The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2008-06-24, 4 ./1 1 Prepared 6/13/08 *Revised 06/23/08 .. . m TOWN Of ME PARI< 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, June 24,2008 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance) PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated June 10, 2008, Joint Town Board and County Commissioner Minutes dated June 5, 2008, Town Board Study Session Minutes dated June 10, 2008. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Utilities, June 12, 2008. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, May 6,2008 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, June 20,2008 (acknowledgement only). 6. Contract for a gasoline shuttle bus for 2008 with DCS America, Inc., $3,636. 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Appointment of Wayne Newsom to the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority, Replacing John Ericson, Term Expiring on September 2012. . I 3. 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, Supplemental Condominium Map #2, A Portion of Lot 3, South St. Vrain Addition, 1008 S. St. Vrain Avenue, Units A & B, Mountain View Vacation, LLC/Applicant. 2. ACTION ITEM: a. BIG BEAR ESTATES ANNEXATION AND RELATED LAND USE ITEMS: Four Metes and Bounds parcels (parcel identification numbers 35261-00- 001, 35261-05-046, 35261-06-001, and 35252-53-018) and Outlot A, Sallee Resubdivision, Rock Castle Development Company/Applicant. Quasi-Judicial Hearing - decisions made must be based on the testimony and information presented at the hearing. 1. ANNEXATION - RESOLUTION #-08 & ORDINANCE #-08. 2. REZONING - ORDINANCE #-08 Rezoning of Parcel #35261-00-001 from RE - Rural Estate to CO - Commercial Outlying. Rezoning of Parcel # 35261-05-046 and Outlot A, Sallee Resubdivision from E - Estate to CO - Commercial Outlying. 3. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT. 4. PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (P.U.D.) #08-01. Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant has requested all items related to the Big Bear Estates development be continued to the July 22,2008 Town Board meeting. 4. ACTION ITEMS: 1. 2007 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR). Finance Officer McFarland. 2. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. * 3. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: 24-6-402(4)(e), C.R.S. - For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators regarding Lot 4, Stanley Historic District. Motion: I move the Town Board go into Executive Sessions - For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instruction negotiators regarding Lot 4, Stanley Historic District, under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(e). 4. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the AnpnriA wAQ nrenArpri 1 . Cynthia Deats From: EP Administration [ir3045@estes.org] Sent: Monday, June 23,2008 4:30 PM To: Cynthia Deats Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 0425 ST. TIME 06/23 16:20 PGS. 2 SEND DOCUMENT NAME TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 6672527 Greg White 5869561 KEPL 5869532 Trail Gazette 5861691 Channel 8 6353677 Reporter Herald 2247899 Coloradoan 5771590 EP News ERROR ----- 1 06-24-08 Town Board Meeting, Estes Park, Co Good evening, Expanding on your acknowledgement that we are a nation 'under God,' I offer the following which I gleaned from the week's news concerning God. Midwest floods brought out this familiar refrain; "I don't know why God let this happen to us, but I have to believe that it's all for a better purpose." This absurdity explains a recent study showing that although most people believe in a God or a universal spirit, they don't buy into religious dogma. Then there is the continuing attention given to whether Senator Obama is a Christian or a Muslim As a nation that claims to revere its religious diversity, why would anyone care which brand of supernatural belief a politician had, (just as long as they weren't atheist of course)? What American could find fault with or even question another American's religious beliefs aslongas we are all under the same God? But are we? One ofmy nieces is married to a very nice man who happens to be Muslim. While discussing my recall during a family get-together, I said that Americans would never agree to say "under Allah" instead of "under God." My niece, who is Catholic, said that Allah and God were one in the same, so people should not have a problem with either word. Was shebeing naive or was she correct? Sure, it's easy to say that you respect freedom of religion, but I suspect that none ofyou would ever utter the phrase "under Allah." And there is every reason to expect that the people of Estes Palk would have a pious fit if any Muslim recited lhe Pledge with the word 'Allah' instead of 'God'. The truth is, each of youis using the Pledge to claim authority f~r your own personal definition of God. The current mqimity around here is Chnstian, and you are simply protecting your turf taggiag the Pledge with your gang sign. At eveg meeting you remind the atheists, Muslimf and other non-Christians that this is your turf; and that you deal harshly with those who don't offer you the proper respect. Because of this, I again ask you to stop insulting our intelligence, our forefathers, and our Constitution by continning with the' rental ofthe Pledge at our meetings. Thank you, David HalÂ¤ker ull .. Prepared 6/13/08 *Revised 1,11~1 IOWN .of {w{$ 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, June 24,2008 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance) PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated June 10, 2008, Joint Town Board and County Commissioner Minutes dated June 5,2008, Town Board Study Session Minutes dated June 10, 2008. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Utilities, June 12, 2008. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, May 6,2008 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, June 20,2008 (acknowledgement only). 6. Contract for a gasoline shuttle bus for 2008 with DCS America, Inc., $3,636. 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Appointment of Wayne Newsom to the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority, Replacing John Ericson, Term Expiring on September 2012. .. 3. 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, Supplemental Condominium Map #2, A Portion of Lot 3, South St. Vrain Addition, 1008 S. St. Vrain Avenue, Units A & B, Mountain View Vacation, LLC/Applicant. 2. ACTION ITEM: a. BIG BEAR ESTATES ANNEXATION AND RELATED LAND USE ITEMS: Four Metes and Bounds parcels (parcel identification numbers 35261-00- 001, 35261-05-046, 35261-06-001, and 35252-53-018) and Outlot A, Sallee Resubdivision, Rock Castle Development Company/Applicant. Quasi-Judicial Hearing - decisions made must be based on the testimony and information presented at the hearing. 1. ANNEXATION - RESOLUTION #-08 & ORDINANCE #-08. 2. REZONING - ORDINANCE #-08 Rezoning of Parcel #35261-00-001 from RE - Rural Estate to CO - Commercial Outlying. Rezoning of Parcel # 35261-05-046 and Outlot A, Sallee Resubdivision from E - Estate to CO - Commercial Outlying. 3. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT. 4. PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (P.U.D.) #08-01. Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant has requested all items related to the Big Bear Estates development be continued to the July 22,2008 Town Board meeting. 4. ACTION ITEMS: 1. 2007 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR). Finance Officer McFarland. 2. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 3. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the grlenrIA wAR nrpr,Arprl 0 . Cynthia Deats From: EP Administration [ir3045@estes.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 4:29 PM To: Cynthia Deats Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 0414 ST. TIME 06/18 16:11 PGS. 2 SEND DOCUMENT NAME TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 6672527 Greg White 5869561 KEPL 5869532 Trail Gazette 5861691 Channel 8 6353677 Reporter Herald 2247899 Coloradoan 5771590 EP News ERROR 5866336 Chamber of Commerce 1 06/18/2008 WED 16:28 FAX 9705862816 EP Administration ~001 D *************************** , *** FAX MULTI TX REPORT *** *************************** JOB NO. 0414 PGS. 2 TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 6672527 Greg White 5869561 KEPL 5869532 Trail Gazette 5861691 Channel 8 6353677 Reporter Herald 2247899 Coloradoan 5771590 EP News ERROR 5866336 Chamber of Commerce Prepared 6/13/08 *Revised 1111 TOWN Of {STES PARK {4~. 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 enhandng 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, June 24,2008 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance) PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated June 10, 2008, Joint Town Board and County Commissioner Minutes dated June 5, 2008, Town Board Study Session Minutes dated June 10, 2008. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Utilities, June 12, 2008. 06/18/2008 WED 16:28 iR3045 @001 1 I ***************** *** TX REPORT *** ***************** JOB NO. 0414 ST. TIME , 06/18 16:11 PGS. 2 SEND DOCUMENT NAME TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 6672527 Greg White 5869561 KEPL 5869532 Trail Gazette 5861691 Channel 8 6353677 Reporter Herald 2247899 Coloradoan 5771590 EP News ERROR 5866336 Chamber of Commerce Prepared 6/13/08 *Revised 1111 TOWNiOf {ST{$ PARK Â·_ . 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 enhandng 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, June 24,2008 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance) PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated June 10, 2008, Joint Town Board and County Commissioner Minutes dated June 5, 2008, Town Board Study Session Minutes dated June 10, 2008. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: Flot 4 . Prepared 6/13/08 *Revised .. . 41 h 3 7 . 1!11 TOWNi Of {WE PARK >. f - 0 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, June 24,2008 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance) PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated June 10, 2008, Joint Town Board and County Commissioner Minutes dated June 5, 2008, and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated June 10, 2008. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Utilities, June 12, 2008. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, May 6,2008 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, June 20,2008 (acknowledgement only). 6. Contract for a gasoline shuttle bus for 2008 with DCS America, Inc., $10,299. 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Appointment of Wayne Newsom to the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority, Replacing John Ericson, Term Expiring on September 2012. Â¥ D 3. 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, Supplemental Condominium Map #2, A Portion of Lot 3, South St. Vrain Addition, 1008 S. St. Vrain Avenue, Units A & B, Mountain View Vacation, LLC/Applicant. 2. ACTION ITEM: a. BIG BEAR ESTATES ANNEXATION AND RELATED LAND USE ITEMS: Four Metes and Bounds parcels (parcel identification numbers 35261-00- 001, 35261-05-046, 35261-06-001, and 35252-53-018) and Outlot A, Sallee Resubdivision, Rock Castle Development Company/Applicant. Quasi-Judicial Hearing - decisions made must be based on the testimony and information presented at the hearing. 1. ANNEXATION - RESOLUTION #-08 & ORDINANCE #-08. 2. REZONING - ORDINANCE #-08 Rezoning of Parcel #35261-00-001 from RE - Rural Estate to CO - Commercial Outlying. Rezoning of Parcel # 35261-05-046 and Outlot A, Sallee Resubdivision from E - Estate to CO - Commercial Outlying. 3. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT. 4. PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (P.U.D.) #08-01. Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant has requested all items related to the Big Bear Estates development be continued to the July 22,2008 Town Board meeting. 4. ACTION ITEMS: 1. 2007 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR). Finance Officer McFarland. 2. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 3. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the Anpnrig wAR nrpngrprl 1 . Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 10, 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 1 0th day of June, 2008. Meeting called to order by Mayor William C. Pinkham. Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer John Ericson Richard Homeier Jerry Miller Also Present: Attorney Greg White Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: Chuck Levine, Mayor Pro Tem Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and invited any person desiring to participate to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT Linda Farrell/Town Citizen addressed the upcoming redevelopment proposal of the Elkhorn Lodge and requested the development not move forward unless the following issues are addressed: less density, increase setbacks from existing development, less lighting of the property, bypass road centered through the property, wetland protection, river and waterfall protected. Current development/neighborhoods should be protected from new development. Jim Tawney/Ponderosa Lodge owner spoke to the 1993 tourist season in which lodges were full, parking was difficult to find and traffic jams were an everyday occurrence during the summer. The Town should focus on how to reenergize the community to what it once was. David Habecker/Town Citizen again requested the Board refrain from reciting the pledge at the Town Board meetings. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Blackhurst reminded the public that the Estes Park Housing Authority would meet Wednesday, June 11 th at 8:30 a.m. in Room 203, and the Utilities Committee would meet Thursday, June 12th at 8:00 a.m. in the Board room. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated May 27,2008. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, June 5,2008: CVB 1. CVB South Parking Lot Closure, June 21, 2008. 2. Colorado Hunter Jumper Show Contract, July 25-27,2008. , 1 Board of Trustees - June 10, 2008 - Page 2 It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Ericson) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Rocky Mountain National Park Update. Superintendent Baker provided an update on issues and activities within the park: â€¢ Lumpy Ridge Trailhead - Trail was completed and opened to the public last summer. Gem Lake and Twin Owls Trailheads are now closed. â€¢ USPS Apline Tundra Stamps - Ten new stamps have been available since August of 2007. â€¢ Naturalization Ceremony - The Park hosted the ceremony in Moraine Park Campground and 46 people became U.S. citizens in 2007. â€¢ Sister Park Relationship - An agreement was signed with the Tatra National Park in both Slovakia and Republic of Poland. â€¢ Road Projects - No major road projects are scheduled for the Park this summer; however, a couple of chip seal projects are scheduled. Last year's project was completed on time and 10,000 tons of asphalt was recycled. â€¢ Fire Operations Center - The center was opened in the fall of 2007 and is fully operational. A Town structural fire engine has been placed in the center. â€¢ Wilderness Legislation - Senate Bill 1380 was introduced in May 2007. The bill has been held up due to other provisions related to the Grand Ditch. The Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee has reported out an amended version of the bill in May, and therefore, is clear for floor action in the Senate. The bill could move forward later this year. â€¢ Grand River Ditch Breach - In 2003, a damage assessment was conducted and a claim was filed with the operators of the ditch. On May 50' the party settled for $9 million. The Park will now move forward are restoration of the area. â€¢ Elk & Vegetation Management Plan/EIS - The Park is proceeding with the implementation of the plan including the use of fencing, redistribution and culling. WildEarth Guardians have filed a lawsuit claiming the Park has inadequately considered the reintroduction of a self regulated population of wolves in the park. â€¢ Elk Research - RMNP is the testing grounds for a new live test for Chronic Wasting Disease within the free ranging elk herd. 11% prevalence of CDW was found. A multi-year fertility control agent was also tested on 60 of the animals. â€¢ Air Quality - Ozone alerts will only be issued when Park equipment determines it is needed. In the past, ozone alerts have been issued in conjunction with the Denver Metro area; however, with the lowering of the standards by the EPA and the State, more ozone alerts are forthcoming for the Denver Metro area. â€¢ Recycling - The Park program has been increased to include plastics. â€¢ Shuttle System - Beginning the third year of a cooperative agreement with the Town. The Hiker shuttle will run seven days a week beginning June 28th through Labor Day. A new Trail Ridge Road tour to the Alpine Visitor Center will run on Wednesdays in July and August. Tickets will be sold at the Beaver Meadows Visitor Center. â€¢ Highway Corridor Plan - A draft plan will be available this summer. â€¢ East Side Projects - Chasm Meadow Patrol cabin is scheduled to be rebuilt. A new roof will be place on the Alpine Visitor Center. â€¢ CRD Projects - 2008 projects include Timber Creek Campground entrance and primary power line rehabilitation from Grand Lake. 2009 projects include resurfacing of Trail Ridge Road from the west park 0 . Board of Trustees - June 10, 2008 - Page 3 boundary to Colorado River trailhead and rehabilitation of Grand Lake entrance station. â€¢ Recreation Fee Program - The Park is proposing an increase for the RMNP Annual Pass from $35 to $40 in 2009. â€¢ Centennial Initiative - Additional money has been made available for seasonal employees for needed improvements prior to the Centennial in 2016 for restoration projects. Rocky Mountain Nature Association is promoting The Next Generation Fund to raise $10 million to cultivate the next generation of youth as future stewards of our public lands. â€¢ Mike Lewelling/Fire Management Officer provided an update on the Park's fuel treatment and beetle management. In the past mechanical fuel treatments have been completed. With the development of a new fire management plan, prescribe burning will be used to address fuel loading in the future. The Park's pine beetle management has been and continues to be focused on removing hazardous trees and fuels as it is tied to the protection of life and property. The campgrounds will not be opened until the areas are safe to occupy. The Park has environmental approval to spray 5,000 trees on both the east and west sides and will concentrate on historic districts and high value areas like the campgrounds. New flyers have been posted at the trailheads with regard to falling tree hazards. 3. ACTION ITEMS: 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STATISTICAL UPDATE. Director Joseph stated the Estes Valley Housing Authority Needs Assessment and the 2006 Intercept Study have been incorporated into the revised statistical update to the Comprehensive Plan as requested by the Board. In addition, the 2007 Housing Needs Assessment determined Estes Valley build out is at 72%. It was moved and seconded (BlackhursUHomeier) to recommend approval of the statistical updates to the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan as amended to the Estes Valley Planning Commission, and it passed unanimously. 2. SAPLING GREEN DEVELOPMENT, LOT 35, GRAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION. Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The proposed development would locate a daycare/school/fenced playground on the west end of the lot and nine residential units on the eastern portion of the lot with four deed restricted for low (median) income housing for those earning 100 to 120% AMI. The current "CO" zoning allows both schools and daycare centers as permitted "use-by- right". The applicant requests the rezoning to allow the multi-family dwellings that are not allowed in the "CO" zoning district. The proposed "RM" zoning allows schools but requires Special Review for the daycare center. The preliminary condominium map is required to allow the sale of individual units. