Amended Application for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief adding Van Horn Trust and Rock Castle Development Company as Defendants to this action. â€¢ Page 2 4 1 .. 4 - In March 2008, Defendants jointly filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss. This Joint Motion to Dismiss is currently pending in the Larimer County District Court. 8. February 6, 2008. District Court affirmed Board of County Commissioners right-of-way waiver. March 21, 2008. Fish Creek Water Association appealed District Court's affirmation. To date, the Court of Appeals has not received transmittal of the record of the Larimer County District Court case, nor has the Court of Appeals entered a briefing schedule for this matter. 9. May 13, 2008. Town Board: Final plat review. Budget. N/A Action. Staff recommends APPROVAL of the Stone Bridge Estates Final Plat, subject to: 1) Compliance with memo from Town Attorney White dated April 24,2008. 2) Compliance with the preliminary plat approval. â€¢ Page 3 . 0 . I GREGORY A. WHITE Attorney at Law North Park Place 1423 West 29~h Street 970/667-5310 Loveland, Colorado 80538 Fax 970/667-2527 April 24,2008 DAVE SDI[RK, PLANNER COMMUNITY- DEVELOPMENT DEPT TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 Re: Preliminary Subdivision Plat Time Extension and Final Subdivision Plat - Stone Bridge Estates Subdivision Dear Mr. Shirk This project includes restoration of the habitat along Fish Creek on both the Subdivision Property and the Town Property on the west side of Fish Creek. Also, the Bridge across Fish Creek will be constructed by the Developer of the project for access to the Town's Hike and Bike Trail. Approval of the Final Subdivision Plat shall contain a condition that a Development Agreement providing for design, construction and maintenance of these improvements between the Town and the Developer be entered into prior to the application for any building permit on the Property. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. yerMTruly Yours, / \/cal Greg~y A. White GAW/ldr I 1 .. . Memo Date: May 9,2008 TO: Mayor Pinkham, Board of Trustees, Town Administrator Halburnt, David Shirk, Planner From: Gregory A. White RE: Stone Bridge Estates Final Plat - Court Cases The following is a summary of the two current cases involving the Stone Bridge Condominium Project. 1. Fish Creek Water Association, Plaintiff vs. Board of County Commissioners, the County of Larimer County, Defendant. Case No. 07CV593. Summary of Case Plaintiffs filed a Rule 10 (a)(4) CRCP appeal of the Larimer County Commissioners decision approving a waiver of the right-of-way width on Fish Creek Road. On February 6,2008 District Court Judge Hiatt affirmed the decision of the Board of County Commissioners. On March 21, 2008 Plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision to the Colorado Court of Appeals. To date, the Court of Appeals has not received transmittal of the record of the Larimer County District Court case, nor has the Court of Appeals entered a briefing schedule for this matter. 2. Fish Creek Water Association, Inc., Plaintiff vs. The Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Van Horn Trust, and Rock Castle Development Company. Case No. 07CV1078 Summary of Case On November 16, 2007, Fish Creek Water Association, Inc., Plaintiff filed a separate action in Larimer County District Court against the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County, Defendants, applying for a Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief. . .. 4 Declaratory Judgment. Plaintiff requests a finding by the Court that the Larimer County Rural Area Road Standards shall applyto the Stone Bridge Development ratherthan the provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code. Injunctive Relief. Plaintiff asked the Court to enjoin the Town from further action on the Stone Bridge Estates Subdivision. On November 21, 2007 a hearing was held before District Court Judge Gilmore on Plaintiffs request for the Preliminary Injunction. At that time Judge Gilmore denied Plaintiffs request for a Preliminary Injunction. In January 2008, Plaintiff filed an Amended Application for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief adding Van Horn Trust and Rock Castle Development Company as Defendants to this action. In March 2008, Defendants jointly filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss. This Joint Motion to Dismiss is currently pending in the Larimer County District Court. As of the date of the Town Board's review of the Final Plat of the Stone Bridge Estates Subdivision, there are no court orders enjoining or preventing the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park from reviewing and, if applicable, approving the Final Plat of the Stone Bridge Estates Subdivision. 2 . 4 .. 1019-995 (0Â£6) M. 99Â£5-999 (0Â£61./. 41500 0~ '1~d .]S3 . Â·OW )~0 161, tio~ UU U# AILy 'NS,L '63 JHS AS ONIA]AblnS ONÂ¥ 9141&133NION] NHOH NVA %\ ff 'ZE '33S AiN ' LE 'OHS RN 3}11 10 NOLLWOd V ~ #Akhvy**E'*26@4-- NOISIAIGE[fls SLLY,LSN 396INg SNols mroâ€¢ i Js v-1 N & iV7d UVNIi -lilli Al NOISIA3B 31,1 i Ill /0 4 1 M 3 0 ' A" i tii, j:i 1 t M JOL N . 1. 18, il:~K 42.44 B 110 *1 We f 411 ' S 4 i '.:f r hil l_& 7 0 2 4 5- i 5 41 Â· 0 p â€¢ 2 j! i~ 2D' PR--- - -xy,~baa- -3- - 41 il :,1 1 1 laill 4 tWERUNE EgEME#" (SEE NOTE m ., 4- 0 lilli : 51 11,4 11 F 4::l 43 :i * 1 1 i iflit 42? 2,/ 4 41 - 8, 110 "1 / 23 11 111 ' 5% . 11, Mi 14|1 1 11 1!111. % 2 l~ eli f 9 -0 f 1 1 2 4 /1 2 Â» 4<' fs \ I i'1111 li 1 i :1140 0 &*a f 11 I / 29-f EN 6 9 Â§910':1 0 4 i i::1@: # W k/44 4 ~ E iN 03 -4 M# 4 2: --* L_ *9~ :.6 * Hili :11,14 4 '1 6 i, Ah -42.42-- 25- 1 ..0'et, .b. 8 2 2 2 & & N 5 1 4 4 -- la --- IM!*Eli! i!,ME 0 1:m=N~ 9 0 - â€¢ ~em .,les) 01% .2 i 7 &1 0 fs P k N b E: 01 0,8.30.la g / .1Â«io (2001) iE fE 24 .. ./7 1 \2 1 / a/7 3,---Fri m 11 1 1: i L Â·e tee 11, 321 1 .#.2 229e ' Â·4Â·i. '" 4 P N i il R . i /.Â£ ./ 1 01 b 4 11: *! 11! ii <4 '* r m litil 0 1 -V .- 91Â§21 /1 6/. , S ...10 11 #4 m / ..4 0 LELIS 6 mil w 4Â© 31 4 4 2 9Â§@ .:.I . E:F Al A. NOÂ· i ..I r '1 11' N . 03 DI 56: 81 ..~- x/ a. 05 2 2 2% '1 1 1 4*%13. 1 . E d j A 2 ..- + 99' E 111 111 1 P 4 '11 1 - -1- .. 2 *1 m - - r 1-- #/ 20 1114 - a = CO Â¥*rm:#0 2432,4- - 1!10 - & 0 8% @3 3,9 X====2 8 . % 0221! lilli 14~ ill!]. & -~*b i; h:z, U P : lill:Ii' % 1 Le,Â·9 3,60." "s) V ----4~Va *r- lit "R'ii :;,p 1 d ,~.i! Ill ~1~lidlllillill~ illli lilll ~J .â„¢ i.11 4:114@i; ili,i~: 0:MIi# *11'11:1$1;jÂ· Â¥* ",mill m ! 13 2 224_ U7 *4-J- -- 9 :,11 IMiE!6-le, i!*i: AGAbij i!:hli~lijinii:iit !41 114 4 1 92&22 2 8,4 v lp. 1, 6.2 45 98Ji E m:,92.14" I -ze. 1 illilili:i . .3...210{1 0,1:1 16&i mi i 21 d.iii -sh- 43 1 ~8&44 i;!1% mt#: Pilill","4*1*11# :i:ir '9 1 1 11. ii Â· a 722 14 2 ./ 15 2 I / (.0010 let.ColeS) A liEE@ 1111111:GGEaZIENG . 151*812 ZNNUNINNE, 1 Malmillithis@:2311 126â€¢* i.gli.-0.1 ' i I , S. I-DO-9002 WITHIN A PORTION OF THE TER OF SECTION 32, AND THE E 72 WEST, COUNTY NO T ST QUAR ER F SECTION 31. THE 7-'4 - OF COLORADO STONE BRIDGE SOUTHWEST QUARTER SECTION 29. ALL IN 4,0'14'037 577'an ~lk '4, * eall:#r CREEK ROAD R.W. 50.5 S.F. PARC .. â€¢0.-9. (0Â£6) *3. 80Â¢5-986 (OLS) 9140~W ALZLW 'N91 '62 339 MS "509 0.,0-103 **d S]10 . '08 '33.0 .I..0, #'" UU SNIA3AkinS (INV ON:333NION] NNOH NVA \4 ## 'HE 'DiS AN '18 '33S IN i[H,L dO NOILNOd V 1 1 3t f NOSIAIGUAS Sil,VISH NOGINg NNO,LS -- i 3 L c Ol N & 1Vld UVNIzI -UN 1 , i Ae NOISI.I 31Â¥0 I - 1 1 IL r<Al,# i -â€¢4*- 1-1Â·2~ 0 ' M ne<. 4 .1 2,-Ch 4 111) i-[_1 I_.li>~7~L_*,44111Lfg- 10& i. ~ A~42%2 Â·- rr==9t / \ 1 ' li - *A#-9_ 52,_1#t - trl' 9 i % 0 -=2:fEE. El. 2 , \ :1 Url- 12= \\ 2/ \I \74 trh161 Â·~ 1. 4 .b / . 2Â§ A 4 4% '2 // 244 ER!. ./ ;7 0 \ /\ MI z ma :, 7 // / e \ 1 1 1,1 20 d 1 CE EN 4 1 Il f -, '.p ..#.W," k, hy Ev~~ C / S / --8 // ~ LÂ· PÂ·?t' m & / 11 1 1 .r 1 44.7 1 ullk / 0 0 k 6 i Ill 1 r 31 h 0\ I .9 6 5 -ef i l'#12 f./ / 7 $ b // M â€¢ 1/ f 1 'i : 11 1 1, 1 1/ 11 t ''I. C \ / / 01.1 / / l &: I / ' 2 36 f / "N /111 / 1, // 4 / 4 1 1 MI / 1 11 11 51 l ... / 41 C -- M 1 34,4 , hi 4 1/900 2 11 =11,1 F 2 B,/ r t a -/1 f P 49 i 48'15. 87.00') W / :1 1 M Â¥ ~Q~ #23%=w *Â¥ 01. 411. ; 1-liTEr- f ~R"*Rimil lilli lilli ' 4 T--- 6' 3 041 1,111 , : 5 _ 8%22 nt %5 # 111.0Â® :11 .a I j i 43 gli /b \ -2 96 4 9 ' #12 /f i \ â„¢4 =172# FOUND 2.5 MAQEOE 8002 9 1 bldÂ¥ ..a BEING LOCATED WITHIN A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, THE RTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 32, AND THE COLORADO SOUTHWES QUARTER OF S 4 // 1-/ll .0 Rl.EMIMOUZ_ 69:/Ed=i=* 222*b-r-193 Stone Bridge Appeal to the Board of Trustees November 27,2007 The very first appeal of an Estes Valley Planning Commission's decision was heard by the Estes Park Board of Trustees during their November 27,2007 meeting. The Planning Commission had chosen to approve the development application for the Stone Bridge Condominiums rather than grant a continuance as requested by the local neighborhood group, the Fish Creek Water Association. The continuance was requested because: 1) FEMA's flood plain map indicates portions of the development will be built in a flood plain. The developer Frank Theis and property owner Bill van Horn have resurveyed the area, believe it not to be in the flood plain and have requested FEMA to revise their flood plain map. 2) The development is too close to Fish Creek Road. The developer and property owner requested and were granted a waiver for the Larimer County Right of Way requirements. That decision has been appealed and is in Larimer District Court awaiting disposition. As a result the Fish Creek Water Association filed to appeal the Planning Commissions decision to approve the development. During the course of the meeting new information regarding this development came to light. Is can best be summarized as the following series of events: 1) The developer and land owner filed a development application in Jan 2007 for the Stone Bridge Condominiums. 