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan (EVCP) includes policy to encourage commercially zoned property to be used for commercial uses and to encourage housing infill, provide mixed use developments; encourage a variety of housing types and price ranges, and identify affordable housing opportunities. The development addresses a loss of daycare and affordable housing; compatible and consistent with polices of the EVCP by providing a mixed use. Planning Commission recommended approval of the development contingent on the rezoning of the property. Attorney White reviewed the effects of the proposed development if approved on two adjacent properties that currently hold liquor licenses. The State Liquor Code prohibits a new liquor license within 500 feet of any public or private school that meets compulsory education requirements of Colorado law, or the principal campus of any college, university or seminary. The proposed school I . Board of Trustees - June 10, 2008 - Page 4 meets the definition of a school. The two current liquor establishments are grandfathered and can be renewed and/or transferred. However if the licenses lapsed, revoked or a change of class was filed, the state law would apply and a new license could not be issued. Steve Lane/Basis Architecture stated the Estes Park Early Childhood Center has been housed in the Community Church of the Rockies; however, the school has outgrown the location. The school has been looking for property for the past two years and run into difficultly in areas were land was affordable, limited to location based on code requirements, and commercial property were a school and daycare are permitted uses has been too expensive. The proposed development combines the school/daycare with affordable housing in an effort to make the project feasible. The proposal encompasses the two current uses in the neighborhood, commercial and residential multi-family, on this transitional property and accomplishes the goals of the EVCP. The affordable housing targets an income level (100 - 120% AMI) not addressed by either Habitat for Humanity (50% AMI) or the Estes Park Housing Authority (80% AMI). A traffic study was conducted and approved by CDOT. Building heights meet the standards of the EVDC. Mr. Lane reiterated Attorney White's comments regarding the effect of the proposed school for the adjacent property owners and liquor licensees. He also stated there is no state or local law that prohibits a school from being built within 500 feet of a liquor establishment. The state statute anticipated this circumstance and provides municipalities the ability to eliminate the 500 foot requirement. The proposed development would be an asset to the community, provide child care, and affordable housing. Nancy Johnson/ Estes Park Early Childhood Center Director provided a brief history of the school that began in 2001 with a daycare facility. The center has grown and now provides private kindergarten and first grade along with the daycare to more than 67 children. Trustee comments/questions are summarized: why is the housing needed for this project if the main goal is the development of a school/daycare; questioned the neighborhoods response to the development; do local modifications to the liquor code need to be adopted prior to the approval of the development. Mr. Lane stated the housing units are needed to provide financing for the purchase of the commercial property and the construction of the school. Neighborhood comments have been favorable with the exception of concerns from the adjacent liquor licensees and concerns regarding drainage. Rita Kurelja/Director of Estes Park Housing Authority spoke in favor of the development. Based on the recent Housing Needs Assessment, 47 additional housing units will be needed by 2015 for those earning 100% to 120% AMI. Those units would need to be developed by a private developer because the Housing Authority only serves those earning 80% AMI, as regulated by state and federal law. Mary Bolgeo/President of Estes Valley Investment in Early Childhood Success, Stacy Ferree/County Resident, Eric Waples/Town Resident, Amy Lane/ Town Resident spoke in favor of the project. Affordable and reliable daycare is needed within the valley to recruit and retain families. The project demonstrates reasonable and responsible development by encompassing multiple uses on the lot. David Habecker/ Town Resident supports the project; however, expressed concern with the location of a school directly adjacent to a liquor establishment. As a liquor license holder, businesses need to be assured their businesses are protected. . Board of Trustees - June 10, 2008 - Page 5 Bill Kaufman/Attorney representing Monte and Carole House (Grumpy Gringos) and Larry and Cherie Pettyjohn (property owners for Rambos Liquor) requested the Board deny the rezoning and Special Review. The proposal does not meet the standards set forth in Chapter 1 of the EVDC or the State Liquor Code requiring a liquor establishment not be located within 500 feet of a school. He stressed the importance of a restaurant to have a liquor license and that a new license could not be issued at a later date if the school was built. John Phipps/Attorney representing Sapling Green Development stated the statutory requirements for the issuance of the two liquor licenses in question have been met and the two businesses are grand fathered. He stated the liquor license establishments are seeking future protection beyond the state statute. The statute does not apply to this proposed development. He stated to deny the proposal based on the state statute would be an arbitrary application of an inapplicable law. He reiterated the local licensing authority has the capability to reduce the standards set forth in the state statute. Monte and Carole House/Grumpy Gringos stated their concern for their property values and the effects the proposal would have on their livelihood. A school should not be built so close to a major highway in a commercial zone. The school should be located with the other schools. Trustee discussion is summarized: the proposal is well designed but not a good use or fit for the commercial property; the proposal brings forward two needs in the community; the adjacent liquor licensee concerns can be addressed by the local government; there is a lack of commercial land available; if the situation was reversed, the Board would not approve a liquor license next to a school, the proposal places residential uses next to an established commercial use which creates constant noise, smell and activity; adjacent commercial property owners should be protected by either denial of the proposal or a commitment to amend the 500 foot regulation locally. It was moved and seconded (BlackhursUHomeier) to deny Ordinance #09- 08 and it passed with Eisenlauer and Miller voting "No". No action was taken on the Special Review or Preliminary Plat due to the denial of the rezoning. 3. APPEAL PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN 08-04 FOR SAPLING GREEN, LOT 35,GRAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION. The rezoning was denied for the proposed development plan, and therefore, an appeal of the approved development plan contingent on the rezoning was not considered. 4. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER. Administrator Halburnt stated at the Town Board retreat in April, the Board requested staff investigate adding an additional position to focus on public information. Staff originally suggested a joint position entitled Executive AssistanUCommunity Outreach Coordinator. However, the Board has since indicated a preference for a position focused solely on public information. Once approved the position would be advertised both internally and externally and filled within a month. Discussion followed amongst the Board: questioned whether or not an individual with the skill set necessary could be hired for the proposed salary; the Town Administrator and Deputy Town Administrator should be able to act as the Public Information Officer (PIO) as it is in their job descriptions; questioned whether a small town needs a PIO; does the Administrative office need an additional administrative staff member; there is a need to reach out to 0 1 Board of Trustees - June 10, 2008 - Page 6 the citizens/citizen groups and the Administration should determine how to accomplish this task; Administration's function is to administer the day to day operations of the Town; the job description conflicts with work being performed by the CVB staff currently; internal communication should be included inÂ· the duties; better communication is needed throughout the community; a perception exist that administration should know what is going on and therefore, should fill the role of PIO. Administrator Halburnt stated Administration could perform the duties; however, she questioned if it was the best use of staff time. The position would allow staff to concentrate on the core government issues. The PIO would represent all departments in a cooperative effort to provide a consistent message and provide information in a timely fashion. The Board requested staff bring forward a complete job description for the Board's consideration at an upcoming meeting. 5. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. â€¢ The second Local Marketing District meeting will be held on June 26, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the Board room with the County Commissioners. 6. REQUESTTO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: 24-6-402(4)(e) C.R.S. - For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators - Big Bear Estates Annexation Agreement. It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Ericson) the Town Board enter into Executive Session for the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators Section 24-6-402(4)(e) with regard to the Big Bear Estates Annexation Agreement, and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 10:50 p.m. Mayor Pinkham reconvened the meeting to open session at 12:10 a.m. and adjourned the meeting at 12:10 a.m. William C. Pinkham, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk 0 . Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 5,2008 Minutes of a Special Joint meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park and the County Commissioners, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 5~h day of June, 2008. Meeting called to order by Commissioner Gibson. Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor Chuck Levine, Mayor ProTem Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer John Ericson Richard Homeier Jerry Miller Commissioners Glen Gibson Randy Eubanks Kathay Rennels Also Present: Attorney Greg White Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Frank Lancaster, County Manager Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Cynthia Clay, County Deputy Clerk Gael Cookman, County Deputy Clerk Absent: Trustee Chuck Levine Commissioner Gibson called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. Mayor Pinkham provided a brief history of the project that began in the fall of 2007 with the Governor signing Senate Bill 07-111 allowing statutory municipalities to form Local Marketing Districts. The petition process required the signatures of commercial property owners totaling 50% of the total commercial assessed value of the proposed district. LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT PETITION CERTIFICATION. Town Clerk Williamson reviewed the certification of the petitions which totaled $45.5 million of the $84 million assessed commercial value for all commercial property within the proposed district. Attorney White reviewed the process for the approval and formation of the Local Marketing District (LMD) by the electorate and the proposed 2% lodging tax. The Town and the County would have to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement to define the formation of the LMD, its role and the lodging tax percentage. The boundaries of the district are those of the Estes Valley Parks & Recreational District boundaries minus the area within Boulder County. It was moved and seconded (Trustee Miller/Trustee Blackhurst) the petition for the formation of the Estes Valley Local Marketing District meets the requirements of Section 29-25-105(2) C.R.S., and it passed unanimously. Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners find the petition for the formation of the Estes Valley Local Marketing District meets the requirements of Section 29-25-105(2) C.R.S., and it passed unanimously. FORMATION AND OPERATION OF THE LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT. Town Administrator Halburnt reviewed the legislation allowing the formation of a LMD by a statutory municipality. She stated lodging taxes are not uncommon in home rule municipalities with approximately 30-40 in existence within Colorado ranging from .9% ,. Board of Trustees/County Commissioners - June 5,2008 - Page 2 to 6%. The taxes are beneficial to communities have an influx of tourist using the facilities and services of the municipality. The formation of the district would be accomplished through an IGA between the Town and the County. The IGA and 2% lodging tax would be voted on by the electorate residing within the district boundaries. The tax would only be collected on nightly rentals of accommodation units and would not be collected on goods or groceries. The tax is estimated to generate $1 million to be collected by the Department of Revenue and transferred directly to the LMD. The tax collected could only be used to organize, promote, market and manage public events; activities in support of business recruitment, management and development; and coordinating tourism promotion activities. If approved, collection of the tax would begin in January 2009; therefore, the Town would fund marketing efforts for 2009. CVB Director Pickering stated a marketing district is needed in Estes valley to provide a dedicated funding source to promote and market tourism under any conditions; to eliminate in-town versus out-town concerns by business owners; to place marketing decisions in the hands of the community and businesses of Estes; and a balanced approach to funding the infrastructure and marketing. The LMD Board would be appointed by the Town Trustees and the County Commissioners. If approved in November, the tax collected and the revenues earned by the CVB ($250,000) would go directly to the LMD. The new Board would be seated late 2008 or early 2009, and would develop an operating plan for 2010. The plan would be presented to the Town and the County for approval prior to September 30,2009. The $800,000 earmarked from the General Fund for marketing would be used in the - future for capital - improvement projects. It is anticipated the LMD would direct the CVB staff regarding marketing, advertising and promotional programs; however, the Town would continue to fund special events, the conference center, Performance Park, and portions of the CVB. PUBLIC COMMENT David Habecker/Appenzell Inn questioned whether or not the YMCA, a tax exempt entity, would be included in the district. He also questioned the role of the CVB in the future with the approval of the LMD. He would encourage the development of a formal complaint process to ensure businesses have the ability to register grievances if the district does not perform or negatively impacts a business. Jim Tawney/Ponderosa Lodge foresees the district failing unless the electorate can be assured that 100% of the money raised from the lodging tax would be used solely by the LMD for marketing. The LMD's role should be defined narrowly and funding should be used solely for marketing. He also requested Town funds currently budgeted for marketing continue to be budgeted for with the approval of the LMD. He stated if money is used for personnel cost the lodging establishment would not support the LMD. Warren Clinton/Castle Mountain Lodge agreed with earlier comments and suggested the $800,000 budgeted for marketing should continue to grow over the years. If the money supplanted by the lodging tax is used for infrastructure, it should be used for tourism or tourism related facilities. The dollars raised should be used solely for marketing. Robin Eldridge/Paradise RV Park spoke in favor of the LMD. He suggested the district should be diagramed to help explain it to the general public. He questioned if all accommodation business, in-town/out-town would be included as a member of the CVB if the new district is passed. He also questioned what would happen with a downturn in the economy to make up the difference in revenue, i.e. would the Town set aside funds to make up the difference. Director Pickering stated CVB membership would be determined by the new LMD Board. He would recommend to the new LMD Board that the current fee structure remain in place. 0 . Board of Trustees/County Commissioners - June 5,2008 - Page 3 Dave Ranglos/Glacier Lodge spoke in favor of the LMD. He stated concern with potential overlap in service levels between the CVB and the LMD. He questioned the need to form a separate Board for the oversight of the funds when the CVB already has a staff of professionals. BOARD AND COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Trustee/Commissioner comments are summarized: the operating plan should be open to the public for discussion in order to be as transparent as possible; concerns were raised as to how the CVB would transition to the LMD; would the lodging tax funds be used to pay for personnel; the Town would continue to fund the operations of the CVB budgeted at $2.8 million for 2008 and only $800,000 would be supplanted by the new lodging tax; an IGA may need to be developed between the Town and the LMD for marketing of Town facilities, i.e. Stanley Fairgrounds; the General Fund dollars saved would be used for tangible benefits for the tourist and residents to remain a premier mountain resort; this is a mechanism to raise marketing dollars and find more money for capital improvements; what feedback has the Town received on the formation of the LMD; the community is supportive but concerned with the management of the district; conceptually there are a lot of questions that need to be answered with regard to the mechanics of the district; the accountability of the district needs to be clear and transparent; the public and the business community should have the opportunity to apply as a member of the new Board; the district is vital for the future of the town; the district would provides a mechanism to collect marketing funds and provide a set amount to be used each year; need to provide more information to the public on the ssue. Whereupon Commissioner Gibson adjourned the meeting at 4:40 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk .. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 10, 2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in Rooms 201/202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 10th day of June, 2008. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Ericson, Homeier, Levine and Miller Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Ericson, Homeier and Miller. Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Town Attorney White and Town Clerk Williamson Absent Trustee Levine Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. REVIEW PETITION PROCESS AND FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQS). WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO BUSINESSES. Administrator Halburnt reviewed the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) that were presented to the petitioners and approved by the Community Development Committee in December 2007. After review of the questions, Attorney White has stated they are not legally binding. FAQ #8 states the Town would continue to fund the salaries of the CVB staff if the LMD is passed. Administrator Halburnt would like to discuss the issue further with the Board and determine whether or not there would be a point in time the LMD would take over compensation for staff. Trustee Eisenlauer and Blackhurst stated the money raised by the LMD should be used for the cost of marketing and advertising, and was never intended to supplant salaries of the CVB staff. The LMD should increase the Town's advertising budget and General Fund money saved should be used for capital improvements. Trustee Miller agreed the Town should continue to pay for staff salaries for the initial five year term of the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement and then reevaluate. Discussion followed regarding the staffing of the LMD and whether or not the CVB staff would work for the Town or for the LMD. It was suggested the LMD could hire the CVB staff to perform the necessary work related to marketing and advertising. Questions were raised as to who would have oversight of the CVB staff; what happens if the staff does not perform to the satisfaction of the LMD; and how would it be addressed. Administrator Halburnt expressed concern the LMD would have money but no staff to operate, and if the CVB staff answers to more than one board the lines of authority could be unclear. Attorney White stated the draft IGA was written in July of 2007 at the beginning of the process and envisioned a seven member board with three members appointed by the Town, three appointed by the County and one appointed jointly by the Town and the County. However, it is estimated that 80% of the revenue would come from properties within town limits, and the number of board appointments from the Town could be increased. In addition, a Town Trustee could be appointed to the board. Trustee Ericson questioned if the Department of Revenue had been contacted to include the LMD on forms for 2009 if passed. Attorney White would contact the Department. He also questioned how the LMD is being promoted to the community. Attorney White informed the Board that once the ballot questions are certified no public I . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Town Board Study Session - June 10, 2008 - Page 2 money can be used to promote the issue. However, the Board members can promote the issue as long as public money is not used. Staff would prepare a plan and talking points to promote the LMD that would stress the difference between a lodging tax and sales tax. Staff would also prepare a timeline for the LMD election. Trustee Homeier stated in order to sell the LMD to the community a project or two should be chosen to earmark the money supplanted by the lodging tax. This strategy would aid in gaining local support for the issue. Discussion followed regarding the timing and content of the LMD Operating Plan. The plan must be completed and approved by the Town and the County prior to the levying of any tax. The LMD plan could include the ability to hire staff/consultants to complete the marketing and advertising. The Town Board could require the LMD to hire the CVB staff. Trustee Miller suggested a separate IGA be drafted between the Town, County and the LMD as to how the LMD will operate and include the use of the CVB staff. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) AND STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. Administrator Halburnt reviewed the draft IGA. â€¢ Election - The cost of the election has been estimated at $20,000 and the entities responsible for the cost have not been determined. The Town anticipates paying for the election and being reimbursed by the LMD if passed. â€¢ Board of Directors - Discussion was heard regarding the number of terms a Board member should serve and the make up of the Board. The draft IGA limits the term to one term of four years. It was proposed the IGA should be changed to two terms. Trustee Blackhurst expressed a concern with term limits. It was proposed that 80% of the Board be Town appointments and 20% from the County. It was also suggested the split could be determined by the number of rooms in the Town versus the County and the anticipated lodging tax that would be collected by each. Staff will research the issue further. The Chair and the Vice Chair should be selected by the Board for a one year term, with the potential for re-election for no more than 2 consecutive terms, and can not be re-elected to the same position for two years after serving 2 consecutive terms. â€¢ The order of sections VII and Vlll should be switched. â€¢ Distribution - The division of assets should be done proportionally based on revenues. â€¢ Term - There could be conflicts with the termination of the agreement in the middle of the final year due to previous advertising commitments. It was suggested the following sentence be removed: However, the District shall not enter into any contracts or agreements which extend beyond December 31 of the calendar year in which a notice of termination has been given. â€¢ Other Provisions: o Transition - The Board questioned who would be the administrator for the LMD during the first year. Other issues that need to be addressed included what would happen to the CVB staff and who would pay for the Town attorney's time. o Amendment - Any amendments would be addressed by the Town and the County and would not need to be voted on by the electorate. MISCELLANEOUS Deputy Administrator Richardson advised the Board the addition of a gas bus to the campground route will add $9,000 to $10,000 to the shuttle costs for 2008. The Board expressed the bus would create less noise, smell and be cheaper to operate, and therefore, the Town should move forward. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:50 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk . I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 12, 2008. Minutes of a Regular meeting of the UTILITIES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, LÂ·arimer County, Colorado. Â·Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 12th day of June 2008. Committee: Chairman Homeier, Trustees Blackhurst and Ericson Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Utilities Director Goehring, Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent None Chairman Homeier called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None LIGHT & POWER DEPARTMENT ORGANIC CONTRACT & POWER SUPPLY AGREEMENT WITH PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY. In the mid 1960s, potential limits on the availability of federal hydropower compelled the municipalities of Estes Park, Loveland, Longmont, and Fort Collins to create a non-profit corporation to purchase blocks of energy from the Bureau of Reclamation for resale to individual member municipalities. The corporation faced limitations, however, because it was unable to issue tax-exempt bonds to finance capital projects. At the time the corporation was created, legislation did not permit the municipalities to act jointly, but an amendment to the Colorado Constitution ratified in 1974, allowed for the establishment of a power authority, a "separate governmental entity," with the power to own energy generation and transmission facilities with investor-owned and cooperative utilities. The Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) was established in 1975 by the Member Municipalities (Estes Park, Loveland, Longmont, and Fort Collins) through an Organic Contract, replacing the previously established non-profit corporation. A stipulation of the Organic Contract is the establishment of the "Power Supply Contract" between PRPA and each Member Municipality guaranteeing all power required by the Members is purchased from PRPA. Joe Wilson, PRPA General Counsel, explained the need for extending the Organic Contract and outlined proposed changes which address organizational changes and update wording contained in the contract to current practice; removing archaic terms and language. Changes also deal with the ability of directors to conduct and participate in board meetings by means of electronic teleconferencing, and procedures to follow when a vacancy exists in the position of General Manager. Mike Dahl, Division Manager-Power Systems Operations, reviewed the proposed changes to the Power Supply Agreement. The contract obligates PRPA to supply, and Estes Park to purchase, all power required to operate its electric system with the exception of grandfathered hydropower. The proposed addition of a De Minimus exception to the all- requirements obligation, will allow Estes Park to generate power for its own use from any new generation resource up to 1 megawatt or 1 % of peak load, whichever is greater, enabling the Town to utilize renewable resource options such as solar and wind power in the future. The contract also incorporates the pre-existing facilities agreement, outlining the responsibilities of PRPA and the Town of Estes Park related to purchasing and I . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Utilities Committee - May 8,2008 - Page 2 maintaining equipment for the transmission and delivery of power. Mr. Dahl spoke to redundancy and commended the Town on the design of its distribution system and the ability for either substation to Supply poweF throughout the system in the event one of the substations is off-line due to an emergency. The Committee asked for information related to the PRPA organization and its background. Mr. Wilson stated that the board of directors has legislative authority to manage the affairs of PRPA, including establishing rates; that PRPA is a self-regulated organization with no direct oversight by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission; and provided a brief history of PRPA. The Committee requested that a memo be prepared outlining the involvement of former Mayor and Public Works Director Bob Dekker in the creation of PRPA. It has been standard practice to extend the Organic Contract approximately every 10 years ensuring that the term of the contract never falls below 30 years to accommodate the time frames and terms of financial bonds. The Organic Contract was extended in 1980 and again in 1998 to its current term through 2040. The proposed contract changes have been reviewed by Town Attorney White, and staff recommends extending the Organic Contract and the Power Supply Contract with Platte River Power Authority through 2050. The final document will be taken to the Town Board for approval in late July or August. REPORTS LIGHT & POWER BUDGET 1. Pole Inspection Update - The pole inspection program is designed as a maintenance system to track the condition of wooden utility poles for employee safety, liability, and future planning purposes. Typically, poles last 40 years, but inspectors are finding that poles in this climate are staying in good condition nearly twice as long as poles in wetter climates. Approximately 2,000 poles have already been inspected with 40 poles identified for replacement, so far. The poles will be replaced in-house with wooden poles of similar grade and height. 2. Mary's Lake Substation Update - Upgrades to the substation being made to allow for future loads and increased system reliability and redundancy are underway and progressing as planned. MISCELLANEOUS Trustee Ericson requested that staff propose several incentive plans related to citizen participation in green programs to be reviewed and considered during the budgeting cycle. There being no further business, Chairman Homeier adjourned the meeting at 9:12 a.m. Cynthia A. Deats, Deputy Town Clerk , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment May 6,2008,9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair John Lynch, Members Cliff Dill, Chuck Levine, Wayne Newsom, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant Attending: Chair Lynch; Members Levine, Newsom, and Sager Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Member Dill, Alternate Member Grant Chair Lynch called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of the minutes of the February 5,2008 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Newsom) to approve the minutes. There being no changes or corrections, the minutes were approved as submitted. 3. METES AND BOUNDS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 460 VALLEY ROAD, Owner/Applicant: Stanton B. Peterson - Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow replacement and expansion of decks on an existing residence 23.2 feet from the eastern property line and 6.4 feet from the southern property line in lieu of the 25-foot setbacks required in the E-1- Estate zoning district Director Joseph summarized the staff report. This is a request for reduction of the required 25-foot setback to allow for a deck to wrap around the south corner of an existing residence, which is located 20 feet from the property line. The southeast corner of the deck would be located 6.4 feet from the south property line; the northeast corner of the deck would be located 23.2 feet from the east property line. Staff finds that special circumstances exist in that the lot is only half-acre in size but is within a one-acre zoning district (E-1). Also, the home was constructed in its current location in 1913 and the corner of the home is situated within the setback. The variance request was prompted by the applicant's renovation of the residence. The home could be occupied without approval of the requested variance; however, the degree of additional encroachment into the setback is minimal cbnsidering the location of the residence. The requested variance would not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. The adjoining property owner on the south, Christopher Wood, has submitted a letter in support of the request. Delivery of services would not be adversely affected by approval of the requested variance. No reasonable alternative exists. The variance request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Upper Thompson Sanitation District expressed no objection to the variance request. A letter of support was received from Christopher Wood, as noted above. Planning staff recommends approval of the requested variance with two conditions of approval. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , i, Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 May 6,2008 Public Comment: Lonnie Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He expressed the applicant's agreement with the recommended conditions of approval. Member Newsom noted the main door to the residence is on the south side and a second door exists on the east side. The deck accommodates both doors; it is needed for access and for safety reasons. He expressed support for the variance request, as did Member Levine. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine) to approve the variance request for the Metes and Bounds property located at 460 Valley Road to allow replacement and expansion of decks on an existing residence 23.2 feet from the eastern property line and 6.4 feet from the southern property line in lieu of the required 25-foot setbacks, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Full compliance with the Building Code. 2. Submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a qualified surveyor. 4. METES AND BOUNDS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 845 W. WONDERVIEW AVENUE, Owners: Reese A., Flint H., and Regan W. Cheney and Corrine Cheney-Burke, Applicant: Van Horn Engineering - Request for vatiance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow an addition to an existing residence to be built 20 feet from the southern property line in lieu of the required 50-foot setback required in the RE-Rural Estate zoning district Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This is a request to allow a 20-foot setback from the southern property line in lieu of the 50-foot setback required in the RE-Rural Estate zoning district. The purpose of the request is to allow the expansion/remodel of an existing 'cabin that was built circa 1915, very close tothe property line, and prior to the adoption of setback requirements. The remodel would include removal and replacement of the existing kitchen and a bathroom addition. Rock outcroppings at the northeast corner of the residence and an existing driveway with a retaining wall on the west and south sides of the residence limit the available area for an addition. The lot contains a mapped rockfall hazard area, which is located east of the building site. The applicant retained a professional geologist who has experience in the Estes Valley and in the applicant's neighborhood. The geologist conducted an on-site evaluation and concluded there is "minor rockfall hazard potential." The most pertinent special circumstance associated with this variance request is the location of the existing house in relation to the setback. There can be beneficial use of the property without a variance; however, the cabin is small and currently has no bathing facilities. The requested variance is not substantial and would not negatively impact the neighborhood; the cabin is not visible from neighboring properties. The cabin has been owned by the family since the time it was constructed. The variance request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from Upper Thompson Sanitation District, Larimer County Engineering Department, and Rocky Mountain National Park. All expressed no objection or no major concerns or issues with the requested variance. Neighboring property owner Shane M. Ring also submitted a letter expressing no objections to the proposed addition. Planning staff recommends approval of the requested variance with one condition of approval. Public Comment: Lonnie Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the property owners. He expressed agreement with the recommended conditions of approval. Â¥ , , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 May 6,2008 Bob Cheney/Owner stated his father had homesteaded the property in 1912 and built the house between 1912 and 1915. The property has been in his family since the time it was homesteaded; he was born in the house. He stated it meant a lot to him to fix up the cabin and expressed a desire to make it livable. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Sager) to approve the variance request for the Metes and Bounds property located at 845 W. Wonderview Avenue to allow an addition to an existing residence to be built 20 feet from the southern property line in lieu of the 50-foot setback required in the RE-Rural Estate zoning district, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Prior to pouring foundation, submittal of a setback certificate prepared by a registered land surveyor. 5. REPORTS Director Joseph indicated Member Dill has decided not to seek renewal of his appointment when it expires at the end of June. He expressed appreciation for Member Dill's years of service. Chair Lynch wished him "Good fishing." There being no further business, Chair Lynch adjourned the meeting at 9:22 a.m. John Lynch, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary 0 0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission May 20,2008,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Ike Eisenlauer; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Bruce Grant, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, Doug Klink, and John Tucker Attending: Chair Eisenlauer; Commissioners Amos, Grant, Hull, Kitchen, Klink, and Tucker Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Town Attorney White, Town Board Liaison Homeier, Public Works Director Zurn, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: None The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence of the meeting. Chair Eisenlauer called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Tom Ewing/Town Resident expressed concern that the ongoing valley-wide wildlife habitat study is being conducted too late to protect and preserve open-space lands and areas for wildlife. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of regular meeting minutes dated April 15, 2008 and special meeting minutes dated April 17, 2008. b. SPECIAL REVIEW 08-01, Cricket Communication Tower, A Portion of S36-T5N- R73W of the 6~h P.M., 1435 Prospect Mountain Drive, Cricket Communications/Applicant-Request for continuance to the June 17, 2008 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting c. THEISS BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT, Metes and Bounds property located at 3266 & 3270 H Bar G Road, Mark A. & Meghan M. Theiss/Applicants-Request to reconfigure two tracts of land to create one 10.47-acre tract and one 90.999-acre tract d. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK 11: Appeals-Request by staff for continuance to the June 17, 2008 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting Vacation Home Rentals-Request by staff for continuance to future date to be determined It was moved and seconded (Hull/Amos) to accept the consent agenda, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. REZONING, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, and PRELIMINARY P.U.D. 08-01, ELKHORN LODGE REDEVELOPMENT/BIG BEAR ESTATES SUBDIVISION, Four Metes and Bounds Parcels (parcel identification numbers 35261 -00-001, 35261-05- 046, 35261-06-001, 35252-53-018, Portion of 35261-06-001) and Outlot A, Sallee Resubdivision, currently known as the Elkhorn Lodge property, including 600 West Elkhorn Avenue, Zahourek Conservatory, LLC/Owner, Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant (Continued from April 17, 2008 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting) Staff Presentation: Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report. This is a continuation of the review of the application for a preliminary subdivision plat, preliminary P.U.D., and rezoning for redevelopment of the Elkhorn Lodge property. Planning Commission review began on RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 May 20,2008 April 15, 2008 and continued at a special meeting on April 17, 2008. An entire overview of the proposal was presented during the April meetings. The Planning Commission must act on these requests at today's meeting unless the applicant agrees in writing to a continuance; it is staff's understanding that the applicant wants the Commission to act. The proposal would then be presented to the Town Board, which is the decision-making body. Today's report focuses on revisions that are needed to ensure compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) regulations. Staff strongly supports elements of the application, including construction of a key section of the proposed bypass road, pedestrian-scale development of the lower 20 acres, river restoration and riverwalk extension, provision of affordable/attainable housing, and trail access into Rocky Mountain National Park. The applicant has made revisions to the proposal since the April meetings, including reduction of the single-family residential lots on the upper 40 acres from 57 lots to 55; reduction of private open-space from 13.8 acres to 13.3 acres; submittal of a forest stewardship and fire mitigation plan, which is supported by Larimer County and the State Forest Service; submittal of draft design guidelines; continuation of work on the bypass road design in conjunction with the Public Works department; revision of the location of the Range View Road realignment; and proposal of increased setbacks for Lots B-1 and F-4 to provide a greater buffer for the adjacent residential neighborhood. Additional comments have been received from affected agencies and from the public. EVDC Â§9.1 states one of the purposes of a planned unit development (P.U.D.) is to ". . . relate the type, design, and layout of residential and commercial development to the particular site, thereby encouraging the preservation of the site's natural characteristics, and to encourage integrated planning . . ." EVDC Â§10.4.A.1 also requires that "the lot area/size, width, depth, shape, and orientation shall be appropriate for the location of the subdivision and type of development and use contemplated . . ." This includes avoidance of steep slopes, preservation of native trees, rock outcroppings, and scenic natural resources, including steep slopes and ridgelines. Many of staff's recommendations regarding the single-family residential subdivision on the upper 40 acres relate to these requirements. It is appropriate to review the single-family residential development for compliance with single-family zoning regulations found in the EVDC. Staff used R-Residential zoning district standards, which provides the smallest lot sizes for single-family market-rate development. Staff is concerned about the proximity of the single-family residential development to the adjacent I-1-/ndustria/ area and has recommended conditions to help minimize impacts. Staff