2) Sometime (before -91=::<the application was submitted, the Kitchen gravel company needed a place to dump some fill from another job. They contacted a friend, the developer of Stone Bridge. 3) He and the property owner gave Kitchen permission to dump the fill on the property (needed to fill in the wetlands on the property?) prior to the proposal reaching the Planning Commission 4) Kitchen obtained 2 permits from Bob Joseph's department to dump on the property, again before the development application reached the Planning Commission. Director Joseph stated the reason for issuing the permits was for "weed control". (The fill was dumped and has been piled there for almost a year) 5) The Planning Commission heard and approved the proposal contingent on a list of 20 conditions (including the two mentioned above) on Aug 21,2007 6) Joyce Kitchen, of Kitchen Gravel Co, is a Planning Commissioner and did not recuse herself. She voted to approve the development even though the developer and land owner did her family's company a favor (and could get further business if the development was approved) Does it seem the developer and property owner began this development prior to being approved by the Planning Commission? The Board of Trustees upon hearing this new information did not halt the proceedings nor did they initiate an investigation to determine if any wrongdoing had taken place. Instead they discounted the fact that neighbors had to live with the piles of fill for almost a year , 1. 4 . I I and made no issue of the obvious conflict of interest between at least one of the Planning Commission and the approval of this project. Rather than stopping the proceedings to investigate i f any wrongdoing had occurred and correct the past errors, they voted to uphold the Planning Commissions approval for the development. They then proceeded to approve the subdivision of the property into three parcels (to facilitate easier funding for the development, as stated by the developer). They continued by then approving the rezoning o f one o f the parcels where the property owners business office is located from RM (residential-multifamily) to O (office). Lost on the entire Board of Trustees (or perhaps conveniently overlooked) was the fact that the property owner had been operating a business since 2000 on a lot zoned RM (for residential-multifamily). They voted to legalize this violation of the zoning code by changing the zoning, after the fact, to O. The Trustees did direct the property owner and Town Staff to have the two piles of fill removed from the property. Rather than remove the fill, in April o f 2008 the property owner spread and leveled the fill across the property. At best this has the look of small town politics and cronyism at work, but our elected officials and town employees have certainly given this matter the look of conspiracy, fraud, and malfeasance of office. I don't know i f this series of events has been just unfortunate or illegal, but I do know we deserve better from the people we voted office. , ' ,Â·Print' Page 1 of 1 I . From: Randy Eubanks (reubanks@larimer.org) To: coloradotrump@yahoo.com Date: Tuesday, May 13,2008 1:57:48 PM Subject: Follow-up Bob, It would be helpful to have Rick Spowert present his DOW opinion with respect to the Fishereek Road condo development. Thank you, Randy Eubanks Sent by Blackberry http://us.mgl.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.rand=3a176dthck3kk 5/13/2008 : Print: Page 1 of 1 From: eubanks2002@earthlink.net (eubanks2002@earthlink.net) To: coloradotrump@yahoo.com Date: Tuesday, May 13,2008 5:36:12 PM Subject: Stone Bridge Estates 4* -7; ,* Â£13-~es Ark. dcz:,4 0-02 -7Zu.rlees I am limited as to what I can 'say' tonight as a commissioner with respect to this development, although as commissionef I'm definitely on record as supporting smart growth and against unbridled condo development, especially in areas as special as the Estes Park area. Here is my educated opinion as a citizen: I believe the Stone Bridge Estates subdivision to have a significant detrimental impact on the mountain views of Fish Creek Road. With each passing condominium complex, I believe Estes loses some of its unique appeal and aesthetics. Once these areas are developed, there is no going back. As a frequent visitor of Estes Park, one of the initial impressions of this beautiful town is the cluster of condominiums that crowd Highway 34. Frankly, this stretch of road reminds me of areas in Littleton. As I mentioned in our meeting in January between the Larimer County Commissioners, the Estes Park Board and the EVPC, developers should expect that development in an area as special as Estes Park meet a high level of public scrutiny. Please consider the affects on wildlife, and quality of life for those who live in and around Estes Park when making a permanent decision about Stone Bridge Estates and your legacy as community leaders. Very respectfully, Randy Eubanks http://us.mgl.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.rand=bspcof'75aifff 5/13/2008 1 tily'~ ' . 3~ N ..20Â£:g~ 2: r -1 4 :.1 + le .4 :, + . 9. 4 **â‚¬ibl./.....AL + J â€¢t + :. t $ +1 44 1 41 + : Atiâ€¢A ,... * ff i --eÂ·-J~+ + .0 4 + * 2-I 1 14 , + k.6 : + , 4, 1 1 ~* 41!6.4'.1 ' 4.,, I r ** 4 4 1 ...+ ... 1*t . . t . 4 . Jar 44,..4....-1 ,. + n. *1 .... it:'. 1 ..6. 43 : t + t. 4.1 . 4. f 'GF + .fy&0,1, * + 4 3.1 .. 11 . I. :04 + 1 4 0. I . 44 ..4.1 " *-/ 2 . .4-4 + .4, Â· .. ..L. I Jir.: I I .4 .. .. 1 4 . - ....tu ., 9 ..0â„¢6â€¢. /1 04,3. 90 4 ...4 ... ** I . ++ ... .+ *. A .. 41*.... .. 4 I .'. *Â·i. t Ki.i#rÂ·AE,ar i .. . .B<. 0 .2 -1. 1 1 1 .. '' I f. * I N I 911 4 . ...../ 4 0164 2 9 ./ I TZ; . I + 1 + .. ... + + a , ...4 :t 1 .0 I . 4 . :-I .,4 + + 11 Â· . ..1.4/ + V Â·, ; 01Â·.240,. ~ 4,:,ij:~4,:11. 4 2 ; 1 P . ./ 1 - '. P. f ..2*1 44 1 + . I f , 1 Â· '4. 1 I . 't 9 14, .,..: .4 :14. :.- 1...9 I * +I . . 94 f I ... 1 . 0 , 4/4.W& 7 + 1- f. I "Ill-I. i~.4.'.::...64111} f. ++ A . .,1/:DZ: . 'MA ,/< 3 #99#JIP.:1'TA. *4 f ~*..=j "'EpF~F21, 7 i Â·x Â· e,, . : ~ *+ $ I . . I : J I $ \ * . /... g I I I . I 4 I . t C .â€¢' N. i & t . ' 14 t ~1 %' ..1 11. P, I * . :442: # 9.74- lb' * t ** J I. I 4*.t*. 4 i Ir..,tÂ· ' .B b . . 1 + 37 *I t': , -:* :.frjaf I 41 1. I Al - : f# fil.v.. ' El..> /ac : 2. t.2. i. j .2 5.* PL 1,2 + 4 1.-4~ 1 , 1%473 J : + .T?..C 7 ...' 'ai.AF:UW':.41.2: 4,w' .5 ifÂ· 't :92 ~ ~ ',Â·t* , 19 : 1 7 2 144; v 44-~A. ,#.* , 4 . 14. 7.. 91.41 rf.1 4.....7.1.f 24.4. 1 , A , N 4 r., 06 ' , 1.: ' ..:ar A ... . t*. f. I .ftgea. 4 43 2 ..3 1 ,.0 '0 *4 104?Ni :ST"j 1, 44*..2 /:r - ~Â· ' 4 - . I ./. 5/,4, e 4 6. Â·Â· 4-47, <. Â· . 4Â¥17)& ..1~ lid / 0 1 1 . 7 j.a I 1/1 ./ Â¥.â€¢ 2Nntli . 4 4, I. 744*/ I. I ..>. ' I ' A.6.9.7, : . 1. 4. 440 V:. ...., . k 1 -<, 34*30*i Â· Â·>1 :.Eil*.: I ' .. 3,61 :, '304*,- . 4 I , . . ..f . . t. Â»41 , I -al 2 1'1 L /6493,11:0/9/19(2,1 . + ' 1 i 0 u,2. .. r .... . . . I .: I 4 r . r. ' *4Â«40.-f: 14..4 *r-7:z:~ ~~ i.--- I 91&*el r:ir : 3 b:<6Â£:*D 7 3- * '*Â» , ' 1 .. .5,.. P.275 5 j r ,1~:2-11.4. f i , 6 , A, *' 1414' I , ,%4. ''h . 4, Â¥ - $ 4 : t. a â€¢f 4 4 1,? 7 4'Ai . J . 5,1 . ~ . . .1 T 'XE~ 224.*il; .... t.1 1 "01$ Â¥46 4 I 63: i -AC, ail.. A. 4.21'3 04 >31.td,floÂ·'4 - '-7,--11 . I. + I L.,r...6. . -, W-- ... - ,:21 ; 1 .66' J , i , . qr . . 1 . 4 i . 52. 1 P' 1 4 4 - .1 I *.1 ...1.' 1- 4.4 4 + 4 1 . 1*'R// 4 1 + 4 1 -1*11 + â€¢ 1 1 . ... 4 I . i ..... I + .//jillizi / 11 1 . 1=9 .4 -24â€¢ 1 , 4 ./ 1 . ./ r . m . * 1. ./. . ..0 . $..S - 4 1 0 - - ~kleÂ·~ I , .*fr -Ii- 7 1 . / .* 1 0 4 4. - 4 - 27 -: 7 Â· --- . .i-+41 I D + L 0â‚¬/2 . il . m 1 .W 0 7 # 1 -/ 1 1 ... LO 0 .. 1%\ , - 1 1 2%- I . - - +. q. e 1 1 . :i - 0.-I. 1 . - *ilr. 7 ' 1 ' 1 1 4 1 8.&5 :*M ' 4 $-: 16 + 4 N *dr $. l,i ... .9 4; + 1 I. 4 .. Ay: . , . -2 .-b,4...*~I ... 1 Agi .. *8 I I. $1 + -.billi. I. I .... 0 . t + 4 $ .. k .4.- =' :Ii I . .1 + 1 . . $11 0 j 11 -- 4. . Â·AÂ·4 ..%, i 6 41, 1 .. $ . 1&1 - r. tt . .. 1 4 I . . d ~,l~3~i,t , 1 .1.Â» . 1 1 1 '1 . 1 j ,Â· .wr . ... 1 ~11 , 1 FI t' 11 41 0,1 f. 1 11" .1,1, jâ‚¬ 4 ..... I . . â€¢ Â£ 3. L 0. 4? 4 ... . . 6 TA~M~aff; t 1 - 4 - % '*I .. 2 1 f j Â·Â· Â· B . 4 .... . 4 .. .. '1 t: ,#.1 : ..,4 . , .* dâ€¢- -Â·,4/lf. -:2.41/9. Al:: ..Â·: ...21 A 3.2 4Â· . , .4 . ..tu . .,J~1./.trp':.f,~...9â‚¬R,eg,1~ ~ . 4 ' AL ' I'.~LyÂ·4:44*.C'Â·:Â·4*. ba~Â·,1. , + 1 1 1 . ' : kil J ~'$ ' 1â‚¬*2 -1. . .,4.- â€¢ 2 1 . 15. . . . . . . 1 :4'#912/'L' .1 1 ' t.1 1 , Â·Â· r -:7&44//EAY: .1, , : Â· 4. a.tt- Â·A i :3 41. a.l'.~:t . 1 1 14/1 11 1 - ::I. 4/, I Â·,i . tâ€¢â€¢ leâ€¢~t Â· . "...4 1 *.. - 1 t .1 / :1 . I . â‚¬ I . , *.e.*441 .1 1 .. 1 168 1 , 1 1 4 4 .. 4 . I 77 4:L:l 1 .. .:,F ... -.. I Â£ 4 - , 'i. .1 .1 . e.... I . : . I . 4% 44 . .4 1 .1 " ... 1 1.42 .â‚¬ 4 *. , * 1..1 41 4 1. ... ... :11Â·'Iii 4 t.. : .. ,1 .. ..4 . 1-...1-.- 1 .1 .--I. .$. I :, . - /3 2. 1. I . 01 r. 1 e ., 4 1 / / - I . ' 1.4, ..... ./ . ./ , 6 : :0.- , *t . 