is also concerned about the proposed density of development on Lot B-1; the contemplated thirty units on a slope of 20% are not appropriate. Staff understands the applicant is proposing revisions to address this concern. Per the EVDC, local and sub-local streets may have a maximum grade of 10%, with 11% stretches for no more than 200 feet. Bear Paw Circle is proposed with a 12% grade for approximately 600 feet, which would entail approximately five- to ten-foot cuts on the uphill side of that section of road and would require a waiver from the Director of Public Works. Bear Run Court is proposed with a 12% grade for approximately 450 feet, which entails five- to ten-foot fill slopes on the downhill side of the road. Staff recommend& the applicant work to reduce the amount of fill and reduce the grade at the intersection of Bear Run Court and Bear Rock Court (currently proposed as 8%) and the southern intersection of Bear Paw Circle and Bear Crossing Road (currently proposed as 6%); the EVDC requires grades of 3% to 4% at intersections for safety reasons. Waiver from the Director of Public Works would be required to construct the intersections as proposed. Cul-de-sacs are limited in length to 1,000 feet and no more than 120 vehicle trips per day, which equates to approximately 12 homes. The applicant proposes a cul-de-sac approximately 1,550 feet in length, which would provide access for 27 lots within the subdivision and additional existing lots to the west. It may be possible to provide a conforming cul-de-sac in the future by providing a connection to the west. Approval of the cul-de-sac as proposed would require a waiver from the Director of Public Works. The , ' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 May 20,2008 Fire Chief has required provision of a secondary emergency access-the current Elm Road connection, which is within proposed open space, could be utilized for this purpose. Bear Run Court, as proposed, would go through a rock outcropping, with sidewalk on the uphill side. Staff recommends redesign of the road with the goal of avoiding the rock outcropping altogether. Significant fill slopes and cut slopes are proposed in the most visually sensitive portion of the site and would be visible from Highway 34 (both Wonderview Avenue and Big Thompson Avenue). As many existing trees should be preserved as possible to screen views of the cut and fill; this would require revisions to some building envelopes and realignment of a portion of proposed sewer line. A shared private driveway with a 13% grade is proposed to serve Lots 30 through 33. The EVDC limits single-family driveway slopes to 12%. The proposed driveway would require a five-foot cut for 150 feet and a seven-foot cut near the driveway intersection with Bear Paw Circle. Staff does not support a waiver to allow the proposed 13% driveway grade. Reducing the grade of the driveway would require an even greater amount of cut. Staff recommends redesign of these lots and the proposed driveway. The proposed preliminary subdivision plat encompasses the entire property, including the single-family residential subdivision on the upper 40 acres. However, if the final plat is approved by the Town Board, only a portion of these single-family lots would be created at this time (the first filing). Many of the lots for which staff has concerns would be recorded with the second filing, which would allow the applicant to revise the design of these lots to address staff's concerns provided the Town Board chooses to place those conditions on the application. This would allow further review by the Planning Commission and additional public comment to be received. On the upper 40 acres, the waivers required for areas of the proposed road and/or driveways combined with areas of steep slopes, trees, and/or rock outcroppings result in some lots that could not be developed in compliance with Code standards. Staff's concerns about specific proposed lots are identified in the staff report, a portion of which are summarized as follows: â€¢ Lot 17-0.38 acre; slope just under 36%; vast majority of the lot is rock outcropping; most of the proposed building envelope is on top of the rock outcropping; many trees on site. EVDC standards require most of the proposed lot to be placed within limits of disturbance due to slope and trees; staff recommends the lot be removed due to noncompliance with EVDC standards. â€¢ Lot 22-0.27 acre; slope just under 39%; within a ridgeline protection area; visible from Big Thompson Avenue and Wonderview Avenue; EVDC requires placement in limits of disturbance or open space; the lot would need to be 0.8 acre in size to meet the requirements of the R-Residential zoning district; staff recommends the lot be removed. â€¢ Lot 18-0.31 acre; steeply sloped and heavily treed; significant fill required to access; this combination of conditions results in a non-compliant lot; staff recommends the lot be removed. â€¢ Lot 36-0.66 acre lot proposed for 2nd filing; originally proposed as two lots; approximately 26% slope; road approximately 10 feet below lot; rock cut and site disturbance required to provide access to lot, including approximately 170-foot-long driveway with 14-foot cut at entrance and six-foot cut along remainder of driveway; site impact necessary to access the proposed building envelope is greater than permitted by Code; staff recommends the lot be removed. â€¢ Lot 37-0.37 acre: 26% slope; access and construction would result in more site impact than permitted by Code; if zoned R-Residential minimum lot size would be 0.577 acres; lot size could be increased by moving lot line to the west but that portion of the site is steeply sloped; staff recommends the lot be removed. â€¢ Lot 20-0.31 acre; contains two juniper trees that should be preserved; the building envelope should be redesigned to avoid impact to one juniper and the proposed utility line location should be revised to protect the other. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 May 20,2008 â€¢ Lots 27 & 28-contain a rock outcropping that should be shown on the plat; driveway and building envelopes should be designed to minimize impact to the rock outcropping. â€¢ Lots 12, 14, & 23-proposed building envelopes should be revised to minimize impacts to rock outcroppings. â€¢ Location of the proposed sewer main running west from Lot 32 should be revised to minimize impact to the rock outcropping and revised such that it does not run through a steeply sloped portion of the property. Staff recommends the main be placed in the road right-of-way. Grading for the proposed roads and driveways would create areas of cut and fill of ten to twelve feet, with greater amounts of cut and fill for the proposed bypass road. Staff recommends requiring revegetation and rock staining in order to help screen these areas. Additionally, all retaining walls should be designed per EVDC Â§7.2.A.6; staff recommends no manmade materials be allowed on the face of retaining walls. Planner Chilcott showed photos illustrating examples of appropriate and inappropriate cut slopes and retaining walls. To mitigate the impact of tree removal, staff recommends that trees, including seedlings, be planted to screen cut and fill slopes. Landscaping should also be installed to buffer impacts of the proposed development from adjacent single-family residential areas. Off- site intrusion should also be minimized via design guidelines, which could allow larger homes on less steeply sloped lots with bigger building envelopes. House design should vary from lot to lot. The Planning Commission and Town Board should review and approve design guidelines for the upper 40 acres prior to issuance of building permits for that portion of the property. The applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement to construct sidewalk along the length of the bypass road, which would be more difficult to construct in areas with significant cut and fill. The applicant proposes to use a combination of sidewalk and trail to provide access from the upper 40 acres to the lower portion of the property. Some revision is needed to ensure access from Elm Road to the portion of the property adjacent to West Elkhorn Avenue. Staff notes the trail may be covered by snow in winter and spring; sidewalk would provide better year-round access. Additionally, a trail easement should be dedicated on Outlot A of the Sallee Resubdivision (a small portion of land that is adjacent to the UNC property at the top of Old Ranger Road) to connect to the 'Women's Club" trail. There is some existing trail in that general area; staff recommends maintaining that historic use. On proposed Lot B-1 the sewer main location should be revised to minimize tree removal and disturbance to the rocky area at the southwest corner of the lot. Staff has received a number of public comments regarding the impact of lighting. Staff recommends that lighting studies be submitted for Town review and approval with each future development plan application for the property in order to minimize off-site impacts of lighting. Staff recommends a condition of approval be acquisition of road right-of-way from Larimer County. This right-of-way is needed for a portion of the proposed bypass road, realignment of the Range View Road intersection, and some detention facilities. EVDC Â§7.12 requires that all subdivisions meet adequate public facilities requirements, which includes on- and off-site transportation/road improvements. Until the Town Board makes a decision on the alignment of the proposed bypass road with West Elkhorn Avenue, the improvements required are unknown. Following this decision, staff recommends a revised application be submitted for review by the Planning Commission and Town Board to determine off-site impacts and required mitigation of those impacts. The Town Board may choose to participate in the financing of some of the required improvements. If the central (Far View Drive) alignment is chosen, staff recommends the road right-of- way be shifted approximately 10 to 20 feet to the west to provide a greater buffer for the adjacent Elkhorn Plaza Condominiums, to minimize impact to existing wetlands, and to 1 . ' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 May 20,2008 provide a safer alignment with Far View Drive. Access via the existing Elkhorn Lodge entrance driveway should be limited or prohibited. The proposed shuttle bus stop should also be relocated to minimize impact to Elkhorn Plaza Condominiums. The proposal involves revisions to parking, vehicular and pedestrian access, and utilities serving Elkhorn Plaza Condominiums. The applicant should ensure that adequate parking, access, and utility service is maintained for the condominiums throughout construction. The design of the proposed bypass road will also result in changes to access for some properties accessed via Elm Road; access to these properties should be maintained throughout the entire construction period. Staff recommends that additional review of the wetland restoration plan, river restoration plan, riparian habitat restoration plan, and plans for the proposed river lowering (CLOMR) take place, with further review by the Planning Commission and Town Board. Staff has reviewed much of this information in detail; however, until a decision is reached by the Town Board regarding the road alignment, the review cannot be finalized. For that reason, staff recommends the applicant submit amended applications. Staff recommends that there be no permitted uses-by-right. All uses should be subject to discretionary development plan review and approval. There is no guarantee that the maximum densities or bulk shown on the current application could be achieved. Staff recommends requiring compliance with all of the conditions found in staff report if the Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval of the submitted applications. Planning Commission/Staff Discussion: Commissioner Amos thanked Planner Chilcott for her efforts to present all the details of this large development project. Commissioner Hull referenced pages 28 and 30 of the staff report and questioned whether there are drainage problems. Planner Chilcott stated as additional revisions are made to the application, revisions will be needed to the drainage report. Commissioner Hull noted staff recommends removal of six of the proposed 55 lots on the upper 40 acres. Planner Chilcott stated proposed Lots 18 and 19 could be combined. Commissioner Hull referenced the single-family lot size analysis for the upper 40 acres prepared by staff and questioned Lot 36, which staff has recommended be removed. Planner Chilcott stated the lot would exceed the minimum lot-size requirement for the Fl- Residential zoning district; however, staff recommends removal of the lot for the reasons outlined above. Commissioner Amos apologized to Celine LeBeau/Van Horn Engineering for comments made at the April 17, 2008 Planning Commission meeting and stated he holds the Van Horn Engineering organization in the highest esteem. Applicant Presentation: Frank Theis/CMS Planning & Development Co. representing Rock Castle Development Co. stated that all lots proposed with the plat, with the exception of the 25 lots contained in the first filing of the residential subdivision, will be re-reviewed by the public, Planning Commission, and Town Board via future development plans. Proposed Lot 22 was the only lot in the first filing that the applicant and staff were not in agreement on. Mr. Theis stated he met with Director Joseph regarding this lot, who agreed that the proposed lot could be built upon. All lots in the second filing would be subject to staff-level or Planning Commission development plan review and approVal. If an individual lot cannot meet applicable standards, it cannot be built on. Mr. Theis stated preliminary discussions regarding the annexation agreement, which will be reviewed by the Town Board, have dealt only with financial issues. There has been long-standing interest at the Town level for providing a bypass road in this area; the Elkhorn Lodge property is the only place left to make a connection from Highway 34 to Highway 36. The Town Engineer and Colorado Department of Transportation have recommended bypass road alignment with Far View Drive. The applicant initially thought the alignment should be constructed farther west and has provided for road alignment in either location. Certain details of the development cannot be finalized until a decision is made regarding the final road alignment; however, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 May 20,2008 no changes to the plat currently before the Planning Commission would be made as a result of the road alignment decision. If changes to the concept plan for the lower 20 acres are required, all lots in this area would be re-reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Theis stated a community develops around its infrastructure and construction of a collector road (the proposed bypass road) on the property warrants a certain amount of density. The applicant proposes clustering of density as recommended under P.U.D. guidelines and was operating under the assumption that details regarding slopes of individual lots would not be required so long as the proposed lots "worked." Mr. Theis contended using the minimum lot size requirements of the R-Residential zoning district as a basis of comparison isn't right because of the concept of clustering, which reduces lot sizes. Due to the provision of building envelopes on the proposed lots, over 50% of the property will not be developed. Many of the issues raised by staff regarding slopes, roads, outcroppings, and so forth will be addressed with the second filing. Amy Plummer/Van Horn Engineering stated they have been working diligently with staff to design roads on a very tough site. She stated her belief that they could continue to tweak grades and curves to address some of staff's requests and will continue to work with Public Works Director Zurn to ensure he is satisfied with the plans. Mr. Theis reiterated that the lots staff has recommended for removal will be reviewed again by staff and by the Planning Commission as staff determines is appropriate, at the time of the second filing. The applicant does not think these lots should be removed and will attempt to prove that all proposed lots are perfectly buildable and don't exceed EVDC limits for cut, grades, limits of disturbance, and tree removal. Mi. Theis stated the applicant is requesting the Planning Commission to vote on the requests today. The Commissioners proceeded with questions for Mr. Theis, whose responses are summarized as follows: â€¢ The open-space area proposed in the northwest portion of the upper 40 acres is unbuildable because it is steep and heavily wooded. â€¢ A "conventional development" with larger lots could be proposed, but the bypass road would not be built. There would not be justification for the proposed density without the bypass road. If larger lots were proposed, infrastructure costs would remain; the associated cost per lot would be "horrendous." â€¢ The applicant believes it is highly unlikely the six lots staff has recommended be removed will be. â€¢ If financial negotiations between the Town and the applicant fail, the applicant would withdraw the entire project. â€¢ If the plat is approved, the applicant will do rough grading for utilities for Phase I in certain areas that are located within the proposed second phase. â€¢ Staff has recommended that fencing be removed; however, boundary fence that belongs to adjacent property owners cannot be removed by the applicant. â€¢ The applicant has already tried to realign proposed Bear Run Court to avoid the rock outcropping but has found it cannot be avoided entirely. â€¢ The applicant would prefer to be allowed to use manmade materials on retaining wall surfaces. â€¢ The applicant and property owner (J. Zahourek) object to staff's recommended condition of approval requiring a minimum setback of fifteen feet between the private access easement and the church building and the coach house on proposed Lots F-2 and F-3; Mr. Theis requested this condition be removed. â€¢ Mr. Theis also objected to recommended condition of approval 15.f, which requires construction of sidewalk in cut-de-sac bulbs. â€¢ The applicant has promised Elkhorn Plaza Condominium unit owners that the "stables bridge" and temporary access off Elm Road will be used during construction rather than the current driveway entrance to the lodge. â€¢ The applicant is now proposing to combine Lots B-1 and B-2 into a single lot (Lot B) with the same overall density of up to 30 apartments and 24 condominiums or townhomes. There may be "a dozen" townhomes near the western property line of Lot B; the applicant is considering moving the proposed affordable housing to the other side of the lot to provide a greater buffer to the adjacent single-family neighborhood. The applicant is willing to provide a setback in the area that is . D RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 May 20,2008 currently shown as Lot B-1 of 120 feet from adjoining property owner John Spahnle's house, which would be approximately 100 feet from the property line; the applicant recommends this be a condition of approval. â€¢ When asked about trailhead parking, Mr. Theis indicated there is plenty of parking on the proposed lot based on 60 parking spaces for 30 apartments and shared parking use, as shown on the concept plan for commercial/retail use. â€¢ Proposed Phase I development of the lower 20 acres will entail renovation of the existing lodge with 20 hotel rooms, restauranVbar/banquet facilities, and renovation of the lobby. Some existing buildings will be removed and landscaping, parking, and curb and gutter will be installed. The next phase entails construction of the new hotel wing. At that time the entire central lot will be developed with a courtyard and additional parking. Lot B is proposed to be developed next, with additional commercial development along the river to follow. Mr. Theis stated the applicant proposes additional conditions of approval to address concerns expressed by neighbors and submitted the following list: 1. Remove the section of right-of-way shown on the plat between the Coach House and the Elkhorn Condominiums (existing entrance to the Lodge). 2. Change the Concept Plan to remove any physical road connection to Old Ranger Road and the proposed trailhead. 3. Change the Concept Plan to remove the proposed trailhead on Town property. 4. Change the phasing plan to clearly indicate that no permanent connection will be made from Elm Road to the new Bear Crossing Road until the permanent connection is made to West Elkhorn Avenue. 