7 . Vr .. 0 1. .. . 1 ' ': I'. 2, .,, ... 2,1. .r - 1, t, 1 $=A I , . ,'' I f Â· r * I Â·t rt '. I â€¢ - 1 4 I . Ar '.1. ..9.. . I . . 4 .. tâ€¢ ; . 4% ... .. 4 ./ 4. 1 . -- i . . S 7 . 4. .t: !1 . t.-44:4$ .. .:â€ž.Awk' . .... + . , . i i:Ke . 74'2 . 1, .1.,5 + .1, . . .- 4 '>,Mek't 4- ./ . I ~ *0 6-*.~.**42.<r~<" 4 , 1/ b' .41 + 2.. I .'* ...1% ' - 1 tv I #' I. 1 - t. . . 0 . Â· 4 J 11 .i- .... : i :11.. 1$ . 4. 4 . f.' 1..'..4 1 .. + 4 ' .1 i. 1 , 1 /4 - , 4 1.~. . 4, i Â·. !11./ 1- . I ./. 4 1 . 114$ :. I '' - ' I. f 2 1 I t. . ..1. I. I. ' 1 ' . .Ill lili'll :I. . Ill Â£ I . . . . 4 +e. 0. , .1 . ... .6 4,1 . 0 ... 1 . . . .1 .4 . J . I 1 ' '01/7 4 54 14 0 ./.. v I. 0 . .+ . I $..-I - L ..4 ..AN: ..01,6. 1 Â· 1 /h<.' . e r %*,4., I.:~ 1 '' . . 4 . 4 4 ...~..:.r'"I I , . 5 ' * 1 f ' I. k 222$/41'4 .1 . 1 ... h.$ ......6,2 ,, ./4 -b + 9.- A + r.,7 .1.2- I 4 -4.kL.,SAL 4 4 2 32 / - . 41 - I . .-i. f. 17 4 ?t 491/68iMA,17/ 1 I .1/lil I 1. - A . I I.*,il : 9 ,....1 "WI . 4 f. ...\332% 4: -- '7 , . ..1 Â· 4 --' 12 ... 4 -4. .. . .4 , kw.. ./ 7. -*i l C ..: + * /Â· D- -S / I I 422>4~i NCE'.I'kl, i 64-*4Â¥ y -. . 4 f, ~ $ Â».Â¢44, *. , i 4 1 . -- â€¢'i . I V f , 4 4 i.*.. I, 3. 4- 1.4 i Â· 1/ 4/A NYâ€¢ Â· a/ . 1 1 ' * Â·- e - . 4 , ' 3 3/ 4. 44 I â€¢ I.- I I . f 1- : â€ž . ... er I. . i i,4 1,4 *lf . . . ... -:,lfht. â€¢.$-- 4 I. I Â· â€¢ 79 . *~b p i'~~~ 4, /1 0 i i'.914*11 4-*' . Â· . 9 : I::372 5/ I - ' I I. .17 4 't *t .4 % 1 ...4 : 4. 4. f /1. . a. â€¢ JAMAÂ· . I .. . 4 ' t' I .: ... ...... '2294 #. . 44 . 0 "7 3. I i.. . . '4 + :-7 0 1 Â·â€¢Â· . 49+ U .7.. ' ..A . . I .29 1 " ..1 A .a'â€¢-02 ' . ; d......4 I . 1 Â· 1 .5< .. tâ€¢ '-....4 4 4 0. .4 . 1 - *Â·4'20-iw ~4*' 4 .. 4 -441 . * 1 -4*@f 0, C f Â·11 Z.,t.*r: ..1 1 Â·Â· Â· 7 I 1'.1 -4 ..1 *41. I Â·ri $'. -.3*. * ..A . 6 - I 5 9/1 .. 5. ti, 6 ./ I >i. I - 2.. e 40, b. 06 . . '....4 . Â£ + /4 , 1 + ~.145 ** A A $ I. . -- I . 1 6 2:S:.2 : :. I . b . 0 1-â„¢9//Ill I.E./.2.-- -, ./.- .....% - -- =, - v.--Ill -. , - - 'ce j 1 --r - - =/1//9/--Ai-Ok n - I 2* 1 --=tl= . . 94--AP 7 -- - F --- --. I.- * f 3. - - --4 - - - 1 - , & L - -ff - 9 f :- - !240 t . 12 -1 - -,3 27> >fa 1 ) /8-- .Â£- /1 F 'k:y-' I r W - 6 - 13,Â·-, , k. -Em . - 4- - -. I.- I - 1 - , f .14-- 3- . f ... - .... I - 11*krâ‚¬O > - 4 7 47 -002" 1 -- . ./0.- 1 -li- - . - -. - - - -3, ial - --1. , 34 - 48 1463(.. 'i----46 3: -: 4 0 .-:-3 1/) - 1 , - - C '221 - 4 .: .2 - I - 1743< r -ti i 4 . 44~"'~~ ' -.r1 =- I - 1 ta C t . .. - - i -- -1.-1~ Â¢%*11- 2 -1-14 1//f.5/2,-/ 32Mt; - -- f, 1 - - *W fij, ~li~ 1 1 .~tr ik- . 57.W , .a, - - Iii f - - - r - - - Â¢ - S fi''I!. i .... - - - #-5.6 -r ., 5 Â«it- . h I " Z . .,2 $ -- .- 3. lat - -,= ---2.- ---$ 4 1 EI t.'t k - 0 1Â£0 0 + - ' --~ -~.-~~_~i. r {\J $ *441. r=fs G h - -- - / . - ./. 1 1 - 3 ; la â‚¬7 . - I -- 9 - I 1 $ - P.-- - k - t. 1 I. 4 -- Â¢ -~ i â€¢im i - I.- 9 - 4 4 ' . . - -'A 15/le"G f Â£ I.Â¢ 1 2 --- < -' -,- = ->cf- -- I - 49 $*. 8 - rt-Â£ -1--.--- = = #C. 2 .- - - ile 1--1 - 1 L., . i- m.=4 - 2 'Ir N 'E~ ti - 2-?- - I I - . - Â£ t - i 42. - lt,â€¢1 t Alel...1/.. $ g,-p, r - ellie- . - r-I - 21*# + - I+. - ./. - :1 -Ni' i. :- - - r 1 1- -- - - - -S -. --~ - -: du 17 4 - i - .91- - 9.-; -'1423- 1 1 -4 - f A -- - Â« 2 6.-2 , r -- * . -- 1 % % - 1 --- Â»f 2- -- -41,--=:-i~ET-4 ; N~- 4 1.- I --.- :43-462:.-- -<4.4.~9-4-i OZ.-- /m,, ~ â€ž*,r*.224?-29.t 1 21,1," 1 - V,=9777 -Â»1.I j.: 6- 7 -'- 4-7-- . - i. 72.-;f,inE . .. - - --4,3, 2- A- 1 - -21 4 ' t -1- 1 - , r - - - 2 -1-- - G:r i ,(t 2=fil"-1 11--f- 1.,it- - ;' . --le i i 1/lit.9 i .... .... .-,/4.-- ---f.'I -- 1.-4 - :5 .- ri ' -i I - . -, - - 8 - .. de. . .2-, Z = I - I -tj, i-J ,- #4=- - 4 fÂ· - -- fr- --1-4--4 's-b , 3,21 1- - ---re - -=341 - I ~Â¥-- f iI â€¢ I - , I -- I - . .4 - .i /0 -1 - 4 . -- -I- 9 11,r_ , -: , ..... L I - ' '- - i , . ....1 --' Â¢ -- --49=-9 -4--34 *. I ... ,- : 3 ./3- - .3 ,/i - 2 1 - - - f - - 4 -, I - .4 r , 9 - de .i-.f -2- - I -1, .1 24 - I 6-ir - . I -I i ~ . 4.-_I .:-- -- ..LI. -- ,- 1 - r. 1 - 1 ." 2 - 1 / - - ; .., LF 0-*-1--- C.- ,Â£23â‚¬0--1 -1 - U:, . - *f Vi i - 02 - - i " t_ /2 i /4 --4- ' 2, - Â£5 . .1. I #-9 ----.. =* gai> .ey â€¢ 73* - - -â‚¬f- - ~ -4 -L MI. 0-- .ty-SA . -: --,1 r. - -0,79 -1 +-- 2 1 : - y - -t - 6 9 - ' *i - - - I. -- 6 -- . ' --4 2-t )-Al -4- I i -- . 4 : --- i.- $ - - I ..1 y -13' Fl 4 -' I " 4 * I --- , 2. 1 1 f J _ :. 4G--1 , I -- 4 Li~-,- t- _; 1: Â¢ -. -/=,4 -r- ...r - E 1 4. = 6 - I It. I I I - I I ... - i. -3 - I -- * .- A t..431 l i * Â· â‚¬*G f-' . + 01,)".r. Â¢ - -E.. =-".. -S, . * - - 2 J j Z - -- - - - 1 $%:40 - -- C . - 1 -fisliti.â€¢0#~4--i- 2 . ..60*2.-fâ‚¬ -- - - 9 , I _ -- -17 . F. - + - Â¢ -4 $ 1% , '-25 = 45tr- r . 47-t f - - - 1/4 10 1â€žPt - â‚¬-t 5-4 - 3, 49*61--- - 0 1 *1 1 - -Al I , D - - :Â¥ 14- Jl~*f kit 11*: - ..9 =. I - 1---2-3-e / 1*XORME- *#< lllllt $ 4 - -- - 3- * " - g#.4.64 11-1 r I .4=-SG Â£- 1-Â«-4 il : - --I J - - i. t . -- 1 - ..t - t V E. e ft - C I 1 7 -1 - . - 1,1 / 4 4 1/ 1.9 111 1 1:4' 4 I 'll'~ 1 + 11. 1 + 11 11 Â¥ 1 -'F 11 11 1 11 b.,12 <1 1 11 -, - 1 1 4 'll i ulf' p 1 .11, 1 1 1 01 1 10[ 1 21.4 tL r 1 .1 1 4 i, Â·11~; 1 1 .0 f y. 1 - 11 .1 1 lilli.011, 4'f 1 1 ~316-1 " ~ ~*~-1 |,': . -i il~ 4 2-2 _:,ilf~~It i 'c T - 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 4 11 1 1 11 , 1 41 1 1 1 1 1 - 4 1 14-W 11 1 . 11 1 ' L~ + ~ ~ 4 â€ž 4 *, '.1 11 11 1 +11 -1. 11 111 3 1 1 -' 'fi'Â·â€¢,0,ti,Ii, 1 1 1 1,-1 111-1 91 - ~Â«I - ~' 3~I,,"Il -r I X 4 1 1 41 - 211. 1 f 4 -1, 2 '4 0 1Â« 01 .111.1 -i K 1 l' 1171 01 / 1 11; 10 -41 11 -1 "~4 r,i & 3 41-' 1 -11 1 -1 - 111 9 Pl * ~ ' b- '' I ' i<PA t'Lf ir ' 1 11 h ; -' '-i'' 5 i- I - 7 77â€¢ 1 1 -5 + 1 114 41 *11 ' I Hu'f i 1 1 -L I - T 14 - 411 1- 1 1 4.*bill 1 i ~i'Vt ' - 4 Â£*lt 1 4.- 41-01 1 11 t'I j - 1.11 1 1 1 11 41 1 1 11 1 lili 4 - + 1- 14 uil-11 lilli 1 11 1 gui 41 9- ' -i 1 10 - 11 r 4 1 1 :41 i , - 7 0- 5 "Aft:Et' Â· 15 4, 1&411:,4- 1 1 0 11 1,4 .- I #1 I I i & 1 1 21 17,1, ..1 4 '12! 't 11 1 1 1 1 940 1 1 1- 11. 111 -_0.,41Â£f'ft,3 ': ~ :':,L 1.11; 1,1 ~? 1 1 4 1 r ,-1116 1 . 1 1 I L . 4 1. f r 11 - I'l 'll I . I , r ,, I - 1 .- . 11 1 1 1 1 Eil.* 11* 11 rL , 1 .1 1 1 6 1 I I Il - 41 - 1 -1 4- t" r - +1 1 - I f 74(# 29 alb 14,V, . , < 1 7-4 1 1 , 11 1- - 11 61-0 tle f"El *1 r 1 1 1 - 14 -1-11- 2 1 1. 1 14 ..11 0 1- 7- I 'Lk' 4 +PA' 111,1 4 1 +F - 1 , 1 1 1 1- 1 11 1 - 11 A- 19 + 1 . 1 6 1.1 1 , 7 .1 1-11 1 0 +11 1,1 1 4 1 1 11 - 1 7 1 1.0 1 11 - 4 1-, 1 1 1 5211 'E i 1 I 1~ .12,2' ,%F,# 1 1 .1 4 1 1 11 1.4 1- 1- 1 1 -1 1 1 - ' r _L 1 -- , ~ f Ir - - , 1 1,111, 1 14 7 - t- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 , 1 -1 71 . 11 4 1 1 '-4 6. - r' 16-â€ž, 1 1 1.-11 1-- 1 11 -41 1 11 14 1 1 1 1 , 1 --- f'*r:' 4 1- 1 1 1 1,- -11 . 11 -1 1 1 lili J 4 1 4'Ir ' I ..1 1 1 1.,1 - 11 1, 4 - 11 1 4 'Al 1 --. - 1.111 1 /1 Q 1 I d Ii' 1-1-1 142 . 1 1 43-ji 1, 1 1 -- 11 - Â¢ p,#&'2' -14 - 91 -11 1 1 r . - 1 1 ; 1 -1 .1 1 11-+ 9 - 1- 1 It ii,h#Â· 1 1 111 Â£ 1 - 1 - f 1 11 14+ 1[1 - 441 IA, 4 1 - -11 1 9 -- 4,4 11 2 . 1 I r 1 -1 j.1 + 7 r''Ir 1, 11' 4 1 - 1 1 4 1 1 1 111 1 1, t - hi + 1 1 - I - , - 1 14 -10 + 11 1 - 1.1 1 . )40 - 1 1 1- -,1 V , 1 117 11 ili'/' . Wti I - 44 1, ~ ' 1 1 11/*11 1 - 1'' . 17 | 11 41| 1 -1- 2-LL' * 2 ./ 1 + 1 . 11 -11 1. 1 * 1 1.1.1- -11 1 1 11 Ir ,-, 1 - 1 1 1 1 /1 1 1 . 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 lili - 1 + 4 . b 1 1 111 1 + 14 11 1 .r - 1 -- 1 . illr'- 1 11+41 : 1 4- 11 :2 1 + ' 4 IiI. - 1 IT 1 11 4111 6 11 1 9 -- 114 1 '1 lili ./ 1 11 11 1 1 ' 4.1, '.,1 11 1 11 1 Itt 1 11 1 + + . 111. \11 1 ' .4 4 11 1 hip 1-1 1 .1- 1 11 -1 -1 1 11 -1 + 1 lit 1 11 1 Ill Â¥ -111 - 4 -1 1 ..11 1 1 L 11 1- 4,1 1/ , 1 1 1.1 1 1 .- .6 1 6 Â· , 7 -' + 1 .... 0 , 1 r 1 1 --1 1 1 1 111 1 1 J 1. ' 111' 1 - _t, 1 - 1 111 1 - ' 1 1 1 1 -, ' lili I , P - 'T- ,-1 1, + 1 a 11 -r - 1 , 1 1 1 1- A r I 11 f - 1 lili I ..1 1 4 r 6' -10/44 1 1 1 111 11 + 1 1. * r 1 1 11 + -1 11 J -1, 1114 1 1 1 1 2-1.- 1-9 - 1 -1 i 11 ,- 114 11 -1 1 1 1 1 I'lili 1 1 . 11 -9. 1 1 1 - - 6 * 11~ t-4 -, i /FV ' 1 -41 11 -6 1 = 1 1/'lli41Â¢'9' ~ * 1 111 . 1 - lit +I 4 ME . il.i 1 . 1/lill~ZE- 0 .All 1616 2.1 * Ddl,6/ i 44 h# I * / . 1 1 ,/4 d I:, 4 1, 1 Ill YL t.,4 64. 1- 1' 1 r. 1 4, 7 /)'914 4 - i '91*91 1 t 1 *1 171* 14 1 1 It T'411 4% it-' f 3,Â£Fr~Frr". ../4 , 9.-* 1 1 1 L 4 4 1-1 'tt I *t , , i , 1 * %62 4 , 1 , , 'i' kl ' t...e , 1 1 "- T -1 1 - 1 ti, 1 t , 4 1 04 9 11 '/1 , 4 , : 1 - r.2 31 1 ... 1 -1 1 1 41 '. h lit . 1 -41 1 1. 490 104 11' 1 , \2,6}11':41 f " t, ,1 (, 4~3' 1 ' " 1 1/4 /1 1 1 1 1 1 :111 14 1 $ ~ ; 0â€¢r / f - 1 * 1 11 - 1 . , -1,11 4 i I 1,1 *# 1 41 , 44 1 '1 1, 2 , ' 1 4 ~ ., 4<4 1 ' Â·Â· 1 4 4 11 4-'.. 14 9 1 1 ' t, L . -. t Â¥ . 5 L '' i t' Rilt/,i,(" ,- '4 Â¥ I k . 1 , 1/ ,i 1~ | r t, .'971 1 2 4 1 If C '11 .1 1 t 0 *i, 1 ' 4+ -1 1 m' L '*4,Â«i~41 2 , ;4. 4 . -1<1~ I ' , , 1 14 'Ir'll e L .1, 1 ' -4 4 .~ , '*p. ,+ 9 2 11, 1 1 11 14 2.,W/9 / 1 1 + 4-0 1 r_ 1 .1 1 ; .pt Y Â¥ AS, , .4 ' 2 *- 3 L~. . 7- rE Itt 1 .~ .2 ~ ,#, t_, (11~r * L 4 iL , r 1/1 .2' 7 , i 1 4 1*1 1 . 11 1 4 , ' 4 ~ 1 1 et , N .4 14 4 tr, ~ 1 1 j. 1 1 4,1 1 1, 1. ..~ t 1- T r, , 3 1 3+ ,--J- '1 1 11, 1 41 , t--1 :3 4 1/ 1 -111 r :. R -- I 19 1 I. f/,1, 1 ~ , 11% . 7- 1 11- 1 I # 1 41 - 41 ti + 111 -1 L I~ 11,11~(fl i ff-,4 1 2.rirrii,; l 1 1 '1 1 + u 1 r It J 1 1 1 . 4 4 13,1,1" 4,11, t. 1 . . S j<l.: 4 9,44'94 t;~ ' ':' ':,I'*I'| 4 4, + 1 1 4 :1 1 71 4 14- . th 4 41, 11, ' I f, 1 f ]4 / , 4 4 1. 