5. Recommend to the Town Board of Trustees that the existing right-of-way between the Elkhorn Lodge property and Old Ranger Road be vacated by the Town concurrent with final plat approval and filing. Bob Koehler/President, Rock Castle Development Co. (Applicant) stated they have demonstrated to the Town Board that additional sales tax revenues generated by development of this property (construction, operations of remodeled lodge/hotel, and retail) will more than pay for any Town contributions to costs of bypass road construction. Public Comment: Barbara Penney/Neighboring Property Owner expressed concerns about potential impacts to Far View Drive, including losing some of her front yard to right-of-way. Also concerned that people will be routed away from the downtown area; does not want that to happen. Linda Farrell/Adjoining Property Owner expressed concerns about proposed lowering of Fall River (floodplain revisions) and bypass road alignment, including impacts to wetlands on the north end of the lodge property and impacts to the waterfall adjacent to her properly. Stated the sanitation district has indicated the waterfall need not be removed. Requested conditions of approval be that the river be lowered no more than two feet and the western alignment be chosen for the bypass road alignment. Expressed concerns about impacts to Elkhorn Plaza Condominiums, Far View neighborhood, Filbey Court neighborhood, the Willows Condominiums, and large cost to the Town for improvements to Far View Drive if that road alignment is chosen. Judy Schreiber/Adjoining Property Owner thanked Mr. Theis and Rock Castle Development for neighborhood meetings and attempts to respond to neighbor concerns. Requested there not be a road connection from the development to Old Ranger Drive. Suggested signage be used to direct traffic west on Elkhorn Avenue to access Wonderview Avenue rather than routing traffic up Far View Drive or James Street. Dave Albee/Town Resident expressed concern about proposed alteration of the 100-year floodplain, which would reduce floodwater storage capacity provided by the floodplain. Questioned need for an additional banquet facility as proposed by applicant, noting it will conflict with the "Town-owned" banquet facility. Urged bypass road be routed through existing Rock Ridge Road, as suggested by area residents 25 years ago. Stated applicant 4 . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 May 20,2008 should contribute to cost of necessary traffic signal lights as required by almost every P.U.D. in the state. Bill Van Horn/Area Resident stated the Elkhorn Lodge is one of the oldest structures in the area and is worth saving. Cited the redevelopment of Mary's Lake Lodge as a good example of the way to do so. John Spahnle/Adjoining Property Owner requested the Old Man Mountain Lane right-of- way be vacated. Requested minimum of 250-foot separation between the bypass road/West Elkhorn Avenue intersection and the existing Old Ranger Drive/Elkhorn intersection so the Old Ranger Drive connection to Elkhorn Avenue would not have to be removed. Stated the adjoining neighborhood does not want right-of-way from the applicant's property to Old Ranger Drive. Requested public trail access via the road rather than across the Town-owned lot and behind his lot. Expressed concern regarding 15-foot setbacks for Lot B-1 as shown on the current plat drawings; requested condition of approval provide for much larger setbacks to buffer his property. Bob Dekker/Town ResidenUFormer Mayor provided accolades to Planner Chilcott, stating her staff report is the best he's seen. Expressed support for a bypass road and provided some history of location options considered in the past. Noted the Town can work with the developer; it had not been able to complete negotiations with the property owner(s) or pay for the costs of bypass road construction in the past. The proposed subdivision will result in parcels that can be further reviewed in the future to ensure compatibility with town planning. Expressed general support for the proposal and the developer. - - Tom Hochstetler/Town ResidenUBusiness Owner stated the proposed bypass road is very important for emergency access/fire fighters, particularly given the pine beetle epidemic. Urged approval of the proposal with as few conditions as possible. Commended staff for excellent job. Ron Norris/Town Resident stated he is strongly in favor of some aspects of the proposal and very concerned about others. Questioned whether there is a way to proceed with the beneficial aspects of the development without permanently destroying the peace and quiet of neighbors; preserve most or all of the historic ranch buildings; build affordable housing without constructing it on a steep slope with inadequate buffering from existing development; proceed without burdening the developer with additional road expense and requiring him to build higher density development on the upper 40 acres in order to make a reasonable profit; and whether there is a way to proceed without being held hostage to a road location that has a number of flaws. Johanna Darden/Town Resident stated her disagreement with Mr. Hochstetler's remarks and her agreement with Mr. Norris's remarks. Urged resolution of issues now rather during future reviews so as to avoid becoming "hemmed in" and accepting things that would not ordinarily be accepted. Eileen Albritten/Neighboring Property Owner expressed concern regarding the impact of increased traffic and speeding on Old Ranger Drive; questioned necessity for entrance from the proposed development onto this residential street. Expressed concern about impacts of lighting and noise, both during and after construction. Bypass road alignment at the western end of the property will have a negative impact on Elkhorn Club Estates and James Street residents; urged alignment at east side of property. Margaret Scott/Adjoining Property Owner stated a bypass road is important to Estes Park and she doesn't oppose having a bypass road; however, expressed strong opposition to bypass traffic being routed onto Old Ranger Drive, James Street, or Far View Drive, which would impact old, established, estate-zoned properties. Signage should be used to direct traffic to the west to access Wonderview Avenue or to the east to access downtown. A western alignment for the bypass road would create a very dangerous intersection; Old Ranger Drive and James Street are already located within 500 feet of one another. Requested that traffic traveling east on West Elkhorn Avenue be prohibited from turning left onto James Street. Bypass road traffic should be kept on West Elkhorn Avenue. I . i RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 May 20,2008 Verd Bailey/Adjoining Property Owner stated primary consideration of this project should be to minimize impacts to neighbors as much as possible. Expressed appreciation for the applicant's willingness to change plans to address concerns about use of the current lodge driveway as a bypass road entrance. Supports the western bypass road alignment with West Elkhorn Avenue because it will minimize impact to the waterfall. Stated the Town Board should decide as quickly as possible on the road alignment to provide fair disclosure to those who may want to sell their property. Expressed concern about development of proposed Lot F-1, which elk frequent; impacts should be minimized to wetlands in this area and others. Expressed appreciation for the service of Planning Commission members and for neighborhood meetings held by Theis and Koehler. Kristin Edga#Attomey with Caplan & Earnest, LLC addressed the Commissioners on behalf of the Chamberlain, Cravens, and Arcidiacono families/Adjoining Property Owners. Stated although her clients have physical limitations or career obligations that prevent their attendance at the meeting, they have extensive history here, care deeply about the community, and have concerns about how the proposed development will affect them and future generations. Her clients' property has been placed in a conservation easement and will be most impacted by the single-family residential development on the upper 40 acres. The proposed density is a result of the bypass road, which will impact the wildlife corridor and result in huge traffic increases. Drainage, noise, and dust will directly impact her clients' property. Expressed concern that there has been complete disregard of the historic context of the Elkhorn Lodge properly as a whole. Stated the proposed development will affect the vitality of the existing business district. Requested denial. Chair Eisenlauer called at recess at 3:38 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 3:51 p.m. Judy Ayres/Adjoining Property Owner stated her condominium building will be closest to the bypass road if the Far View Drive alignment is chosen; the condo has been in her family since it was constructed in 1968. The condo can't be moved but the road can; the additional 10- to 20-foot road setback recommended by staff is not enough; the proposed bypass will devastate her property. Stated she spoke with a CDOT traffic engineer, who told her the bypass road alignment with Far View Drive is not a CDOT requirement, nor will an alternate alignment jeopardize future CDOT funding for the town. Urged consideration of other options for the bypass road alignment. Eli Feldman/Attorney with Caplan & Earnest, LLC addressed the Commissioners on behalf of the Corley and Hurley families/Adjoining Property Owners. Expressed his clients' concerns regarding impact of the development on the elk corridor, stating it will "close the door" on the elk corridor from Rocky Mountain National Park through their properties and into town, which will impact tourism. Expressed concern about the number of unknowns, stating the plan should not be approved until issues such as the slope of the proposed lots, the number of lots, final alignment of the bypass road, and the annexation agreement and development agreement are finalized. Stated the Planning Commission is responsible for planning the future of the town; requested denial. Chair Eisenlauer closed the item to public comment at 3:58 p.m. Planning Commissioners' Comments: Commissioner Amos - Complimented Mr. Norris on the thoughtfulness of the five steps he outlined and stated his questions should be answered by the Town Board in arriving at their decision on this proposal. Stated his "analysis of the road is that it is two bottlenecks with a disaster in between." There will be problems at each end of the road. The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan adopted 12 years ago and the transportation study completed five years ago recommended a bypass road; no progress toward developing the road has been made; the Town Board has not tried to fund the bypass and has not studied it except for installation of a 12-inch water line with the understanding that it would be the future location of the bypass road. After this lengthy period of time, the road is suddenly very important and essential to fire fighting, ambulances, and traffic movement from one side of town to the other. If the Town Trustees feel the bypass road is the most important thing that should be developed now with the funds they have, it should be developed without the effects of putting in another development that does not appear to be in the right RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , Estes Valley Planning Commission 10 May 20,2008 position. Regarding the proposed rezoning-except for Elkhorn Club Estates, all the surrounding zoning is 2.5 acres or larger. Quoted from the Master Plan of 1996, which states "undeveloped land close to the Park is generally proposed to have lower densities corresponding to natural features and providing a transition to National Park Service land. In summary, the Plan proposes more intense development in the core of the community transitioning to lower density development as one moves out from the center. The Plan also recognizes the relationship between the Valley and the Rocky Mountain National Park as it relates to access and land-use transitions." At the April 17~h planning Commission meeting, Mr. Theis stated the 142 acres within a conservation easement east of the proposed development on the upper 40 acres is an anomaly; Commissioner Amos agreed that land set aside for wildlife habitat is an anomaly, as is the Knoll/Willows property (19 acres) and the nine-acre Town-owned property on the hillside adjacent to the Big Thompson River immediately south of East Elkhorn Avenue. There are over 100 more "anomalies" throughout the Valley protected through the Estes Valley Land Trust. Regarding the single-family residential subdivision proposed on the upper 40 acres-all roads proposed in this area have problems with cut and fill. Individual lots have problems accessing the roads from the building site, resulting in the need for additional cut and fill. The Estes Valley Development Code calls for ridgeline protection. If the proposed 55 lots in this area are developed, with all the proposed roads put in, the resulting scarred area will be visible from many areas in the Estes Valley. Stated his desire to see the Town take the stance of putting the bypass road in properly, without winding around as proposed. Development of the upper 40 acres should proceed in accordance with existing zoning of the lot. Stated he cannot support the proposed rezoning. - Commissioner Hull - Stated she is troubled because the proposal seems like two developments: the lower 20 acres proposed for accommodations/commercial/retail/multi- family development and the upper 40 acres proposed for single-family residential use. Expressed concerns about all the unknowns the Commission is being asked to accept, including the annexation agreement. A traffic signal is currently needed at the Elm Road/Moraine Avenue intersection, without additional traffic from 55 new residences, yet Commissioners have been told not to worry about that because CDOT will take care of it in 2035. She referenced the staff report, which states the developer is working with Public Works on a more workable bypass road design, which will "require some revisions to the design of the lots adjacent to the bypass." The applicant just stated at today's meeting that proposed Lots B-1 and B-2 will be combined to create Lot B. Expressed deep concern about the 20.1% grade on Lot B-1, which would violate Section 9.1 of the Development Code. Expressed concern that final alignment of the proposed bypass road with West Elkhorn Avenue has not been determined. Suggested that rather than the Town undertaking the expense and disrupting the property owners to widen and straighten Far View Drive to complete the access to Wonderview Avenue, traffic should be directed west one-quarter of a mile via signage to access Wonderview Avenue. Expressed concern that the Planning Commission does not have enough solid information to make a good recommendation to the Town Board regarding the proposed development. There are 22 pages of recommended conditions of approval found in the staff report, including several statements by staff of non-support of requested waivers; she is deeply troubled by this. Commissioner Klink - Stated he shares many of Commissioner Amos's and Commis- sioner Hull's concerns. Stated the Commissioners' concerns stem from two things. First, it feels as though the bypass road is forcing the whole development. Second, the proposed P.U.D. is not being used in an appropriate manner and is creating additional problems, including increasing the density proposed on the upper 40 acres and allowing reallocation of density to the lower portion of the property. Quoted from EVDC Section 3.4.D.1.e, noting that a P.U.D. is intended to create "an improvement in quality over what could have been accomplished through strict application of the otherwise applicable district or development standards, including but not limited to improvements in open space provision and access; environmental protection; tree/vegetation preservation; efficient provision of streets, roads, and other utilities and services; or choice of living or housing environments." Stated it doesn't seem this has happened on the upper 40 acres; putting 55 lots on an area that is currently zoned for 12 lots is hardly aiding tree and vegetation preservation, open space, etc. Stated he finds this very troubling. If the Town believes the bypass road is important, it should pay for or participate in the cost of the road 1 . ' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 11 May 20,2008 construction. Stated the development is not appropriate for the environment it is proposed in, for all the technical reasons that have been brought forward, including slopes of roads, slopes of driveways, and slopes of lots. Requested separate motions on each of the applicant's requests so the Town Board will have Planning Commission input on each individual item. Commissioner Tucker - Stated agreement with concerns expressed by the other Com- missioners. Expressed concern that the proposed density on the upper 40 acres is substantially more dense than surrounding areas; this high-density area would then be the anomaly and would not be in keeping with this mountain community. The affordable housing proposed on Lot B-1 would be good for the community but not at the expense of neighboring property owners. The proposed bypass road would be good for the community but "the horse and the cart are mixed up." If the road is important, the people of the community should help fund the cost of construction. The bypass road connection from West Elkhorn Avenue to Wonderview Avenue would have too much negative impact on neighboring property owners; traffic should be directed west to the existing intersection of West ElkhomANonderview. Elkhorn Plaza Condominium unit owners will be equally as affected by seven or more years of construction of the proposed development as property owners in Elkhorn Club Estates. Use of the current driveway into Elkhorn Lodge as access is not feasible due to impacts to the condominium unit owners. He provided the following suggestions to the Town Board, stating these provisions are the only way he could support the applicant's proposal: â€¢ One-acre lot sizes should be designated on the upper 40 acres; this is more than double what it is currently zoned for. â€¢ Proposed Lot B-1 should be something slightly more dense than one unit per acre; it should provide transition to the lower commercial area. â€¢ The bypass road alignment with West Elkhorn Avenue should be located as far as possible from Elkhorn Plaza Condominiums. â€¢ There should be no connection to Wonderview Avenue via James Street or Far View Drive; too many homeowners would be affected. Commissioner Kitchen - Expressed empathy for property owners along Rock Ridge Road. She stated there is a lot of land in the Estes Valley that has been "set aside," so much that it's not even noticed. She stated the development plan has been working under great constraints; given these constraints, the applicant has done a wonderful job. She noted there must have been great objection by residents when Wonderview Avenue was constructed but the community now relies on it. Expressed strong support for preservation of the Elkhorn Lodge, stating her belief that if this proposal is not approved, another developer will come in who will not be concerned about saving the lodge. The concept of saving all the support buildings and small cabins associated with the lodge is idealistic. Expressed concern that some people using the proposed trail access to Rocky Mountain National Park will not respect private property, citing ongoing problems at MacGregor Ranch. Commissioner Grant - Stated this is a bold plan and commended the developers for the plan's vision. Shares concerns expressed by fellow Commissioners regarding density and the use of the open space. Stated his belief a bypass road is needed based on his own experiences and from studies but is not sure this is the way to get the road. Expressed support for the affordable housing, river restoration, restoration of Elkhorn Lodge as a historic venue, increase of the tax base, and some of the open-space planning and design. Stated that the proposed development would help anchor the west end of town and the riverwalk, Expressed concern about the pr6posed density, noting it is a high- density development. Stated the P.U.D. concept provides flexibility in planning, noting that creating 1/4-acre lots in order to preserve open space elsewhere is a tradeoff. Stated his desire to consider each motion separately, as suggested by Commissioner Klink. Chair Eisenlauer - Stated the other Commissioners had said it all. Closing Comments by Applicant: Frank Theis/CMS Planning and Development - Stated the applicant understands the Commissioners' concerns; there are a lot of constraints and the applicant has been RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , Estes Valley Planning Commission 12 May 20,2008 working with staff for about a year to come up with the best plan possible. The plan provides for flexibility and will come back to the Planning Commission for further scrutiny. Stated there is a time limit for acquisition of the property and his belief that there will not be a better developer for the property who will work to save the lodge and to address neighbors' concerns. Bob Koehler/Rock Castle Development Company - Thanked the Commissioners for their deliberations; stated this is a tough one-he would not design the project this way if he had a blank piece of paper. Expressed his belief that the Commissioners' legacy would be turning down an opportunity that would not come up again. The situation is imperfect, but it is a good alternative for the town. Acknowledged there is extra density "on top" and stated it will be turned into one of the premier home developments in the valley; the economics of the bypass road dictate the density. The lodge will be remodeled in a first- class manner rather than being torn down. The town now has an opportunity it has wanted for 25 years; he urged acceptance of the plans even if there are flaws. Stated they are thoughtful developers who take pride in what they do. Stated the opportunity will not come back. Expressed disappointment that planning staff came up with such a negative analysis of the project. Reiterated that the Planning Commission should accept the proposal with flaws and try to make it better as it is re-reviewed; all portions of the project except the single-family residential subdivision would be subject to additional future review. Thanked the Commissioners for considering the proposal over the last four meetings. Jerry Zahourek/Owner - Stated two developers have made previous offers for tNe main lodge; both wanted to tear down everything. Expressed his opinion that this is the last chance, noting he has had another offer for purchase of the upper 40 acres that is double what Mr. Koehler has offered. Stated his belief the town will have to wrestle with whether there will be a conservation easement on that 40 acres and his belief that if that happens, there will not be a bypass road. Encouraged the Commissioners to vote in favor of the applicant's proposal. Attorney White stated the order of the vote should be as follows: Rezoning, Preliminary P.U.D., and Preliminary Subdivision Plat. Motion Regarding Rezoning Request: It was moved and seconded (Klink/Amos) to recommend DISAPPROVAL of the request for Rezoning of two Metes and Bounds parcels (parcel identification #35261-00-001 & #35261-05-046) and Outlot A, Sallee Resubdivision, to the Town Board of Trustees, finding that the submitted application does not comply with the standards for review found in Estes Valley Development Code Section 3.3.D, and with the recommendation that any Town Board motion to approve the application include adoption of the findings and conditions recommended by staff on page 9 of the staff report prepared for the May 20,2008 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting for the Elkhorn Lodge RedevelopmenVBig Bear Estates applications, and the motion PASSED. Those voting in favor of recommending disapproval: Amos, Grant, Hull, Klink, and Tucker. Those voting against: Eisenlauer and Kitchen. Commissioner Hull stated the reason for her vote is her belief that the top 40 acres of the proposed development ignores EVDC Section 9.1.C, which states one of the purposes of the P.U.D. is to preserve the site's natural characteristics, and Sections 7.2.D.2.c and 7.2.D.2.h, which refer to limits of site disturbance. She stated that when the Planning Commission visited the site, Mr. Theis stated that one-third of the trees would be removed for construction of the bypass road and streets. She noted this is a multi-species forest, which gains new importance given the present pine beetle threat; it is also a multi-age forest, which is vital to continued healthy growth. .. ' ' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 13 May 20,2008 Motion Regarding Preliminary P.U.D. 08-01: It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hull) to recommend DISAPPROVAL of the Preliminary P.U.D. 08-01, Elkhorn Lodge RedevelopmenVBig Bear Estates Subdivision, consisting of four Metes and Bounds parcels (parcel identification numbers 35261-00-001, 35261-05-046, 35261-06-001, 35252-53-018, Portion of 35261- 06-001) and Outlot A, Sallee Resubdivision, to the Town Board of Trustees, finding that the proposed use of the P.U.D. does not comply with the provisions of the Estes Valley Development Code regarding an improvement in quality over what could have been accomplished through the existing zoning, and the motion PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Motions Regarding Preliminary Subdivision Plat: It was moved (Kitchen) to recommend APPROVAL of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Elkhorn Lodge Redevelopmen#Big Bear Estates Subdivision, consisting of four Metes and Bounds parcels (parcel identification numbers 35261-00-001, 35261- 05-046, 35261-06-001, 35252-53-018, Portion of 35261-06-001) and Outlot A, Sallee Resubdivision, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and with the five conditions of approval suggested by Mr. Theis, as outlined in the Applicant Presentation above. Director Joseph expressed concern about a disconnect between this motion and prior actions, noting the preliminary plat cannot be approved without approval of the other applications, particularly the rezoning. Attorney White stated this is a recommendation to the Town Board, which would have to approve the rezoning and annexation applications in order to approve the preliminary subdivision plat. Commissioner Kitchen expressed her desire to have Mr. Theis's suggested conditions of approval included in any future approval of the preliminary subdivision plat. The motion FAILED for lack of a second. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Tucker) to recommend DISAPPROVAL of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Elkhorn Lodge RedevelopmenUBig Bear Estates Subdivision, consisting of four Metes and Bounds parcels (parcel identification numbers 35261-00-001, 35261-05-046, 35261-06-001, 35252-53-018, Portion of 35261- 06-001) and Outlot A, Sallee Resubdivision, to the Town Board of Trustees, finding that the submitted application does not comply with the standards for review found in Estes Valley Development Code Section 3.9.E, and with the recommendation that any Town Board motion to approve the application include adoption of the findings and conditions recommended by staff on pages 11 through 32 of the staff report prepared for the May 20, 2008 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting for the Elkhorn Lodge RedevelopmenVBig Bear Estates applications, and the motion PASSED. Those voting in favor of recommending disapproval: Amos, Eisenlauer, Grant, Hull, Klink, and Tucker. Those voting against: Kitchen. Chair Eisenaluer called a recess at 4:47 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 4:55 p.m. 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 07-13, WAPITI CROSSING CONDOMINIUMS, Lot 22, S. St. Vrain Addition, 1041 S. St. Vrain Avenue, The Mulhern Group, Ltd./Applicant Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This development plan request was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the meeting held November 20, 2007 and was disapproved by a four to one vote based on significant impact to wildlife. The applicant appealed this determination to the Town Board, as provided for in Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Section 12.1.B. On January 8, 2008, the Town Board voted unanimously to remand the development plan to the Planning Commission due to the Colorado Division of Wildlife's (CDOW) finding of a significant adverse impact to wildlife and for Planning Commission review of a wildlife conservation plan. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , Estes Valley Planning Commission 14 May 20,2008 The property is located at the corner of Lexington Lane and Highway 7. It is zoned RM - Multi-Family Residen#a/ and the proposed use is a use-by-right. The property consists of approximately six gently sloping acres and is largely open meadow; there are trees and rock outcroppings on the southern end of the site, with an existing cabin in this area. EVDC Section 7.8 does not provide for denial of an application based on significant impact to wildlife; it requires provision of a wildlife conservation plan. Per Section 7.8.H, wildlife conservation plans must include a description of the populations of wildlife and wildlife habitat, analysis of potential adverse impact on wildlife and habitat, a list of mitigation measures and probability of success, a plan for implementation, a plan for any relevant restoration, and demonstration of an applicant's ability to successfully execute the plan. Staff has reviewed the wildlife conservation plan prepared by Chris Roe of Roe Biological Services and provided by the applicant; staff finds the plan complies with these requirements. In conjunction with the CDOW, staff has determined that Chris Roe is qualified to prepare this plan. The wildlife conservation plan suggests the following mitigation techniques: a phased development schedule; timing restrictions on construction activities; limited landscaping recommendations; and household pet management considerations. The proposed timing restrictions on construction activities would prohibit construction beginning in May or June, during fawning/calving time. Mr. Roe provided a number of photo examples of the manner in which protective fencing around landscaping restricts wildlife movement; staff suggests the Planning Commission approve a waiver to the landscaping requirements for shrub planting set forth in the development code. Staff also recommends the applicahf 6e - required to provide the required number of street-frontage and district buffer trees, with all required conifers at least eight feet tall and all deciduous trees a minimum four-inch diameter at breast height. All dogs and cats shall be kept indoors unless under the direct control of an owner. Some changes have been made to the original site plan. The southern wildlife corridor originally proposed has been shifted farther south and narrowed in order to provide an 80- foot-wide corridor on the northern portion of the lot. The stand-alone unit originally proposed north of the multi-family building has been removed. The access drive for the multi-family building has been moved to the north to reduce impact and activities in the habitat on the southern portion of the lot. Floor-area ratio and impervious coverage have also been reduced. Stand-alone units are proposed fronting S. St. Vrain Avenue and Lexington Lane; the multi-family structure is proposed at the rear of the lot; the southern portion of the lot would remain undisturbed; the general road and stormwater management portions of the proposal would remain the same. Staff has reviewed the proposal to ensure compliance with zoning requirements such as density, impervious coverage, floor area ratio, setbacks, and height. Items yet to be reviewed include final grading, revised landscaping, revised stormwater pond size, driveway width, parking stall length/width, and other site design details. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant staff the authority to review and approve the final site design, which would include engineering details such as water and sewer line routes from the mains to individual units, sidewalk, provision of ADA ramps, etc. Items such as the building layout and road layout would not change. Planner Shirk read aloud for the record the staff findings and six recommended conditions of approval as shown in the staff memo. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Development Plan 07-13. Planning Commission/Staff Discussion: Commissioner Klink requested it be made clear whether the applicant was requesting any variances, whether the proposed use is a use-by-right, and whether any zoning changes are requested. Planner Shirk verified that the applicant is requesting a variance to landscaping requirements (per the mitigation plan) but no other variances; the proposed use is a use-by-right; and no zoning changes are requested or required. Commissioner Hull questioned whether the wildlife conservation plan is complete if it includes all items shown in EVDC Section 7.8.H.a - g. Planner Shirk confirmed that is 0 . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 15 May 20,2008 correct. Commissioner Hull also questioned whether it is then within the purview of the Planning Commission to review the conservation plan. Attorney White stated the role of the Planning Commission is to review the plan to ensure that is complies with the provisions of the Code, which are listed in EVDC Section 7.8.H.2.a - g (Wildlife Conservation Plans, Plan Content). Commissioner Tucker questioned whether any verbal or written documentation had been received from the CDOW regarding the wildlife conservation plan. Director Joseph noted representatives of the CDOW are in attendance and can address the Planning Commission directly. Applicant Presentation: Steve Loos, Project Architect for the Wapiti Crossing development plan, was present to represent the Mulhern Group/Applicant. He stated Planner Shirk had provided a very good overview of the wildlife conservation plan prepared by Chris Roe of Roe Biological Services, who is a certified wildlife biologist by virtue of training and experience. He stated Mr. Roe was very workmanlike in terms of his efforts to address the issues related to this property and used current, state-of-the-art planning for how they might be mitigated. The 25-page analysis provided by Mr. Roe is comprehensive and reviews point by point all the mitigation efforts the applicant intends to put in place. The applicant's submitted plan is intended to focus attention on the revisions proposed, which reflect significant changes to mitigate impacts to wildlife. Most significantly, the primary lines of elk movement have been preserved on the site; elk move across the property to points elsewhere in the community. A residential unit previously planned in the center of that route has been removed. Additionally, the existing cabin on the southern portion of the site is no longer proposed for full-time residential use. The applicant now proposes to use the cabin as an accessory/community building for recreational activities of residents of the multi-family building. Mr. Roe had indicated that full-time residential use of the cabin would create a potential point of conflict with wildlife. The cabin will be managed so as not to interfere with elk/deer calving/fawning. The revised plan addresses all the established issues the applicant needed to contend with. The Commissioners proceeded with questions for Mr. Loos, whose responses are summarized as follows: â€¢ Parking for the cabin/clubhouse would be accommodated through the use of parking at the multi-family residential building. The applicant wished to ensure there would not be a traffic lane near the cabin; access to the cabin would be via a sidewalk. â€¢ The multi-family building "turns its end" toward the southern portion of the lot, the patio has been shifted back, and access to the first-level parking area has been shifted to the north of the building. These are all measures intended to preserve the peace and quiet of the southern portion of the lot when it is important to do so. Mr. Roe indicated this is the primary calving/fawning habitat on the site. â€¢ Use of the cabin can be managed such that disruptive activities will not take place during sensitive times of the year for wildlife. â€¢ The applicant will make the cabin handicapped-accessible. â€¢ Mr. Roe is not present at the meeting because he is on a trip in Africa. â€¢ The applicant has worked to address concerns regarding impact of the cabin to the calving/fawning area on the southern portion of the site. â€¢ In response to Commissioner Amos's concerns regarding Mr. Roe's use of qualifiers in his report (terms such as "likely reduce," "highly unlikely," and "slight to moderate"), Mr. Loos stated Mr. Roe used the terms because judging what elk will do is not an exact science. The applicant has made efforts to accommodate the wildlife "doing what they do." â€¢ The applicant has provided a route for elk movement in the location currently used by elk; the elk are very acclimated to people. â€¢ The applicant will provide the full complement of parking, as required by Code. Commissioner Hull expressed concerns regarding comments found in Mr. Roe's wildlife conservation plan that indicate that options for mitigation of impacts to wildlife could not be fully realized or are limited, concern that the two 60-foot wildlife corridors , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , , Estes Valley Planning Commission 16 May 20,2008 (a total of 120 feet) previously proposed have been reduced to one 22-foot corridor and one 80-foot corridor (102 feet), concern that some of the proposed development has been shifted farther to the south, and concern that more significant changes to the applicant's plans have not been proposed. In response to these concerns, Mr. Loos provided the following information: , â€¢ The elk filter through the southern portion of the site from surrounding residential development to the south. The proposed wildlife corridors have been revised in accordance with the advice of a certified wildlife biologist (Mr. Roe). The applicant has provided one major corridor, which Mr. Roe fully believes will retain elk movement across the property. â€¢ Changes to the applicant's plans include the preservation of the open quality of the Highway 7 frontage. Wildlife viewing will be preserved and elk will not run out on the highway "unannounced." â€¢ With the removal of some circulation, removal of one unit, and diminution of some of the circulation near the multi-family building, 64% of the property will be in open space. The majority of the property will remain in vegetation that provides natural forage. â€¢ Wildlife corridors have been widened to approximate the current wildlife circulation paths. â€¢ The southern portion of the property will remain as it is today. The applicant has preserved the best calving and fawning location on the site. â€¢ Development of the property will be phased to allow the wildlife to acclimate over time. â€¢ Use of shrubbery has been restricted to ensure that wildlife corridors, unlike the rest of the neighborhood, will remain unrestricted by landscaping and fencing that would neck down the wildlife circulation paths. â€¢ The applicant proposes restrictions to minimize nuisance-type problems with wildlife (such as raccoons, bears, cougars) and will implement the full measure of efforts to mitigate that type of wildlife interaction. â€¢ The applicant has sought to eliminate human/animal conflicts to the maximum extent possible by virtue of the site design. â€¢ All proposed changes are based on the advice and counsel of a certified wildlife biologist. Colorado Division of Wildlife Comment: Rick SpowarUColorado Division of Wildlife Estes Park District Wildlife Manager summarized his credentials, which include 30 years experience as a wildlife research biologist and manager and a Ph.D. in wildlife biology. Stated there has been some misunderstanding of CDOW's role in this process. Planner Shirk stated the plan was remanded to the Planning Commission because CDOW found significant impacts. The Division of Wildlife made the statement that they believe there will be significant impacts because of this development, but provisions found in the Development Code required the applicant to submit a conservation plan due to use of the site as a fawning/calving habitat. Stated fawns/calves are born in the area south and east of the cabin. Elk especially are very adaptable and can become very human-habituated. Stated his concern is not so much for the calving habitat. The site is very heavily used by wildlife, elk in particular. The property provides the last natural meadow in the area; 200 or more elk can be seen there at one time. The proposed development is aptly named because elk use the site to cross Highway 7 to access the 18-hole golf course and feed on Kentucky bluegrass, their preferred diet in Estes Park. Mr. Spowart stated he had worked with Mr. Roe when he prepared the wildlife conservation plan, noting many of the less-than-precise verbs he used are standard in wildlife biology because animals are adaptable. Mr. Spowart's experience has been that elk use the area of least resistance when moving from one point to another. He suggested to Mr. Roe that larger trees be planted rather than fencing smaller trees, and that use of the cabin on the southern end of the property be eliminated or limited due to existing use of that area for fawning and calving. He stated the biggest impact would be loss of the open meadow for elk to stage on during the rut and carry on a normal social interaction during that time of year, as well as loss of opportunity for people to watch that interaction. He noted Highway 7 is lined with vehicles every fall as elk put on .. i RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 17 May 20,2008 a show and stated his belief that will not happen with this development. He stated his belief that the conservation plan has addressed some concerns, but there will still be a significant negative impact because of the proposed use of the property. Without an extremely different type of development on the property, a plan could not be proposed that would remove that negative impact. Commissioner Amos questioned whether every development in Estes Park restricts the movement of elk. Mr. Spowart stated elk are very adaptable and will move around buildings, cross parking lots, and so forth. They are most impacted by development during the winter when they are in large herds. They have difficulty moving through areas where there are lots of buildings or houses at this time of year due to their need to maintain visual contact with one another. He noted the applicant's property gets extreme use, with wildlife moving across it and grazing on the native vegetation. In response to Commissioner Grant's question whether his findings would be significantly different than Mr. Roe's if he had written the study, Mr. Spowart stated they are in agreement on certain things proposed that would limit some of the impacts; however, you "can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear." In his opinion, 41 condominiums cannot be constructed on the site without having a significant impact. Commissioner Hull questioned whether newborn elk would be abandoned due to construction/heavy equipment noise. Mr. Spowart stated it would be possible but indicated it is unlikely; he has seen elk calves born in neighborhoods such as this and the mothers area very protective-people are sometimes charged and injured. He noted there are a number of other wildlife species that use the area, noting a bear had recently broken into a car just up the road. Stated his concern with new developments in Estes Park is conflicts between bears and humans. If developments require bear-resistant dumpsters, people don't always use them. There is no town ordinance to enforce this requirement; enforcement falls to the CDOW