14, A. Â»1/1 + 111 4 k t-L *~tÂ» - h ~;~ ' ~*~ Â£ -~ +I; ~ , ;, â„¢~' ~I, 0 1 1 :t -11'I- I: I.Wt i D-{ 1 46-1,1'll, 6 f"47, , fl 1 1,; ' -P 7-1 ' :; l ~t (|,; ' t ' 4-7.41; f.'1- J; it ;4*, f~ ' 5 1 -- - ' 1 ~9 1 ' 4, 1 14 -- 41 ; 61 h.1- 1 ~ 11 t . 1 4t tj '11 it 1 41 1 It 1 4 1 l. 1 ~ 7 t .,1 6 . 5.- 1 2 1 1 1 " - 11 ' ti 3 j If -:t 4 1 , 1~Â·l ~t .11, 12 , 14.,, 1 1 B 4 1 .f p.f , + 11 i |t F , , . 1.1, -r 1 4 1- 41- 1 - 1.- 3 L 1111 I #t' 1' -' 1-1 / t: " - ~ ~ 1 1 114 t. - 4 4 1 , 1 t | ~~ ~411, , 1 , - , '4 * 7 1 =41111 1 1 : '- 41 - 1 , n 1- t -1 - 1 1, 1/ 11 1 11 Â¢4 1 /1.4 1 1 ,-,4 342-3 1 I h 1- t %1 1 1 ' 1 b 1 , 4 1, 4 t 'i '2 , 4- .1 ,1 1 1 1, 4 14 - '' 4. r 4 2 4. 1 '1 1 31.4 1 i , -3, '. 1 1. 1 6 1 1, l i ' ' ' + n -\11 1 1 1 . I i/3 1 1 , 1,4 41, J. I I -,1% 1 1- 1 1 - t i 1 , 114 *, 1 1 '/ l *1%0 ' 1 t , 1 + 1 "11'. t ./. |4|F 1.1 , 7, 4 W 12//44 , I / 4317/lpt' 1 1 111111, r 1 1 A 1 1 . 1 1 21 1 11 '11 1 : 14111 1 1 11 1 3 ''' '- 15 4 i 1 41 1 1 1 1 1 42 11 1 -A fl- 11 1 4*,r i 11 1 1 1 -1 11 1 1&1-,1~10, lei-0 11 11 1 11 1 1 1 1 14 -Ii-11 1 11 1 1 1 1 11 * 1 : 4 11 1 1 ' 19 1 1 + - i ~ ~ 'lt 1 4 11 1 1 11 19 d Ji. / 4 d ' 1 1 11 4 1. W /1 t . 1 1 lili,1 1 lili 11 lili 1 1 lilli 11, 1 r 1 4 lili 91 111 Jr ) 11 1 1 ~; 11 1 1 1 14 f 'Iril 1 1 1 1 1.- 1 1,1 . lili #46'.Im litj-' 1411 -~11 1 1 '1 1 1 - 4 4 - 1 1 <1 1 11 11 111 1 1. 11 )1 'f + 1 lili 11 P, " 4-L I , 1 /6 'j Y/11 1 1-1 1 " 1 1.11 1 1 1 9 11 141< 1 1 / 1 1 1 lili Iii 1 1 Â¢111 1 1 14 1 11 111 1 1 1 11 i 1 1 111 , 1 1 1 1 - 1 11 1 11 I 14 -1 , '' i i 4.Ii '11; ill , t-,1 1 1 I 1 10 3 11+ 1 1 74 - 1 /11.-~ e.4 1 4 11 - 1 0 I ' Er:, 1 :.42 1 1 1 1, 41 - 1 1 lilli .1-1 , 1 111 1 -- 1 1 1 -4.m, 0 - 1 4- 1 . 1 11 - 1 Q.,11 1 4 1 , j '112*%+ 1 L?, 1 4 1 ti<t 1 - 11-4 1 !-9 11 ~ PJ; i" - F i - ITt . -- / -17 -I 1 Ct;L -I . 1 --plldll hi 11 4 1 ~ T 1 , ~ ' LI 1 11 11. Ct yrMq' ' - / .& 1 1 '1 "41 #1 4-1 Al 1 114 - 1 1 I 1 1 A-4--1 1 Il k 1 - 11 , 4- 1, 1 1 lilli 5 r ' 1 , 11 21, A g 1 6 1, - - - .F- 1 1 1 11 lili? '4 -296 ; 1 1 11 1 51 1 1 f 1, , 1 1 ..4! 11 1 1 4,1. 1 ' 1- I 1 - 1 'Flj ' 1.11 r 11 - 1 1 11 10 - 11 + Nt 1 - ilt ' ,It 4,11 1 t' J 1 1 1 1 1 41, p 1 112,1 .1. 2 2 1 -41 -12 2. 1 . A 1 1 tri 1 1 1 1 1,1 0 1 1 Ir 1 1 1 I 4 1 2 1 14 I 41 2 4 j 1 . 4 1 11 "I 1 1 1, "/ I', 1 1 16 4 - 1 T' 41 L - 11 r=" 0.1 J 44 1 Â¢ 1 1 + 1 rl j L '1.,.. ~ ' a i I / 'i & A 1 J'-1- - 1 L 3 .Liiâ€¢1 -6, E.:I --- 'G 1 i,7 1 2 11~~~.r---1 5 r/F t . . 4.El'.0"1 1. -r ,1192-11 - 11 -4, - 4 ' Ergil#11*10 - t .ly- , 1 1 * 1 1 1 1 1- 4, 1 1 r 1 / 1 .1 - 4 - ' 2.-i#. 11 J - /. I- ' f L 11 1IP 14 - -t -9 - 11 2 1 1 - -- 1 1 1 t t L. +CL rf 41 - 1 - . -Â·-11-~1 - 1 41~ 1 ! 1 -11~.1, 1 1 -1 1 1 , 1 1 I 1 - - 11 . - 1 ZI| 1 1 311- 19 I I - 1 lili * :- 4 4, , 11 , *, rl - I t 11 4 / .1 .ri. 1 -1 - '1 1 1 - 1 I , - 4 ' /1 1 '1 S 1 1- 1 41= -r- - 4. I 1 - 1 1 6 1 11 4 - 1 ' I 1 4 1 - 4 - 1 1 1 1 , - - 1 -1 1 . - 7 7 1 /: '1 1 1 - 4 , 1 + 1 -Uk,1- - N 11 - 11 1 1 lit 1 1 1 11*4 1 1 119111?-4 1 - 4- lili 141 '4 ' 0 ' 1 1 611 1 1 lili 1 1 ./ aL 41,1 f r.' 1 11 Ill 1 11111 1 -111} 1 : 4 1 #11 1 ' , 3 , 4 1 0 ..11 - , 1 1 11 1 - 4- - 1 1 11, 1 I 1 , 1 1 111, 1 1 1 %11 1 1 - 1 1 1 -1.1 11 1 11 1 4 1 1 1 dir' 7 1.01 ~ lib # 1- 1 1 1 lili+gill I -f 1 1 100 111 6- 6'1, Â¥ 1 * ' 1 11 -e 1 1 1 1 i -lk E- 1 1 1 111 + 11 lilli 41 !=- -r 7 dd 1 IFF 11~ III 1 7,1,7 1 ' - 5 i 4- 11,1 1 411, trit i ' 1 111 ~ 1 1 2 1 11 11,~ ~11 1~ 111111'11 441 - 1114 111 1 '11. 1!- 11 1 11 J.- Â·459 ,_ 1 11 11 11 - 1 lili .17 1 11 11 114 4 l' 1, 1 -41., I F..41,1,Â»31,1,11 11Â£ !, 1 /,/. L ./j 1 . 1 Il T.-1 # 41 - -rr--- t-7-~ .1â€ž g. r --9,9.11~ * 0 -l l : f,f ill '/ '11'~~11- 1 , 111 ks' t, 4 ' ~' ~~' :11+imqFB, '-r 4 'ti ,#, 1*'+44+17'4111': b '' 1 1 9 311- P , 1 1~1 1,11 1/1 '4 7 1/ 1 1114 1 T 11. 1 2 1 '4 1 L 111 , 1 1. 1 1- 1 lift I Ill , 1-6 1 1 -'-? 1 If i r , PIE~,1 1 1 lit- - 1 , 1 11Â£.! VP 1 1, 1,111 1. 11 'tr I t? 9: 4 -4- 1 !11' q i- ' ' Er, : ' 4 11 , , 4'f '14 1 1- - 11 1 1 ~111 11 11 1 111 lili -1 11 , 1 1~ 11'AM A -1 *-1 111 92- I 1 , 111 T 11 -3 11 1 1 , 1 41 1 01 lili 1 1 111 41 9 1,41' I " 'll' '|ilt, ' ,' I~1!'~' 1 A .-in 11 1 1 1 111 :1; 11 11,4 11 1/ lit 41 J.#-1 - 1-It - t 4 /4 1 11 1 1 1, 1 , 1- 11 , 'f 10 1,1 1 1 1 11 T : lilli 0 14 + 1 lit 1. 1- 4'' i -1,-4 ' 1 Ii'~ /1// ~- i~ 114-- 11 1 1 A - ' '1.-1 I - 1 1 -1 J- " ''111, 1, #14, . 1 1 1 11:041'tr,1.11 1 1 4 â‚¬41 1 P I: - 1 4 3- ' '1 9* 1 11 11 1-11. 1 1 1 -49 - 1 1 -11 - 1 1 11 11 . + r--r., _~r T 2*X - _ 1 C -4711 -11 -6-1 L A ..ce A 144. 1 11 11 t 1 111 -=1121.1 1 1 1 1 J...1 1 4 , 11 1 1 1 1. 1- -1- 0 1 1 1 -4 - 1 ' L -- 1 -- 118=l-1 4- - 1 I '- -i ./SY, I 11,1, - 4,-=F - 1 6 -4 I- ' T-42/ 1 1 , - 4 - - 4 1 1 1- 1 -r -1- - 1 - 1 1 1 + Idi .9 I.* 1 1 -1 + - '4 - E -p-t 4- t,- 14 1 1 31 3.r -m -_ 11Â¥11 I W, 1 TI *1' 4.6 -11 r - 1 1 - 42 f >1 1 114 1- t'. 4- 1 1:811 6 1 .4 liu 24 1* 4- -f 1 1 --1 -- 1 I 1 - -. i r + 1.1 -1 - - .1 -1 - 1 1 1,-'I 3*-11 1% 1 It'- 1141 4-dll 1 , 11 â‚¬ i r# 1 11 1 1 T 4- 4 I. â€¢ --7 1-...Ii.--I'll/- : ./ .... ... I. - - â€¢ , r -94â„¢N--7-Â¥ngl . . 41120+ . *Â·Â·*..â€¢f t.,; â‚¬ â€¢ *51/ f.'tlft'It.t ': 7 e . .Vt ...1 ..4 I 0, ,Â· '41 . I . . y.+52, 1. ... . + Â· Â·i 1'+111~2,41: .41 . 1 1 . , 1. i a - If.b. .. 99 . .2,1. 4. . 0 4 1 - . .# 1 . 1. 1 ... . I â€¢ . .. . . f .: J(: L.. .i . . 4 lili. 4 ... t..9 , %* I. l . .8 74 2, 749: 1,4 . .. iph i S i + W' - . t~1 - ' 444 J '4 :t.**4144 : ' Â·:. Â·4 . - ~~ Le#f * Â·A Â· 7,2.1 . ..:@t'...42:-GS 16:> .... -*0Â»02*F: . ... . I .. ' 2 .'.' ... ...#Il//â€¢ I Â· . f 4, > ... I .... . *3!:>t - -: 6Â·tp , * '. ' 9 Â·'*''l I .- . 171 3LDÂ·. .. ..4,0 . 4 4. - 1 . I .<LD .... I . I " 4. $â€¢ - 41 . 1 \ 3 4 v* //1"1//-8/ ~#~/ , , .. 4. - + '91- ~ :113 - 7 .1 .. . I \1.- e I. *-- Â·.Rtik t ..4 . /11:3:4 i .' â€¢ 96. 6 * I ' 1 iÂ·'Â·**Â·.t.:.- :'. ...4 2 ,+ 4, - , 1 ': : Â· LI 9.9- , 1. .. I 1, 4 ..,1. 4. ..Ll - .. . . ..1 . . *daa:* If .. .... . . ,. e. ,0.10 -. 4. '* ... Â· 41 .-*MA .9- â€¢ Â· .. 91â€¢>i :f - evet *Dâ€¢: 4. P'. 1- . ... 4 jf,196 f. .. ....04 1 . + lt: ) r t + :t. ..4~> -4 i)*, ~ t 1 - =-i + .1: + ...2 7.1. 1. -, + I : ,-,1.A A I t, . 1'.4 I. 4 41./ 4/ I I + I , , ..- - . . .4 - .... . I .'i .: .9 .. . I . I:. 1 -/.ty . . I . . . . 11 $' I 1 . * ' 1 + wh.+ ' .. I . .M Â·44 I - 3..1 . ..t'. )1 4 11. . u.ki k LW-=~ I . r* ...r'"'~*~;~:,4 \/ 1 Flj 9 4?:eâ€¢54?25 . , ,- 1 1 .....r -I .. I -70 4 - --=A 1 1 - L, .t..9 + + 1 6 r 1 . f , 1 1 11 71 1 1 .tri .14 1 1 0 1 1 i j - :t 1 I -1 1 - %4,1 - i 1 1 - 1-1 #11 - 1 ' ' .1 . - I 1 1 111, - 1 1 -14!* '1- 1 11 1 1 &1 I C - -1 ' i' 4 4 lili-- 1 1 1 43' 4 + r ' 4 1 AL T - .'4-~~ 4 *C $ - ' 1 MU'Ir' 0 + ~ I I :. P , Ill 1 1 1 4,444 117 - . 1 - - *LI . 1- -r 0, 12 1 11 9 406 - 6 i I 1 4 -1 -1 11 1 Ir _ 74 It-4 1 1 r *44*Mi 11 11 4 -1 - , . *71 ~ 117411 11 1 -2,10 - - . = 3 4 1 1,1 - 14 If 1-' 1 1 + - -1 1 4 1 - - 11 1 4 1 1 -- r - 1, 1 1 ' ' ' 11 -1 1 1 - 1-+ 1 1 0 - 1 E- 1 1 '1 11 1 rl 1+ 1 4- 1 1 - 11-4 4- 1 . IL 1 - . - + 1- 1 01 1 11 0- 1 1 k .....1, 1 1 1 J- -61 ' 4 ' i 1 1 /1 1 - 1 1 - : 1 4,- .:1 1 2 * -=.1 1 2 ' ' 1. 219- -6 45 - 111 - 1 - -- 1+.1 ..Al", + 4 - 141#1 1.Â¥ 21 1, 1 - 4 9 - 1 1 --. 11 1-- 11 1 -1- 1 1 * 1 3:11 15'1045 1 4 -- 1 - 1 -1 - - 1 1.- 1 -1*P-,11 + 11 1 - 1 t.- -- 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 +F -1 - 4 -1 1 - +1 I I - I. 4 1 -2- 41 111 . - 1 1 1 1- - 1 '141 4 '1' I. 1 1 11 11 1- 1 1 41 1 1 1 4 1 11 1 1 1- 1 11 - - t - 1 1,1 - 1 1 11 - 1. 41 1 - 1 1 -1 1 1- 1 1 '1 V 1 . 1' ' ' f ''1 1 - 4,1-I 1 1 - J ~i~11- 14' 1 4 - '' i i -f Me..F: It 1 '1 .4 4 91 11 - 1= - h ./ 9 'j , 1 -1 4,/ r t. 1 lit 1 + L- 41Â£ u 1 1 I i It -1 111 - 1 ' Ii' T 1-1 1 ' 1 1 04 i ,h L- 2 11 1 5 1 11 4 - 1 I 1 1 - -r .- -tÂ». -- 11 1. 1 41* r i , 1 - 9 11 - 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 - J' p . 1 1,# 1 6 1 1 1 * .1,1 91-ki ' - - *1 1 !, 8 1 4 ,| r | 1 1 41 i 11 rli , 1 1 1 - 4,4 t I 1 1 1 + 141 AN! iÂ¢ 11 11'U \14 ~1 , f 16 ' 1 -1 -4- 1 +39 -1 -*- ...al:.r -- t i, M i i -' 10 ' *92 - i,Ii 41159,11 .'44. - , - â€¢ 1 16 I , i - 4 -4 ..* u .11.. ' - t.&:Lay.r Er,77,--r - .2 - -1.' -t;,â‚¬292---. I- 1- :72-23 --.-~ -- - - 1 -- 1 I./-P:l:f>--3- .5 . 1-1.--- 1 . . - -i - - --0X . . 6-; . - 11â‚¬.9412&0 - - ' . 1 -1 Fe-s . - -bly . - 1=-r 1 - - - 4 - 1-1 - j. .6.- - ...1.~ . ---t - 1 . .. - S 4 1 -- -- - ..1 $ - y -- -1 --- - 1 - 9,- - - i ---ffÂ».- -re, -43-94 1- il -1-*451 --- - 4â‚¬ , - A -3 - ... I .. - - 2 -- 1 , r V ; ... Â·- ' I I ....1 4 .. I.-C $ , .1 1-253 1; 1- . a , --4 - - . ~ - r - .. -3 - - t- -- .- 1'. , --1 - -i.. - . 1, -- - I . $ 1 - 1, - i , 4- 1 f , .1,4 1 -&4 - . - _ 1 $ - I I --1,1 - - - I- t - --- 4 - E-fil'Agm<-1--6 - -- - --- ~L _ ~ -~12--4 ~ -' . 1 . - . -- r -- r - 7-1~4 | --A -1. . let - till .#i - -- - - - . - 4 4 - 7-2-4Â¥-i---, -jv---1 -fr - -- I // . -- A -- . - 42 j& .. 1 - -S . i- I - - I -1 A E 2#1039.33Â·. -0 - 1= - -,9*,sE'*~t IÂ«E;.â‚¬} -1 * -- , $ I - <Ii:-- 1 -I .1 ' - r- 1 -'. I -- . I. 126.-...ic-vsâ€¢- . ---D,Iiâ‚¬17'-3*te, t , re-, . 4 Fi $ - -4 3~."/I-'.I--1--- , 7 - - - - 05-1 1- --.3- - - Â»4 t. 1 4 1 - I I (3 - - . -0 /---=.'P - . - S -- I. - 2- 4 L . 1 i} S, I -- --I:- 5-24 4Â£~- , . lill'll--'-a~-14 - - -- 1. .1 ... i ~- -..:.fs-1 - . A Ii:-/.--,-.-.ill .--1 1.- - 1 lit - - Eft-+3~: - 1 / I. 1 J..... 3. -- I -1 - 4.- -- 36.Lit i Â·.2, de 7- r . *._ 2 02- 1 - -rr r . f + , I I -7-- ' 19'liM 1 1,1 . 1 - - 1 - 111 1 1 - 1.- - I i Â¥ i , 1 1 ~, L ' -- I /9 + 1 I . 1 1 11 311 1 ... 1 1 - .1 0|J... 01| B Â¢ 4.- 1 1- 11 - 111( 11 1 . . 1-It ,-,r=1:& 1, Q 1 1 -131 ... 