and its volunteers and has proved very challenging in recent years. Commissioner Tucker questioned whether the wildlife that use the applicant's property do so because the entire surrounding area is populated. Mr. Spowart stated that is definitely true for elk. It is the last meadow/open area until they reach the golf course. Elk seek out open areas, especially during rut; there is very high use of the neighborhood and the meadow on the applicant's property, particularly by elk. Commissioner Tucker questioned whether calving and fawning activities would be moved to surrounding areas if the property is developed. Spowart stated elk are very adaptable; there would probably be increased use of the golf course for elk calving. Commissioner Amos requested Mr. Spowart's reaction to a statement in Mr. Roe's report: "Although Lot 22 may have occurrences of calving and/or fawning activity, it may be better for the regional population as a whole to reduce the overall effectiveness of this site within town to preserve and encourage future use of more adaptable elk habitats outside of town. The question here becomes one of helping manage the population of elk within Estes Park and the greater Estes Valley or protecting a wildlife viewing area of habituated elk and deer within the town of Estes Park." Commissioner Amos noted the town trumpets the Valley as a wildlife viewing area. Mr. Spowart stated the CDOW manages elk and hunting seasons, not condominiums. The idea that development that pushes elk outside the Valley where hunters can shoot them is a good thing seems like a "stretch." Stated he doesn't think constructing condominiums on the applicant's property would help with elk management. Commissioner Klink questioned whether any of the animals that use the applicant's property are endangered or suffering population declines. Mr. Spowart stated there are none to his knowledge. Commissioner Klink questioned whether there are habitats on the property unique enough that Mr. Spowart would feel the development would have a significant impact on whether or not any of those animals are endangered in this area. Mr. Spowart stated no, not to endangered species. He noted the meadow is unique, not only because of its location but because it contains native grasses; however, in terms of endangered or threatened wildlife, the lot could be paved over without impacting any of those species. Larry Rogstad/Colorado Division of Wildlife Area Wildlife Manager for Area 2 addressed the Commissioners. He stated he recently accepted his current position; he has 27 years experience as a wildlife manager in the Greeley North District and Area 4 and is an RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , Estes Valley Planning Commission 18 May 20,2008 aquatic invertebrate zoologist. In response to Commissioners' questions, he stated the following: â€¢ There is a potential for large ungulates such as elk and deer to charge large windows on either sides of corridors when they see their reflection during rut or when they are panicked and see the window as a means of escape. â€¢ It is possible the 80-foot-wide corridor for wildlife movement could be used as a recreational area for people. Providing an adequate setback with an adequate visual field for large ungulates and people is essential to creating a successful corridor for wildlife movement. This is also true where wildlife will cross highways/roads-adequate setbacks and landscaping that provides a broad visual field are needed for the safety of humans and wildlife. â€¢ There is a $.25 cent surcharge on licenses issued by the CDOW to pay for the advertising necessary to educate the public about who/what the Division does. Mr. Rogstad will convey to his supervisor Commissioner Grant's and Commissioner Hull's concerns about over-saturation of advertising by the CDOW. â€¢ One of the huge issues that is a difficult part of the planning process is that the impact of each individual development is not necessarily as important as the cumulative impacts of development on the entire neighborhood system. At what point are the impacts of development pushing wildlife back onto neighboring properties in order to allow higher densities? It is difficult to deal realistically with the cumulative impacts of development on wildlife resources. Commissioner Tucker questioned whether the current landowner should bear the burden - of the cumulative impacts of neighborhood development, indicating he did not require an answer. Commissioner Grant noted many recent development proposals have involved wildlife issues and expressed appreciation for the presence of Mr. Spowart and Mr. Rogstad at today's meeting. Commissioner Klink asked Attorney White if the Planning Commission voted to disapprove the development plan and the applicant chose to appeal, what part of the Code would the Commission have to stand on? Attorney White stated the question is what grounds do you have to deny this development based upon provisions of the Code, and further stated, in his legal opinion, the Commission has none. Public Comment: Ron Norris/Town Resident stated his opposition to the proposal; the original proposal was for the maximum density of buildings in a calving/fawning area; the buildings are still proposed in this area. Stated no steps have been taken to mitigate impact on habitat; the applicant's own biologist has stated mitigation efforts cannot be fully realized and the CDOW has not signed off on this proposal. Stated nothing changed since the proposal was rejected last fall. The applicant was informed of significant wildlife issues prior to purchasing the property and shows a lack of respect by informing neighbors they could not stop him, by failing to conduct a wildlife study or prepare a wildlife plan until required to do so by the Town Board. Proposed changes are minimal and superficial. Urged the Commissioners to reject the proposal. Dick Coe/Neighboring Property Owner stated he was a seasonal ranger in Rocky Mountain National Park for 13 seasons but is not a wildlife expert. Stated wildlife are unpredictable. Elk have been calving on the applicant's property; cows will protect their calves long after they are born and can and have injured people in doing so. Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park were recently designated at the national level as a wonderful place to vacation with opportunities to see wildlife in town and in the Park. Tourists are drawn here because of the wildlife. Commended the investment made in the Hermit Park property; expressed appreciation that other open-space possibilities are being considered in the Estes Valley. Marlene Bell/Neighboring Property Owner stated she walks along Highway 7 every day and has yet to see elk in the southern portion of the applicant's property; they are always ' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 19 May 20,2008 in the meadow grazing and resting. Questioned whether Mr. Roe was present when elk were on the property. Johanna Darden/Town Resident expressed concern about development impacts on elk; stated she would leave Estes Park if the elk disappear. Stated elk have fewer and fewer places in town to "hang out." Expressed concern that children will use the proposed wildlife corridor as a play area. Urged that the whole area be kept free of housing and that the Commissioners vote to keep the land free. Sandy Osterman/Town Resident stated she is a concerned citizen who has studied the EVDC and Mr. Roe's wildlife conservation plan. Ms. Osterman cited numerous specific statements in the wildlife conservation plan and sections of the Code, stating the wildlife plan indicates there will be adverse impacts to wildlife and habitat or shows the applicant's proposal is questionable as to whether it meets EVDC standards. Expressed opposition to the applicant's proposal. Joan Hawbeck/Adjoining Resident stated the biologist's indication that this is the "last natural meadow" is alarming. Estes Park needs to continue to ensure that the last natural anything is not lost. Dirk Knobel/Neighboring Property Owner cited EVDC Section 7.8.F.3 and expressed concern that emphasis has been shifted to provision of a wildlife movement corridor rather than impacts to a calving, lambing, or fawning area. Noted wildlife other than elk use the site. Expressed concern regarding impacts to wildlife regardless of proposed phasing; stated use of the cabin as a community building will make matters worse. Stated the EVDC gives the Planning Commission grounds for denial of the application; requested disapproval. Kathleen Murray/Area Resident questioned why the Commissioners would approve the proposal, noting the property is the last open area in that neighborhood. Questioned whether people would not be happy until every single square foot of town is developed. Wildlife is the main draw for tourists, as shown by surveys. Local residents hate to see everything developed. Fred Mares/Neighboring Property Owner stated the EVDC does not include provision for denial of a plan based on wildlife impact; it is not anywhere in the Code. However, staff provides an interpretation and the Commissioners provide a reality check-that is what is intended by the Code. Stated the Code defines five areas of habitat that warrant special consideration; the CDOW has identified one of these on the applicant's property and stated there will be significant impact. Questioned whether the revised site plan removes that impact, noting the CDOW has stated it will not. Mr. Roe's wildlife conservation plan states that mitigation efforts cannot be fully realized. Urged denial of the proposal. Jayne Zmijewski/Neighboring Property Owner stated she is a volunteer for Rocky Mountain National Park, Larimer County Search and Rescue, and CDOW and has participated in bear and mountain lion research-the applicant's property is within her research area. Stated the 80-foot wildlife corridor will be seen as a cattle shoot for elk, which currently have options for crossing the road in several areas. Noted bears and mountain lions also cross the road and will be all be funneled into one 80-foot corridor. Stated the buildings next to the corridor will be viewed as cliffs by the wildlife, which will be panicky running through there. Provided information about bears and mountain lions in the area; bears get into trash containers and there will be more attractants for mountain lions with the proposed development. Stated the developer has options; the animals don't. Cheri Pettijohn/Town Resident stated there were no elk in the Valley when she was a child. Elk, deer, bear, mountain lion, and human populations have all exploded together. Noted all live together, this is not something new; the animals are very adaptable. Regarding Ms. Zmijewski's statement that animals would panic in the corridor between buildings on the applicant's property, she stated she does not see animals panicking anywhere else; they meander among houses and buildings throughout the area. She stated there are approximately 100,000 acres in national park, national forest and BLM lands; the applicant's property cannot be the last open area. Stated the Planning Commission cannot deny the applicant's request without taking the applicant's property RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , Estes Valley Planning Commission 20 May 20,2008 rights and that, as a taxpayer, she would just as soon not have to contribute financially to support a lawsuit regarding this property. Chair Eisenlauer closed this item to public comment at 6:30 p.m. Planning Commissioners Comments and Discussion: Commissioner Amos - Stated when he moved to Estes Park in 1981 there were no elk within the Valley; they began staying in town to browse on landscaping and lawns as properties developed and the herd has grown ever since. Stated the former owners of the property had contacted the Land Trust about placing a conservation easement on the property, but the financial gain in doing so was apphrently not enough for all the siblings and the property was sold. Stated his opinion that proposed changes to the applicant's plan are not enough to protect calving and do not provide enough area for wildlife corridors. Motioned to disapprove the development plan, as shown below. Commissioner Tucker indicated he is struggling with this because the primary issue when this application was reviewed at the November 20, 2007 Planning Commission meeting was calving and fawning on the site, based on EVDC guidelines, not so much the provision of wildlife corridors. He noted he had just observed an elk coming out of the drive-through lane at the bank across the street during a meeting break. Many people have stated that the elk adapt; they will have their calves regardless. The question is whether the calving will take place on the applicant's lot or in the neighboring subdivision. Questioned whether the Commissioners can deny the application when the applicant has the zoning rights to build what is proposed; the applicant purchased the property based on its current zoning. No one discussed using the property for anything other than multi- family use prior to the time it was purchased by the applicant. Wildlife use the applicant's property because of surrounding development. Questioned whether it is right to take away property rights based on existing development. Commissioners have been advised that if the development is denied, the town would lose to an appeal if the property owner chose to take legal action; questioned whether the Planning Commission should subject the community to legal fees. Stated his belief that the Commission cannot take away the applicant's property rights based on what they know. Chair Eisenlauer - Expressed his agreement regarding the applicant's property rights. Stated the Commission should not deny the rights of a property owner who wants to develop their property in accordance with applicable codes and regulations. Commissioner Klink - Expressed his sympathy for all those who view this as valuable property; stated the question is whether anyone is willing to tear their house down, move elsewhere, and plant native grass on their property in order to create a place for the elk to calve. There is no question that the elk use the applicant's property to calve, and the developer was aware of wildlife activity on the site. Stated his belief this is not sufficient to stop the development, nor is it grounds to take away the applicant's property rights. The CDOW has not indicated that endangered species use the property and did not indicate the habitat cannot be found elsewhere. Commissioner Kitchen - Stated her belief the Planning Commission would be legally irresponsible to deny the application. Indicated the development will have impacts but not significant impacts in the context that the word "significanf' was intended in the Code. Commissioner Grant - Stated he is a neighboring property owner and does not like the proposed density or wildlife impacts, but all development inevitably reduces wildlife habitat. The developer was initially nonresponsive and disrespectful to the neighborhood concerns but has since done his best to mitigate these concerns by preparing a wildlife study. Stated regrettably, he must support the plan. Commissioner Hull - Questioned whether the lot must be developed with 41 units or left as blank land. Suggested the developer should propose less density; the proposal could work if there was less impact. Stated her disagreement with Town Attorney White's opinion that the Commission does not have grounds to deny the application based on EVDC Section 7.8.F, which provides that the CDOW will determine whether the proposal will result in significant adverse impact to wildlife or wildlife habitat. The CDOW has . I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 21 May 20,2008 indicated it will. Stated she cannot support the application based on guidelines of the EVDC and will vote no. Commissioner Grant stated he read the same thing and came up with an entirely different view of his charter. Requested Town Attorney White's interpretation. Town Attorney White provided his interpretation of the Code as follows: "The Code gives the Division of Wildlife the requirement to find significant adverse impact on specific areas. They did not find significant impact until they appeared before the Town Board on the appeal. And that is significant adverse impact on a calving, lambing, or fawning area. Based upon that representation by the Division of Wildlife, the Town Board asked for a wildlife conservation plan. That is the requirement for that finding. That is the only requirement for that finding and there's a statement that says what a wildlife conservation plan is, which they have complied with." Commissioner Amos expressed his strong support of private rights. He stated there are some things that transcend private rights; some things are "community rights'Lthis is one. The town receives income from sales tax that is intended for open space and trails; the town has chosen to devote to the funds to trails. If the town is advertising Elk Fest, Elktober, "come view the elk and listen to the bugles," then the town might want to consider supporting the elk in some fashion since they generate income for the town. These funds could be devoted to open space. If the town were looking at open space areas, it might believe this property has a high priority for protection because the tourists and residents want to see the elk and their movements. Commissioner Hull noted the developer's own wildlife impact assessment states on page 12, "Reportedly 15% of Estes Park sales tax revenues or approximately one million dollars per year is manifested by the ability of visitors to readily view elk within the town limits." Commissioner Klink noted the town spent $400,000 to help with the purchase of Hermit Park and voted to spend $217,000 per year to subsidize the performing arts center, as well as providing the land for art center to be built on. It is not right to take away the applicant's property rights because the Planning Commission has decided open space is a priority. It needs to be a community decision; people of the town should put their money where their mouth is. Commissioner Amos pointed out that the Town, in conjunction with the Land Trust, purchased the nine-acre property "across the river" and devoted several million dollars to purchase the Knoll/Willows property. However, there is not a coordinated effort toward preserving land. Expressed appreciation for Town participation in the purchase of the Hermit Park property. Commission Grant stated a better approach to open-space planning is needed. Estes Park is a rich town given its budget relative to its 8,000 residents. It was moved (Amos) to DISAPPROVE Development Plan 07-13, Wapiti Crossing Condominiums, based on the fact that proposed changes to the plan are not significant enough to mitigate problems in the calving area or to provide sufficient corridors for the elk. The motion was not seconded and was WITHDRAWN by Commissioner Amos. Commissioner Amos requested that Town Trustee Homeier convey to the Town Board his request that a concerted effort toward open space be made in the future. He noted the Town's ongoing wildlife study, stating it could include recommendations for future protection of some areas. Requested the town move forward on that. Commissioner Klink suggested interested members of the public contact the Town Board, noting it may not be too late to purchase the property from the developer. Commissioner Tucker requested Town Trustee Homeier convey a request from the Planning Commission and from staff that the effort to protect wildlife be placed on a fast track, stating he did not want to have the same conversation again about another piece of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS . Estes Valley Planning Commission 22 May 20,2008 property. Expressed his desire for a Code change to provide the Commissioners the ability to make more black-and-white decisions. Commissioner Grant stated his agreement and his desire for better clarification. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Kitchen) to approve Development Plan 07-13, Wapiti Crossing Condominiums, Lot 22, S. St. Vrain Addition, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff; and the motion PASSED. Those voting in favor: Eisenlauer, Grant, Kitchen, Klink, and Tucker. Those voting against: Amos and Hull. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with mitigation techniques set forth in the Wildlife Conservation Plan for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums Development, prepared by Roe Ecological Services. The phasing plan mitigation technique shall be further refined to graphically outline phasing areas. 2. The landscaping plan shall include the required number of street frontage and district buffer trees (per Section 7.5.F), which shall not be located within the proposed 80-foot wildlife corridor and shall provide a movement corridor through the southwest corner. All required conifers trees shall be eight (8) feet tall, and all required deciduous trees shall be 4" DBH. Because of the tree size, shrubs shall not be required. 3. Staff shall approve final site design, provided revisions fall within parameters set forth in Section 3.7.Al "Staff Minor Modifications to Approved Final Plans" and Staff finds compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code. The applicant shall submit a complete site plan, containing all submittal requirements outlined in Appendix B, no later than July 23,2008. 4. All dogs and cats shall be kept inside of the units, except that the dog or cat may be out of doors if it is under the effective control of a person, as defined in the Estes Park Municipal Code. This condition shall be included in future condominium declarations. 