4 1 1 4 -4 1 1 1 4 'i , f,=,~ ~a | 4 /4 1 , 4 -44* 1 .1 9 1 11 1.,1 , ici ' i + I ~ i 1 1 -1 - +1 It . Lj 1 - .1 1 09 +22 K Ill - , 411-;414 1 0- m. J* - t' ' , ' ':1'~ @R~f:f *4 '' 1 411 1 r 4 -1 1 11 L ; 1 1, 4 . - 1 1.r 1 11 1 4 1-1. 1 2 1 :104 11-1 4 4 A ', If 1 11 11 1 1- 4, 1 1 4Ill 1 1 9 . 4 -2 + 1 '*.1/ 1,1 1 .1 1 1 , . 11 1 ;J -42 -1 lili I t, 1- 1 1 1 -1. 11-7 1&11 11 h 1 1 F $ ' 7- 401';41 '*f -fi' -4, 1 14, , in , r.i,-1 Ir- T I:L ,4 , + 1 +2. t + r 1 11 ..1 1.21+ 77 1 + 1 1= :' a 1 44 , 7 1,Â· f_5-6-49 - 11 11' : 1 i Lâ€¢ , i , 1 # 1 1 ' 6 2. 4 r 1 + 2,-1 -El- . +4 ' 114 1 - -1 1 1 11, /4, 1- -7/ j.'S, 1 -1, - -8-1 -2+1 111 1 1 /1 1 + 1 / 11,1 7 1 0 1 1 - 112 1 IT -luill 1 -1-1.-4 lili, 1 11 1/ 1 21 C f'-1 1 11 T 1 -~1Â· 1 -1-1 1 -11 - 1.-1 1 + 4.1 11 9 4, + - fi, 11 - -1 -/ 1 12 1,- 4 1 - 1 -1 - L - 4 4 4 16., 31 ,~ - t - JI .f lilli T 1 142 k lit . 71 / 27 4 9,-a. e. ' i , - 21* f 40 1 ---1 t.4 12 J ~.'' t? 1- -- 04* 1-430 1 .al- 1 r Â¥.7 11 1 1-f - 4.G.kel, f - I _97 1 14 1 Â¥ 111 .ked'. - -9-29, 1-+ L * 14 7 1â‚¬ ' -, -U - J' pr 1.4 It 1-/ 1 416 1 1 - 7 g 1 >~f-: 1~ 1 9 11 2 1. 1 1 11 6? 6 51 1.4.-'.i:.~r-*114 .1 4 ' 1 f 1 1 1, - '1.131,7 9, $ 11 11 *11 1 f. r. 14. W - 1 - 1~1 1 billi 2 1 7 0,1-1.1,6 lit 4. $ 44 ' L 1 -1,1 - 0,111 1,1 4 1 1 J 1 ill :141 - 1/ 1 - , lilli IT --310 1 1 J 1 - i '1 1 1 1 1 tri /, 6 1 ' 1- ; Ill I 9~4~11 1 .1 4 12+1. '' il, ah- 1 1 ' 1 â€¢1.-4 1 . /'.23. -1/* - - 11~ -Ij'' /*r* 1 4 1 100 -4 1, 1 1 1 11 ' 11 1 te + 1 I- 11 1 1 1 f 1 -1 . - i ;- f'fi 4 6 -r / 1 -1411 11 1-,-1- ..41-1.1~ 2. 1 !11 1 t 1 1 4,1 1 1 117' 1 1 1 1 *1 11 4,4.01,1,7,L< 1.Er- ...Alqi//FL~~~~~ <1 4 If- :.Â»L 4,1 1 1 -. -Ili -1 1 11'i J... .r-*-1,41-j' A.-=11 -4 1#-*t-.1, ,, 1 1 4#*23 547<1 1 / a .-1 1 1 1 1.- ,#I~ 1 - 1 21,6, 1 M r -8 , 4 11 - T 1 -.1 0.1 1 .01 6 4. I 1 , 1- 1 , 1 1 -1 111 1 L ' 1 11 - 1 lili, 1-1 1 4 4 11 4 -1 1 1 '- :4666Â£1/ 1 .L 61.1- 1 ,_' , 1 1 -0 -L *-L - 1 F r 14 421Â¢3Â¥ify I : ..-.... I.* --*.*.... i . 3 0, 3:74*=i-#BILT.r 173 Â·Â· P t-Â·ur .,4>Feg ... - 4 , 1:.. , - 44 -./.7 I r t * i 1 *~. I :6/.4 1.7 Â· Â· I â€¢ : 1 .1 -114 f. Â·.: r , I h '1. 7.r .4 - 4 . . S - flk, *I:*34:r i.Â·-Â·, 1,4 . , 4 I Â¥ 4 , D ~, '11.4 + ' 1.,+.#0i : * . 1 f , +3} 1.1 $ S S Itâ€¢ /-ir ' . ..,7... 1- 4 . $ + f \. / + Â· , 4 t...4.3.4~ -1 , .4 4 1 + 1 , t. , .. *46 3 . M ; jÂ· ,Â· 11 ... + j. 1-+4+ 4~ 7 + Â·i ., . + . 4, 1 Â¢ I 4 4 . . I I . t , 4 1 <Kit : I ....11 4 ,/i - ./ 4 ' I . . . I , If - 1 I * f + ' .4% , 4. " . ... 1? + 11 0 3*WMG.52... '3Â·72 r ..,.t:4.13 '14-ia /.4 1 I 6 : W.. : 1: }.4 ), .j . .- . .. I. I C. ,---I 'll.Â£.4..... 1 . , . + * â€¢7. #Ek -'tâ‚¬*-â‚¬~~Â¥6*1<1~2- I . la t /14 Â·Â· . . 1 / ..: '1- 4 Â¥ 4 . $ . + 1.. M:*#*K 5.3(4- ' , 6 . It . .4 . I I . 9 04. 7 .14 >40 6 7. 4 Â¥ .... I . ,..3; F i.. 9.371 1 4 , S â€¢ 1 .. .1 I 1 ...1 . 7, . 1 .... t. . . . 1 I . I . $.te , 4 . 4 7 01 1. 4 , t I . 1 It S , 1.. . I * I ' 4 .. . 1 N 4 4 6 . $ . t + 'tÂ·Â· 1 2. 1. : I .t- 47' -4 9 . 1 1: + -+ . 41 .A. 4 ' Â¢ 1/4 : 4% , <f. R. A. .1 " .:t:h .IL I .,t'.10'. C .1 1. 1 , . 4 i . .. . 1. r ,: I,Â·li: i 4,#/ u + $ .' I I. /97%,i m *4 9 47 t ':< A 5 U ...64 C -9 I ./ 4 4 ' 1 V B ,I43144 14 * C<5*, 524 * . 4 .Â· ' ' ' i I ..74 I ...4 . S + I I -. I '. , .. t *%9':t *3 Â·~ Â· 4. I I . . . 33 -:1371 ... 1 4 t. . 2.1 1. . . . I Â¢ , * I $4+ I . I. 11 1. , .., . * 0 . -h' 6 cÂ·,s ., .4 9. VII 2 .... 4 & .- . f. 1 ''' + t. St.... . tz ./ J *â€¢ = t.4. I .1 .... t. :A ty ..Câ‚¬ V<~,0 â€¢t '*. C ' 1 . 4.1 Â¥ *e ... ./13> 'A. 2 .: + .-1 . 1 , . 1 .1- ~ '43 It..1 i.- . .4 0 â€¢ P. â€¢ Nâ€¢ . i ..1 +4.4 . ,& :.f .. r .. ...1 34:... ....4 ~. -r" . p .. 9Â·9,Â·Â·/9 â€¢EÂ· 4 0 . :. 7 : .* 9 7 t 45â‚¬1. 4 1, Â· . 7. 5. li 1 11 ''3:4Â·. A. .'. 40 V: , 1 U .11 . ..1 9*03*31Â£4~ 32 . ' -I - 1 Pa . . \ %4. 4*RE~*i. -mm - eg - ..42 1 i , A- - 37#*'*9, 4 .....443*,44.4 9 . -i Â· ; ~VÂ·.1 1,2.:11,2.*%/RIM I. :,2.,li ., 1 2 231Â£'CPW ~ . 445Â«,/Â·.Â· . L . af .. . m.. I. . 0. tyÂ¢.. 1.1 ./. i -'* .11 % 1 , i: . I b' 1 - n . Â· .tlz. I 1-77-,20 .......111#/1 .fly 1 M. '2. L 0 4 .ZE 9 4 L 9Â¥-.4 ~ j,~,i,ti*t5 ~ ~~ Who,h:j/. ./. #jtgjtÂ·'~'1 N.J. ; 76*'* 2.'i, ,m#: ' Â·~ + 'Â·-, ' t.-,79 41 ...9.+OAM .....: fR -4.51~ . j&$3*b; .Â·1 â€¢C. . Â·,rnÂ·Â· BAÂ·*0 %'. ~~ '2Â· '0.1 Â· drt- 4 Â¥ 0 af -1/.0132 , 3% /Â· . f ? '4 #'.<4 ...''#24 it:Â·': 51: #.-Â· y(21?L 4 - eQ 4 ./ 1 k .. I ->0[Â· tiL~ :. Â· 1 14.'.* l'.Â· ..1. 1, Mwa..F," 4 ' I . . ,/. *NAÂ· 4.31/ Â·Â· *S;, 1 311Â£ '.lirfâ€ž.7 Â· Â·- = f :'- zÂ·~ ff&44-A - ty. ' ' * 4... .. .....:4.3:Â§244.47 - 'Â·4 : Â· ; 1 I. ....ph "ita 1.P â€ž ' Â·.- '' ...*F"i. 1 .. 4 r L f .. . ........, ..':.:,f.7<1.0444....~%. it :Ct. 1..Â·Â·;Â» 44'/ Â· , 2... 4:4677 '. 1 â€¢â€¢â€¢ Â· R $ , Â»*.2 / ,/' 4Â·./18: , '..... I. I ..... I. 30--) Ina)--rl Int 901-3>\ 0M*;S 0, Â·b, lier :. . . .... 4,02 ..r. f. 74'K:*; - . I "44 1. .. . ~0 ~'' 4 '' ~ Â· 1 ,'0~, . . -.70 1 0#:. 1, ,7 f 4 .* 1 1 r.Â¥, . .: 'i 1 illill'll T .. 11=t t 7 1 1.615.21- '02 2.:r.:3 .. \V *r- t.. 1 \ 1 2 -, I f -- 37Â·' 9.11 *Agirr.1111*#9. 7. ~ ~ /1 4.,a,4.11 7. 0,3 .*fs.litijy. 4'.O 1 d ... 4 .. .1 1.. I .1 1 , 1. 7 1 1 ' 221 illi I4 ,5, . - % . i: f.1 4.3,?fu. .4 i 0 . , .. .. I ./ 4<.i y'llÂ¢i . I. I --1 I . 2 71' 1 r:.-3 4% i 1 1. - .. 4* * - Iri[ t.ir- 1 4 It i h e.: f X#m. . r -. PLi, * 4,1 . - I I ZE. 14?ler-Â·- 94/ r.14Â¢4 .4 Ut : %:11:19:,5 6 + b 72;Q~* 4 2. -3 90?0377\ 0 5-94 509643 M: ...IFOOLV-3 .... ... I I Town of Estes Park Memo To: The Honorable Bill Pinkham and Town Board of Trustees From: Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator CC: Jacqueline Halburnt, Town Administrator Date: 5/9/2008 Re: "Policy" Use of Town Facilities Background Recent events suggested a review and possible revisions were required to establish fair and consistent guidelines for use of Town facilities by residents, other governmental entities, and non-profit organizations. In part, review and research of five other government entities (those responding to staff inquiries) was part of the review process. Current allowable public use of the Municipal building rooms is by non-profit organizations, charitable organizations and other government agencies. A $50.00 deposit is required for use of the Town Board room. The Board room and the training room (room 130)currently allow the use of all available technology equipment for presentations with no charge to the user. The Town has three off-site locations (Senior Center, Museum and Hydro Plant) managed by staff for rental uses. The current rental agreements allows use by charitable organizations at no charge and all other entities at predetermined rates. In researching this issue staff discovered there is no policy in place outlining acceptable use of all Town facilities Staff has developed a proposed policy that outlines acceptable standard uses of all Town facilities. These standard guidelines are: 1. Acceptable uses. 2. Unacceptable uses. 3. Alcohol uses. 4. Appropriate fees. 5. Identified staff members responsible for managing use of Town facilities The Town Board room agreement and use form has been modified as well. Changes include charging a non-refundable $25 fee and a $50 an hour fee for staff time to operate the audio video equipment room, if service is requested. These fees do not completely recover costs associated with wear and tear of the facility but provide some mitigation of public use. Budget/Costs 1 .. , None Recommendations Staff recommends adopting the proposed policy for use of Town facilities. â€¢ Page 2 .. TOWN OF ESTES PARK POLICY USE OF TOWN FACILITIES Issued: 5-13-2008 Page 1 of 3 A. -Purpose To establish public use standards and operating practices for all Town owned facilities. B. Policy It is the policy of the Town of Estes Park to allow public use of meeting rooms, the Town Board Room and other specified facilities. Town owned facilities are available to Town of Estes Park residents and groups for activities which are open to the public and of general interest to Town residents and their invitees. Official Town of Estes Park government operations supersedes all other requested uses. C. Procedures The Town of Estes Park currently provides accessibility and use of the following meeting rooms and Town owned facilities for use by Town residents and groups. These facilities are located at various locations within Town Limits. Current facilities available for use are: Facility Locations 1. Municipal Building a. Town Board Room b. Town Training Room (Room 130) c. Meeting Rooms 201-202-203 2. Estes Park Senior Center 3. Estes Park Museum 4. Fall River Hydro Plant Picnic Grounds D. Administration and Scheduling The Deputy Town Administrator oversees the administration of public use of all town facilities. Given the various locations managing and scheduling for all offsite locations shall be the responsibility of the appropriate department head or their designee. The Town Clerk or designee is responsible for scheduling all rooms located within the Municipal building. TOEP Policies and Procedure 5/13/2008 I . .. . TOWN OF ESTES PARK POLICY USE OF TOWN FACILITIES Issued: 5-13-2008 Page 2 of 3 1. Each Town facility available for public use shall have a set of operating instructions which outline acceptable uses for each of the facilities. 2. The department head, Town Clerk's Office or assigned designee shall maintain an updated instruction list for use and clean-up for each room. (See corresponding facility use attachments). 3. All official Town functions supersede any public use requests. E. Authorized Uses The Town of Estes Park recognizes Town facilities are public facilities and should be available for use by town residents or groups. The Town of Estes Park reserves the right to refuse the use of any facility. Acceptable uses for Town facilities are in corresponding priority: 1. Use by Town of Estes Park government or its employees. 2. Use by government agencies conducting official business. 3. Local Town of Estes Park Non-profit groups. 4. Political groups conducting open meetings who are not collecting fees, campaign contributions or actively campaigning for a candidate. F. Unauthorized Uses Town facilities are not available for use by groups espousing political change through the use of violence, or for any illegal, dangerous or destructive activities. Other unauthorized uses are; 1. To influence the passage or defeat of ballot issues. 2. To campaign or promote candidates for political office. G. Fees All fees and deposits shall be approved by the Town Board. Fees will be Sallecied the appropriate department or Town Clerk designee and submitted to the Finance Department for processing. 1. Use of Town Board room audio video equipment is allowed. Operation of equipment shall be provided by Town of Estes Park employees only. TOEP Policies and Procedure 5/13/2008 I 1 .. . TOWN OF ESTES PARK POLICY USE OF TOWN FACILITIES Issued: 5-13-2008 Page 3 of 3 H. Use of Alcohol Use of alcohol is not allowed within the Municipal Building. Alcohol consumption at other Town facilities is allowed or as outlined within the use agreement forms for those facilities. The sale of alcohol is allowed if proper licensing has been obtained by the renter. TOEP Policies and Procedure 5/13/2008 , Â· TOWN OF ESTES PARK ~ Municipal Building Facilities (Board Room-Rooms 130-201-202-203) May 13, 2008 USE REGULATIONS: 1. When reserving the Board Room a security deposit in the amount of $100.00 is required. * This deposit is refundable if the room is returned to a satisfactory condition. 2. A non-refundable $25.00 usage fee shall be collected for the use of the Board Room and Room 130. 3. If requested video recording of meetings held in the Board Room is available at a rate of $50.00 an hour with a one hour minimum (not withstanding previous agreements already in place with the Town of Estes Park). 4. The sponsoring organization shall be held financially responsible for any damages incurred, including cleaning. 5. Town personnel and/or sponsoring organizations using the refrigerator in the kitchen adjacent to the Board Room shall remove all food items immediately following their meeting. 6. Organizations meeting after 5:00 p.m. weekdays or on weekends may make arrangements to pick up a key in the Clerk's office during regular business hours, or may access the Board Room or Room 130 via the Police Station entrance (far north entrance) and request an access key. 7. If reserving the Board Room a Board Room Setup Checklist is attached. Please note and adhere to the "Room Closure" Section. The user is responsible for restoring the room to its original condition in accordance with the Room Closure Section of the Checklist If A/C is used, please turn it off before leaving. 8. Free-will offerings and any other methods of charging for an event or use of the Board Room or Room 130 are not permitted. 9. No alcohol is allowed on the premise. 10. PLEASE NOTE.- All room reservations are subject to cancellation should the Town of Estes Park require the room or rooms for its own use. 11. The Town Administrator may affect reasonable rules and regulations not included above. 12. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THESE REGULATIONS MAY LEAD TO A NON- REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT AND CANCELLATION OF FUTURE MEETING ROOM PRIVILEGES. NAME OF ORGANIZATION: Contact Person Phone No.: Address: Date & Time Requested: COMPLETE AND RETURN WITH CHECK TO: TOWN OF ESTES PARK Attn. Town Clerk's Office P. O. Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Room Inspection completed by: Satisfactory O /Date Unsatisfactory 0 (lf unsatisfactory, reasoning) , I . ROOM DESCRIPTION: ROOM 201 (Kitchen) - This room contains a full-service kitchen with full-size refrigerator w/ice maker, microwave oven, range top, garbage disposal, and serving counter with electrical outlets. Tables and chairs are available to place as desired to accommodate the group. The occupancy load is *18 persons. ROOM 202 (Middle) - This room contains a counter with sink and outlets, where refreshments may be easily served, and a projector screen. A template for this room is attached and, upon vacating the room, it shall be returned to the designated template. Additional tables and chairs are available to place as desired to accommodate the group. The occupancy load is +34 persons. ROOM 203 (Music) - A template for this room is attached and, upon vacating the room, it shall be returned to the designated template. Additional tables and chairs are available to place as desired to accommodate the group. The occupancy load is +42 persons. The Woman's Club owns the piano, and they maintain the key. NOTE #1: ROOMS MAY BE COMBINED TO ACCOMMODATE LARGE GROUPS. A FLOOR SKETCH FOR ROOMS 201-203 IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. . 0 . Room 130 Template Arrangement of Tables & Chairs Seven 8-foot tables & one 6-foot, 28 chairs When finished, arrange the tables and chairs to match this template. DOORS I. 1 4, " 4 . 41 9 . .., .... + .42 . .1.1 8'. i 7: 49$ f f. 11- ; *UV 0 , I * I 4 3 , 1 4 6:.# W,> 'e le *: 4 1 / $ f i 1 -t $ 46 lk i L.3 1.4 4. 8,4 8' 4 6 - 4 :' ir , 14 , 'F 4 1 01 Â» 4 * - - 1Â» 00 -- .,1. 9.- , Â¥ 1 4 ./.3 e. ,Ar 9 Â« 1 . 0 1 ---- 31 . . ...~ 4, .* 111 111 8, I ,I, I , '. I . Room 202 (middle room) Template Arrangement of Tables & Chairs One 8-foot table, four 6-foot tables, 13 chairs When finished, arrange the tables and chairs to match this template. ... -1.1 a. 5 9'. - . 1. r '1 1 0 .' , EAST -, # '- I I , L I i 6' 6' *. *I 1 . I ...S",1,2'F..8.--8,0.-4.-, .. .. ,. . Room 203 (music) Template Arrangement of Tables & Chairs Four 8-foot tables, 14 chairs When finished, arrange the tables and chairs to match this template. .. Â· 13 - ..... ,..9'.4$.felâ‚¬. ., . . 1 A..09. K '6 - Â·.-, 1 :., :iff.~2',B.Â·.: ~ I : i Â·Â·!/Wlf s.Â· t. ' Â·Â· ~ -~~1,Â·â‚¬-,fi<.1 - -~ 05,?C/:.$:2 1 ' 9, ' . . . ..1 4 4?:3..7. r ',254*rl - ort:;r.-. D 6.*a ., 4 1,4 8, <- WEST 1 7 87 1 11.+ i . I .<'. . ESTES ~~~ <*; PARK COLORADO Name 2008 Rental Guidelines Date Estes Park Senior Center Estes Park Museum Fall River Hydroplant Picnic Grounds 220 Fourth Street 200 Fourth Street 1754 Fish Hatchery Road Estes Park, CO 80517 Estes Park, CO 80517 Estes Park, CO 80517 Scheduling Office: Nancy Matson, Program Coordinator 220 Fourth Street, Estes Park, CO 80517 970/577-3769 * 970/586-2996 * nmatson@estes.org The Senior Center, Museum and Fall River Hydroplant Picnic Grounds are Town of Estes Park (TOEP) facilities. The first priority of facility use is to provide a place for TOEP-, Senior Center- and Museum-supported meals and activities. Second, rooms will be made available to charitable organizations as deemed appropriate at no fee. Third, rooms may be rented to individuals, non-profit groups, and other recognized clubs or groups. All users are expected to sign and abide by the Rental Agreement. Agreements signed for meetings of an on-going nature will be valid for one calendar year. Rental rates are subject to change by the Town of Estes Park with 30 days written notice. PLEASE INITIAL EACH SECTION (a-m) AND RETURN TO THE SCHEDULING OFFICE WITH YOUR SIGNED RENTAL AGREEMENT a. GENERAL CONDITIONS AND NOTICES 1. Each lessee must complete a Rental Agreement. A person who will be in attendance and take responsibility to meet the agreement terms must sign the form. 2. Lessees may schedule events up to one year in advance with a non-refundable $50 or $100 deposit which will apply to the total rental fee. Reservations are booked on a first-come, first-served basis. 3. The meeting rooms shall not be considered permanent quarters for anyone other than the Town of Estes Park, Estes Park Senior Center membership, Museum Friends membership and their related activities. The Senior Center and Museum will not provide storage space for any outside organization or individual. Regular users of the facility must apply annually to renew their reservation. Rates are subject to change by the Town of Estes Park with 30 days written notice. 4. Because the Estes Park Museum and the Estes Park Senior Center are public institutions, rentals cannot interfere with either facility's normal activities: exhibits, meal service, education programs, public visitation, etc. 5. Lessees agree that neither the buildings nor grounds will be used to sell a product, announce a fund-raising activity, or hold a fund-raising event without prior approval. 6. The Scheduling Office will review all prospective lessees on a case-by-case basis and reserves the right to refuse rental of the facilities to anyone. 7. A written copy ofall printed materials using the names Town of Estes Park, Estes Park Museum, Estes Park Senior Center, Fall River Hydroplant Picnic Grounds and/or their logos must be approved in advance. Failure to submit advance copy will be cause for the Scheduling Office to cancel the event. 8. Lessees using any ofthe facilities shall be responsible for their own setup and to restore areas as they were found and according to attached sketches or instructions. Failure to do so may result in forfeiture of damage deposit. 9. The Scheduling Office reserves the right to cancel or change any scheduled event by giving 21 days notice. 10. The Town Administrator and the Scheduling Office shall have the authority to effect reasonable rules and regulations not covered specifically in this document. 1 I : ... r 11. Catering for All Occasions (CAO) has exclusive access to, control and use ofthe kitchen at the Estes Park Senior Center. 6 CAO shall enter into separate agreements for catering services with each group that requests such services at Town of Estes Park facilities. 12. The Scheduling Office will schedule all events and place them on the facilities calendars. 13. An attempt will be made by the Scheduling Office to provide one verbal notice and one written notice to regular users who fail to adhere to rental guidelines. The Scheduling Office may cancel a lessee's regular use agreement based on these findings. b. POLICY ON ALCOHOL IN PUBLIC PLACES 1. The Town of Estes Park does not hold a liquor license, nor does Catering for All Occasions. The lessee must purchase liquor from outside sources and arrange for server/bartender service. Catering for All Occasions does not offer bartender service. Will alcoholic beverages be served? yes no Type ofalcohol to be served: Note: Keg beer is not permitted. Non-Profits: Will there be a charge for drinks? -yes no (See #9 regarding required Special Events Permit) Bartender Nanne: Address: Phone Number: Date of Birth: 2. Alcohol at unsupervised events is prohibited. A facility supervisor must be present during all facility rentals in which alcohol is served. Lessee will be charged $20 an hour per facility supervisor. 3. Serving and consumption ofalcoholic beverages, other beverages and food is restricted to the areas rented. Alcohol may not be consumed anywhere in the parking lots. 4. Lessee agrees to prepare and post a notice in a conspicuous place or physically delineate space using TOEP-approved temporary fencing or stanchions. The notice must state that the event is private and not open to the public. 5. Alcohol use may be disallowed when the focus ofthe event is on a person or group under the age of 21 and/or a significant number of attendees are under the age of 21. 6. Liquor must be delivered day of event, and taken offthe premises immediately following the event. No early deliveries will be accepted. Keg beer is not permitted for any event. 7. According to Colorado law, alcoholic beverages may only be served to those persons 21 years of age or older. No visibly intoxicated individual can be served additional alcohol. Town of Estes Park police officers may walk through the premises at any time to ensure that liquor law and policies are enforced. If at any time during the event, any violations to the liquor law or TOEP liquor policies are observed, the liquor will be pulled and the bar closed. The on-site facility supervisor has the discretionary power and responsibility to close down an event at which alcohol violations are witnessed including underage drinking or over consumption. 8. Food must be available at all times when alcoholic beverages are distributed. 9. Lessees wishing to provide a cash bar must apply for a Special Events Permit to the Colorado Department of Revenue through the Town of Estes Park, Town Clerk's Office, In addition, the Town of Estes Park charges a local liquor permit fee. Only non-profit organizations qualify for the Special Events Permit. Applications are available from the Town Clerk at the Estes Park Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517. Applications for Special Event Permits must be submitted at least 30 days in advance of the event. The application must be accompanied by a diagram of the area to be licensed (available from the Scheduling Office), and the appropriate fees. 10. Alcohol service hours are 11 AM - 11 PM. Alcohol cannot be served for more than four hours per event. All bars are to close and entertainment should stop one-half hour prior to the end of the event. 2 4* t I . 1 . .. RENTAL FEES/DAMAGE DEPOSIT/CANCELLATIONS 1. Fifty percent of the estimated rental fee, plus a security deposit and a signed Rental Agreement, are required to hold the selected date and time. Cancellation less than 2 weeks prior to the event will result in the loss of the security deposit. All rental fees are to be paid no later than the day ofthe event to the Scheduling Office. Checks, cash and money orders are accepted. 2. The security deposit will be refunded to the lessee less any additional cleaning fees, damage to equipment or facilities, or charge for additional rental time beyond the original contracted. agreement. 3. Lessees must occupy the facility at the time specified or forfeit use and fee for that date. 4. Loss of keys will result in a charge of$100.00. d. CATERING SERVICES/FOOD AND BEVERAGES 1. Catering for All Occasions (CAO) is the exclusive caterer for all events at the Estes Park Senior Center. CAO can be reached at (tel) 970/586-1002; (fax) 970/577-3768. All food served at the Senior Center must be obtained through CAO. 2. CAO is the preferred caterer for all events at the Estes Park Museum. Groups renting the Museum and Hydroplant Picnic Grounds have the opportunity to provide their own food and beverages including the use of TOEP-licensed caterers who demonstrate proof of insurance (See Caterer Information.) Discounts on facility rental will be offered to those using CAO for food services. 3. In the case of potluck-type events at the Estes Park Museum and Hydroplant Picnic Grounds, the lessee assumes all responsibility for food and beverages served. 4. No cooking facilities are available at the Museum or Hydroplant Picnic Grounds. Use ofcoffee pots may be permitted at the Museum with advance notice and instructions on use. Please do not remove or use any items from the refrigerator. 5. CAO and other caterers require separate contractual arrangements and deposits, and separate agreements for use of china and dinner service. 6. At the Hydroplant Picnic Grounds, portable gas grills may be brought in and a fire ring is available. e. SET-UP AND CLEAN-UP 1. The Town of Estes Park provides: a. Tables and chairs for indoor use at the Museum and Senior Center; 14 picnic tables at the Picnic Grounds. Senior Center seatedcapacity of: 100 Museum theatre seating capacity of 100 Picnic Grounds: Museum fable sealing: 75 Shelter table seating: 1 12 Grounds capacity: 200 b. A vacuum cleaner and trash can liners for clean-up at the Museum and Senior Center. c. Access to the Senior Center dumpster for disposal o f trash for events held at the Senior Center and Museum. d. Access to a bear proofdumpster at the Hydroplant Picnic Grounds. e. Some A/V equipment (screen, slide projector, overhead projector, flip chart easel, TV, VCR) when available, by pre-arrangement with the Scheduling Office. 2. The Town of Estes Park does not provide: a. Set-up and tear-down of tables and chairs. b. Set-up of A/V equipment or other equipment. c. Table linens or decorations (Linen rental is available from Loveland Steam Laundry. Information is included in this packet). d. Clean-up of facility after events. 3. The lessee or representative must arrive prior to the beginning of the event to take care of last-minute arrangements. This person should be the last to leave to determine that cleanup is complete. Same-day set-up and tear-down ofevent is required unless prior arrangements are made with the Scheduling Office. Time required for set-up and tear-down must be included in total hourly rental fee. 4. The lessee is responsible for informing guests of the rules and enforcing them. 5. All deliveries and event personnel must enter through designated entryways or driveways. Lessee assumes responsibility for all communication with vendors for delivery of items. Town of Estes Park staff will not sign for deliveries. 3 I ./t 6. The Town of Estes Park is not responsible for items left overnight. 7. Decoration and equipment placement must comply with existing fire code rules and regulations. No alterations to the galleries, walls, or any part of the Museum or Senior Center are permitted. No decorations may be hung from light fixtures. No flammable decorations are allowed around an exit. Not more than 25% of a wall space can be covered with flammable decorations. All exits need to be kept clear. The use oftape, wire, staples, tacks, glue and similar items is prohibited. No items may be attached to room surfaces. 8. FIRES: a. Votive candles or drip less tapers in enclosed containers such as hurricane lamps or glass bowls, and floating candles in glass or metal bowls are allowed. No open candles or candles in oils will be permitted. b. All fires at the Hydroplant Picnic Grounds are restricted to the fire ring or gas grills. (Gas grills are not provided.) c. Lessees will be required to honor any announced fire bans. d. No firewood is provided. No gathering of firewood is allowed. 9. The dumpster at the Senior Center may be used for bagged trash from events held at the Senior Center or Museum. A bear proofdumpster is available at the Hydroplant Picnic Grounds. No personal or business trash is allowed. No trash is allowed outside any dumpster. All trash must be bagged and tied. The Scheduling Office reserves the right to bill the lessee for trash service. 10. No dumping, bathing, swimming or dishwashing is allowed in the river at the Hydroplant Picnic Grounds. 11. There is no running water available at the Hydroplant Picnic Grounds. 12. There is a two-stall vault toilet at the Hydroplant Picnic Grounds. 13. Clean-up must be completed directly after the function. Next-day cleaning is permitted with additional facility rental fees ifthe site is available. 14. All lessees must satisfactorily complete the Site Use Checkout list including total attendance at the event and turn it in to the Scheduling Office to secure return of the security deposit. f. ENTERTAINMENT AND NOISE CONTROL 1. The band, disk jockey or other entertainment will be required to notify the Scheduling Office of the equipment type, electrical setup, and requested delivery schedule one week in advance. The Town will not provide equipment or setup of equipment for bands or DJs, such as microphones, electrical tape and stages. 2. The sound level must comply with municipal code and remain acceptable for a residential neighborhood. No sound equipment may be used without prior approval of the Scheduling Office. The individual, group or organization seeking use ofthe facility assumes liability for damage to the facility by the lessee's contractors, if any, including outside services of any vendors such as florists, musicians, rental companies, etc., who are hired by the lessee. Volume of loud speakers, etc. must be controlled so that only those in the room will be able to hear. 3. Electrical equipment must not exceed 60 amps for any facility. There are 120 volt/20 amp outlets at the Picnic Grounds. 4. Conduct must be appropriate to a residential area. 5. Children must be supervised at all times. 6. If event use is terminated for any reason by staff or law enforcement, lessee maintains the responsibility for fees due. g. PARKING /VEHICLES 1. Free parking is available at all facilities. 2. The lot capacity is 51 cars at the Senior Center and 19 cars at the Museum. Ofthese, 5 are handicapped spaces. There is on-street parking available, and at times, overflow parking may be available at the Estes Park Fairgrounds dirt lot to the south ofthe Senior Center with prior permission. There is dirt parking at the Hydroplant Picnic Grounds with a capacity of 50 vehicles. 4 , 4 Irt./ . I ' 3. The lot at the Hydroplant Museum side of the Picnic Grounds is restricted to Museum visitors only when the Museum is . open. 4. Fire lanes must be kept open. Do not park in front ofthe dumpsters. 5. Lessees reserving the Senior Center will use the Senior Center lot. Lessees reserving the Museum will use the Museum lot. Ifthere is no conflict, lessees may be able to use both lots with prior permission. 6. Overnight parking or camping is not permitted at any facility. h MISC. CONDITIONS AND NOTICES 1. Early delivery of decorations, floral arrangements, food and beverages must be approved by the Scheduling Office. 2. No event may exceed the building or site capacity. 3. All staff work areas will be closed, and no one will be permitted in these areas. 4. a. Animals are not allowed in the Senior Center or Museum, with the exception of service animals. b. Pets must be on a leash at all times at the Hydroplant Picnic Grounds and animals must be cleaned up after. 5. Smoking is not permitted in any area ofthe Senior Center or Museum building or on the decks and patios. i. CURFEW 1. The Hydroplant Picnic Grounds are closed 9:00 pm to 8:00 am. j. FISHING 1. Fishing is allowed at the Hydroplant Picnic Grounds with a Colorado license and by abiding by Division of Wildlife regulations. k. NATURAL SURROUNDINGS 1. Please refrain from climbing, hanging or swinging from trees or from the shelter at the Hydroplant Picnic Grounds. Please respect the beauty of the natural surroundings and do not remove natural objects (i.e. rocks, trees, flowers, antlers, natural objects, etc.). 2. Do not gather firewood from the site. 1. WILDLIFE 1. Please do not harass the wildlife (elk, deer, bears, small animals, birds, etc). Please do not allow your pet to disturb the wildlife. Do not feed the wildlife or leave food out or unattended. m. WEAPONS 1. Discharge of weapons is not permitted at any facility. 5 ' 1. I 4/" liu . ESTES -"9!2. e PARK COLORADO Town of Estes Park Rental Program 2008 Rental Agreement Estes Park Senior Center Estes Park Museum Fall River Hydroplant Picnic Grounds 220 Fourth Street 200 Fourth Street 1754 Fish Hatchery Road Estes Park, CO 80517 Estes Park, CO 80517 Estes Park, CO 80517 Corresponding and Scheduling Office: Nancy Matson, Program Coordinator 220 Fourth Street, Estes Park, CO 80517 970/577-3769 0 970-586-2996 0 nmatson@estes.org Please Print Lessee /Organization Name Mailing Address Physical Address Responsible Person Business Phone Home Phone Cell Phone E-mail Address Function Type Function Date Date Agreement Renewed, i f Annual Recurring Dates Estimated Attendance # Actual Attendance # Requested Arrival Time Departure Time (Include set-up and clean-up hours) In consideration of the issuance of this requested facility use permit, the lessee agrees to defend. indemni6 and hold the Town of Estes Park, the Estes Park Museum, the Estes Park Museum Friends and Foundation Inc. the Estes Park Senior Center and Estes Park Senior Citizens Center Inc. free and harmless from and against all claims or demands arising from any act, omissions, or negligence o f the lessee. their licensees, agents. servants, or employees, arising from any occurrence or accident causing, or allegedly causing, bodily injury (including liability for personal injury) or damage to property to whomsoever belonging arising out, or allegedly arising out of. the use of premises as defined in this Rental Agreement or while in or about said premises, including all attorneys' fees and court costs incurred by the Town of Estes Park, the Estes Park Museum, the Estes Park Museum Friends and Foundation Inc., the Estes Park Senior Center, Estes Park Senior Citizens Center Inc.,and their officers. agents and employees. The undersigned hereby assumes personal and individual liability for himself/herself and on behalf of lessee for any damages to said facility or equipment occurring through or during the occupancy or use of said facility by the lessee. The undersigned willleave said facility in a condition as good as or better than originally found. The undersigned personally and individually and on the behalf of the lessee accepts liability for all repairs to the facility and/or repair or replacement of equipment in the event of damage. The Town of Estes Park may withhold the deposit to apply toward cost of cleanup and repair. Fifty per cent o f the estimated rental fee, plus a security deposit and a signed Rental Agreement. are required to hold the selected date and time. The security deposit must be paid in a separate transaction. Cancellation less than two weeks prior to the event will result in the loss ofthe security deposit. All rental fees are to be paid no later than the day of the event to the Scheduling Office. Checks. cash and money orders are accepted. Lessees must occupy the facility at the time specified or forfeit use and fee for that date. 1 have received and read a copy of the Rental Agreement and understand that I am responsible to see that it is met. The Town of Estes Park reserves the right to cancel the event with notice. Lessee Date TOEP Representative Date Total Rental Amount $ Deposit of 50% of Rental Fee $ Payment Form Date Building attendant fee: $ Circle one: (CAO or TOEP) Payment form: Balance Due Balance Paid Payment Form Date Security Deposit: $100.00 Payment Form Date Date of Deposit Refund Amt Returned Amt Retained Sales Tax License Name and # (as applicable) - 4 ESTES MRÂ® PARK COLORADO RENTAL FEES 2008 Estes Park Senior Center - Estes Park Museum - Fall River Hydroplant Picnic Grounds O'Connor LOCATION SC FULL SC ROOM SC ROOM SC ROOM SC ROOM Museum Senior Picnic Security USE #102 #109 #114 #115 Meeting Center Pavilion. Deposit The Tebow Room Gazebo/ Hydroplant Room Patio Picnic Grounds Circle one Category 392 sq ft 360 sq ft 800 sq ft 1150 sq ft 1137 sq ft Senior Center or Museum -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Supported Club/Activity Town Depts. and TOEP -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Supported Club/Activity Museum or $60.00/Hr $16.00/Hr $16.00/Hr $20.00/Hr $32.00/Hr $32.00/Hr Included $225/day $100.00 Senior Member - or or or or or or in rate Private Use $240/day $64/day $64/day $80/day $125/day $125.00/day Local Non-Profit $75.00/Hr $25.00/Hr $25.00/Hr $30.00/Hr $40.00/Hr $40.00/Hr Included $225/day $100.00 ganization or or or or or or in rate 1 (c) 3 $300/day $100/Day $100/Day $120/Day $160/Day $160/Day Other $150.00/Hr $30.00/Hr $30.00/Hr $50.00/Hr $75.00/Hr $75.00/Hr Included $225/day $100.00 Recognized or or or or or or in rate Club/Group/ $600/day $120/Day $120/Day $200/Day $300/Day $300/Day Individual Room Rentals require 2 hour minimum fee Daily rates are an 8 hour maximum; hourly rates apply beyond 8 hour period 10% off Senior Center rental with full catered meal service by Catering For All Occasions 10% off Museum rental with full catered meal service by Catering for All Occasions Facility Supervisor $20 hourly for functions serving alcohol and/ or at discretion of Scheduling Office Lost key fee -- $100.00 3.27.08 Im 000000