5. Final construction plans shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of any permits. 6. Compliance with the following memos (as may be amended to address changes to the site design): a. From Jeff Boles to Bob Goehring dated AuOust 22,2007. b. From James Duell to Dave Shirk dated August 16, 2007. c. From Will Birchfield to Dave Shirk dated August 24,2007. 5. REPORTS No reports were presented. Chair Eisenlauer adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m. Ike Eisenlauer, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary Town of Estes Park Administration Memo To: Honorable William Pinkham and Town Board of Trustees From: Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator CC: Jacqueline Halbumt, Town Administrator Date: 6/20/2008 Re: Bus Lease Contract Background Staff received approval from the Town Board at the May 9,2008 board meeting to investigate acquiring a gasoline bus for the Town's shuttle system. Please find attached a bus lease agreement for one gasoline bus with D.C.S. America, Inc. This bus is being leased due to noise complaints received from residents on Highway 66 which is part of the campground shuttle route. The bus is a 1997 vehicle with 80,000 miles, considering the age and mileage of the bus, an addendum to the lease includes a repair cap. This lease has been reviewed by Town Attorney White who has made recommended revisions to the lease. The lease goes into effect June 28m BudqeUCosts 90 day lease $5,400.00 Mileage $1,219.00 Fuel $3,680.00 Total $10,299.00 (projected) Any repairs beyond normal maintenance costs exceeding $500 will be paid for by D.C.S. America, Inc. Recommendations Staff recommends signing the contract with D.C.S America, Inc. 1 1 1 D.C.S. AMERICA INC. EQUIPMENT LEASE Description ofEquipment: Unit No. Year Mak,Model MIN-& 1852 1997 Ford Turtle Top Terra Transit 1FDLE40SAVHB10979 Commencement Date ofLease: 6/24/08 Lease Term: 09/23/08 0 Base Rental Payment: $1,800.00 per month * 2% DMV fee=$36.00/month O Sales Tax: Exempt-Government Â¤ Security Deposit: $1,800.00 Stated Equipment Value: $29,985.00 gil Full Tank Fuel Required: unleaded Town of Estes Park (~Lessee") whose address is 170 MacGregor Ave Estes Park CO 80517 hereby represents and warrants to D.C.S. AMERICA INC., a Colorado corporation("Lessor"), whose address is 7182 Reynolds Drivb. Sedalia, Colorado 80135-8805,that Lessee has read and understood each and every term and condition set forth above and on the reverse side of this Equipment Lease, is authorized to enter into and intends to and acknowledges that, if accepted by Lessor, Lessee shall be bound by this Equipment Lease. Lesser and Lessee further covenant and agree that this Equipment Lease, as set forth above and on the reverse side ofthis Equipment Lease and any referenced exhibits or schedules described or referred to herein, if any, set forth all-(and are intended by Lessor and Lessee to be an integration of all) of the promises, agreements, conditions, understandings, warranties, and representations among Lessor and Lessee with respect to the subject matter of this Equipment Lease, and there are no promises, agreements, conditions, understandings, warranties, or representations, oral or written, express or implied, among them with respect to the subject matter hereof other than as set forth herein. The express terms of this Equipment Lease supersede all prior oral and written agreements and understandings of the Lessor and Lessee with respect to the subject matter hereof and all such prior or contemporaneous oral or written agreements and understandings of the Lessor and Lessee with respect to the subject matter hereof are merged into this Equipment Lease. No modification to this Equipment Lease shall be binding upon the party affected unless such modification is set forth in a writing which is duly executed by the party affected by such modification. SPECIAL NOTES: ADDITIONAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONSTITUTING A PART OF THIS EQUIPMENT LEASE ARE ON REVERSE SIDE This Equipment Lease shall not become binding until accepted by an officer ofD.C.S. AMERICA INC. D.C.S. AMERICA INC. By: Print Name: Date: Date: The bus will be equipped with the following D.O.T. safety equipment. If the bus is returned without any of the below listed equipment, or if the equipment is used, or discharged the following will be charged to you: 1. Fire Extinguisher =Q.!12 2. I.C.C. Kit(triangle reflectors) $45.00 3. First Aid Kit $5!log Lessee will return the bus in as clean a condition as when accepted or a $425.00 cleaning, and detail fee will be charged. G.co Lessee will return the bus with a full fuel tank otherwise a-MI per gallon charge will apply. If, during the rental period, units are involved in an accident or have mechanical failure exceeding $500.00, Lessee shall contact D.C.S. America within forty eight(48) hours after such incident, and put D.C.S. America in contact with servicing/repair facility. D.C.S. AMERICA INC. 7182 Reynolds Drive Sedalia, Colorado 80135-8805 Phone 303483-3551 FAX 303-683-6008 , 1 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. LEASE. Lessor hereby leases to Lessee and Lessee hereby hires from Lessorthe motor vehicle more particularly described on the preceding page ofthis Equipment Lease Agreement ("Equipment"), upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Equipment Lease Agreement ("Lease"). 2. TERM AND RENT. The term ofthis Lease for the Equipment shall commence on thedate set forth above as the "Commencement Date" and shall end on date set forth above as the "Lease Term" date. As Base Rent for the Equipment, Lessee agrees to pay to Lesson without demand or notice and without abatement, deduction or set off of any amount whatsoever, at the address of Lessor set forth above, or at such other place as Lessor may designate from time to time in accordance with paragraph 19 hereof, the amounts set forth on attached Schedule A as the Base Rent, in advance, on the dates set forth on Schedule A during the Lease Term, together with Additional Rent as set forth in paragraph 4 ("Rent"). The operation and use ofthe Equipment shall be at the risk ofthe Lessee and not ofthe lessor and the obligation of Lessee to pay rent hereunder shall be unconditional. 3. TAXES AND FEES. Lessor shall pay all license fees, assessments, and property taxes imposed on the Equipment by reason of its possession or use of the Equipment, whether they be assessed to Lessor or Lessee, together with any penalties or interest. Lessee, on any Equipment tax returns required to be filed by Lessee, will not include the Equipment covered by this Lease, or any substitutions or additions, as Equipment owned by Lessee for purposes of tax assessments. 4. ADDITIONAL RENTS. Lessee agrees to pay as Additional Rent the following additional sums as rent to Lessor at such times and in such amounts as are hereinafter set forth: (a) An amount equal to five percent (5%) ofthe unpaid balance of any payment under this Lease not made when due or within 10 days thereafter. Such amount shall be assessed for each month or part thereof such payment is delinquent and shall be due and payable immediately upon any such delinquency; (b) All costs of insurance, if any, maintained by Lessor on the Equipment in accordance with paragraph 9 hereof; (c) Any payments made by Lessor on behalf of Lessee in accordance with paragraph 12 hereof; and (d) An amount equal to twenty-two cents ($.22) per mile for every mile ofuse ofthe Equipment by the Lessee during the Term ofthis Lease in excess ofthree thousand (3,000) miles per month upon the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease and the return of the Equipment as provided in paragraph 15. 5. OWNERSHIP OF THE EQUIPMENT. The Equipment together with all replacement parts, additions, repairs, accessions and accessories incorporated therein and or affixed thereto is, and shall at all times remains, the sole Equipment of Lessor, and Lessee shall have no right, title, or interest in the Equipment except as expressly set forth in this Lease. 6. NO WARRANTIES. LESSOR LEASES THE EQUIPMENT, AND LESSEE HIRES THE . 0 EQUIPMENT, "AS IS." Lessor hereby assigns to Lessee, for so long as this Lease is not terminated by ason of Lessee's default, any manufacturer or factory warranty (if any), whether express or implied, on the luipment to the extent that such warranty may be assigned. Any recovery under such a warranty shall be made payable to Lessor, and all proceeds of such recovery shall be used to repair or replace the Equipment. The Lessor, not being the manufacturer of the Equipment, nor the manufacturer's agent, MAKES NO WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE FITNESS, QUALITY, DESIGN, CONDITION, CAPACITY , SUITABILITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR PERFORMANCE OF THE Equipment OR OF THE MATERIAL OR WORKMANSHIP THEREOF, IT BEING AGREED THAT THE Equipment, IS LEASED "AS IS' AND THAT ALL SUCH RISKS, AS BETWEEN Lessor AND Lessee, ARE TO BE BORNE BY Lessee AT ITS SOLE RISK AND EXPENSE, Lessee accordingly agrees not to assert any claim whatsoever against Lessor for loss ofanticipatory profits or consequential damages. Lessor shall have no obligation to install, erect, test, adjust or service the Equipment. Lessee shall look to the manufacturer for any claims related to the Equipment. Lessor hereby acknowledges that any manufacturer's warranties are for the benefit of both Lessor and Lessee. 7. USE, MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION. Lessee, at its own cost and expense, agrees to care for and maintain the Equipment in good operating order and repair, in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations, ordinary wear and tear excepted, agrees to provide all parts, supplies and repairs necessary therefor during the term hereof and agrees to clearly indicate on the Equipment (i) that the Equipment is leased from Lessor and (ii) if applicable, Lessee's P.U.C., I.C.C. or other required regulatory authority. Lessee shall not, during the Term ofthis Lease paint, decal or otherwise modify the Equipment's interior or exterior colors without the prior written consent ofthe Lessor. Any modification to the vehicle's color, with the prior written consent of the Lessor, shall cause the Lessee to be liable to the Lessor for the ssor's cost in restoring the Equipment to its original colors and paint scheme at the commencement ofthis .ease at the end of the Term ofthis Lease. Unless otherwise provided in additional provisions hereof, all additions, attachments, accessories and repairs at any time made or placed upon the Equipment shall become the Equipment of Lessor. Lessee is given the right to make alternations, additions, or improvements to the Equipment with the Lessor's prior written consent, so long as the value of the Equipment is not reduced. Lessee will not use, operate, maintain or store any ofthe Equipment improperly, carelessly or in violation of this Lease; nor use, operate or modify the Equipment other than in a manner and for the use contemplated by the manufacturer thereof or otherwise than in the conduct of the lawful business of Lessee; nor use, operate or modify the Equipment in violation of any ordinances, laws, statutes, regulations or requirements of any governmental authority or entity having or claiming jurisdiction. 8. LESSOR'S RIGHT OF INSPECTION. Except in the event of a default, Lessor, upon reasonable notice to Lessee, shall during business hours have the right to enter on the premises where the Equipment may be located for the purpose of inspecting the Equipment. Lessee shall give Lessor notice of any attachment or otherjudicial process affecting the Equipment and, whenever requested by Lessor, shall advise Lessor of the exact location of the Equipment. 9. INSURANCE. Lessee, at its expense, shall procure and maintain insurance covering the risks that are customary in Lessee's business. Lessee's public liability insurance shall name Lessor as an additional insured and, at a minimum, shall insure Lessor and Lessee against all claims, demands, or actions for any loss, damage or injury to any Equipment, or bodily injury or death to any person, in amounts not less an required by applicable regulatory agencies, including, without limitation, theft, fire and extended verage. Lessor shall cause the Equipment to be insured at the greater of (i) an amount equal to its fair Stated Equipment Value from time to time but with a $2,500.00 deductible per occurrence, or (ii) the amount owed by Lesser to any entity holding a security interest in the Equipment. In the event a loss is suffered, Lessee shall bear any loss and make Lessor whole to the extent ofany applicable deductible. As used her the term "State Equipment Value" means the amount set forth above which the parties have agreed is replacement cost of the Equipment. 10. LOSS AND DAMAGES. From and after the time the Equipment is delivered to the Lessee during the Term ofthis Lease, the risk ofloss or damage to the Equipment shall be borne by Lessee. In the event that the Equipment or any item thereof is lost, stolen, destroyed or damaged reasonably beyond repair, or in the event of any confiscation, theft or seizure of, any Equipment or any component thereof(any ofsuch events being herein called an "Event of Loss"), then Lessee, within thirty (30) days after the date of the occurrence of such Event of Loss or within such longer time to which Lessor may agree, shall have the option to: (a) repair or restore the Equipment in accordance with paragraph 7 hereof; (b) replace the Equipment with Equipment satisfactory to Lessor, in Lessor's sole and absolute discretion, which is in as good a condition as the Equipment upon the Commencement Date, and which Equipment shall be in good repair, condition and working order in accordance with paragraph 7 hereof (which replacement will be subject to this Lease); or (c) pay Lessor in cash an amount equal to the greater of (i) the Stated Equipment Value, or (ii) the amount owed by Lessor to any entity holding a security interest in the Equipment at the date of this Lease. Upon payment of the amount set forth in subparagraph (c) of this paragraph 10, Rent shall abate with respect to the items of Equipment covered thereby for which Lessee has paid, and Lessee shall become entitled to said Equipment in its then existing condition AS IS, WHERE IS, AND WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY OF LESSOR, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER WHATSOEVER. During the thirty (30) day, or longer period as agreed by Lessor, in which Lessee shall, pursuant to this paragraph 10, repair, replace or pay Lessor for any lost or damaged Equipment, Lessor sha" apply insurance proceeds for such purposes. 11. ASSIGNMENT. Lessee shall not, without the prior written consent of Lessor: (a) Assign, transfer, or pledge this Lease, or any part of, or any interest in the Equipment; (b) Sublet or lend any part of the Equipment; or (c) Permit any part ofthe Equipment to be used by anyone other than Lessee or Lessee's employees. Lessor may assign its interest, or a part of its interest, in this Lease. 12. LESSOR'S RIGHT TO PREVENT DEFAULT. Should Lessee fail to make anypayment or do any act as provided in this Lease, then Lessor shall have the right, but not the obligation, without notice to or demand on Lessee, and without releasing Lessee from any obligation under this Lease to make or do the same, to pay, purchase, contest, or compromise any encumbrance, charge, or lien that, in the sole judgment of Lessor, appears to affect the Equipment, and in exercising any such rights, incur any liability and expend whatever amounts are reasonably necessary. All expenses so incurred by Lessor shall be, without demand, immediately due and payable by Lessee and shall bear interest at the rate of fifteen percent (15%) per annum thereafter until paid. 13. EVENTS CONSTITUTING DEFAULT. The following events shall constitute defau under this Lease: .. (a) The nonpayment by Lessee of any sum required to be paid by Lessee when due; (b) The nonperformance by Lessee ofany other term, covenant, or condition ofthis Lease after Lessor has given Lessee Â·written notice specifying such default with particularity; provided, however, except as otherwise expressly set forth herein, Lessee will have thirty (30) days in which to cure any such default; (c) Any affirmative act of insolvency by Lessee, or the filing by Lessee of any petition under any bankruptcy, reorganization, insolvency, or moratorium law, or any law for the relief, of, or relating to, debtors; (d) The filing ofany involuntary petition under any bankruptcy statute against Lessee, or the appointment of any receiver or trustee to take possession of the Equipment, unless such petition or appointment is set aside or withdrawn or ceases to be in effect within sixty (60) days ofthe date ofthe filing or appointment; or (e) The subjection of any the Equipment to any levy, seizure, assignment, application, or sale for or by any creditor or governmental agency. 14. LESSOR'S RIGHT ON DEFAULT. On the occurrence of any of the events stated in paragraph 13 hereof as constituting defaults, which defaults remain uncured following the expiration of Lessee's right to cure, Lessor, may: (a) Take possession of the Equipment and lease the Equipment or any portion of it, for such period and for such amount, and to such persons, as Lessor shall elect, and apply the proceeds of any such renting, after deducting all reasonable costs and expenses incurred in connection with the recovery, repair, storage, and renting of the Equipment, to the payment of Rent and other obligations then due from Lessee to Lessor, Lessee remaining responsible for any deficiency; or (b) Take possession of the Equipment and sell it or any portion of it at public or private sale, without demand or notice of intention to sell, and apply the proceeds of any such sale, after deducting all reasonable costs and expenses incurred in connection with the recovery, repair, storage and sale of the Equipment and any rentals and other obligations of Lessee then due, against the Rent and other obligations then due from Lessor to Lessee of the Equipment sold. If the proceeds, after the permitted deduction, are less than such obligations, Lessee shall immediately pay Lessor the difference; or (c) Declare this Lease terminated and take possession ofthe Equipment and hold Lessee responsible for the Rent and other obligations then due from Lessee to Lessor to an including the date Lessor declares this Lease terminated, and including all reasonable costs and expenses incurred in connection with the recovery of the Equipment. 15. RETURN OF EQUIPMENT. On expiration or earlier termination of this Lease, with respect to the Equipment and unless Lessee has paid Lessor in cash pursuant to paragraph 10 hereof, Lessee ' all return the Equipment to Lessor in good repair in accordance with paragraph 7 hereof, in the following nner: .. (a) by delivering the Equipment at Lessee's expense to such place as Lessor shall specify within the county in which the Equipment was delivered to Lessee or to which the Equipment was remo with the written consent of Lessor; or (b) by delivering the Equipment at Lessor's expense to such other destination designated by Lessor. 16. QUIET ENJOYMENT. Subject to the provisions of this Lease, on paying the Rent and performing the covenants of this Lease on its part to be performed, Lessee shall and may peacefully and quietly have, hold and enjoy the Equipment for the Term of this Lease. 17. GOVERNING LAW. This Lease shall be governed by and construed under the laws ofthe State of Colorado. 18. ATTORNEY FEES. In the event that any action is filed in relation to this Lease, the unsuccessful party in the action shall pay to the successful party, in addition to all other sums that either party may be called upon to pay, a reasonable sum for the successful party's attorney fees. 19. NOTICES. All notices or demands required or permitted to be given to Lessor hereunder shall be in writing, and shall be deemed duly served when received, if hand delivered and receipted for, or three (3) days after deposit in the United States mail, with proper postage prepaid, certified or registered, return receipt requested, addressed to Lessee at its address as specified hereinabove. All notices or demands required to be given to Lessor hereunder shall be in writing, and shall be deemed duly served when receive-' if hand delivered, or three (3) days after deposited in the United States mail, with proper postage prepi certified or registered, return receipt requested, addressed to Lesser at its address as specified hereinabove. Either party shall have the right to designate in writing, served as above provided, a different address to which notice is to be provided. The foregoing shall in no event prohibit notice from being given as provided in Rule 4 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, as the same may be amended from time to time. 20. LEASE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS CREATING RELATIONSHIP OTHER THAN THAT OF LESSOR AND LESSEE. It is understood and agreed by the parties that this Lease shall not in any way be construed as creating any relationship between them other than that of Lessor and Lessee. 21. INDEMNIFICATION. During the Term of this Lease, Lessee agrees to hold harmless, indemnify and release Lessor and its officers, agents and employees from and against (i) any and allloss or damage to property, or injuries or death of any persons, including property of and employees or agents of Lessee or Lessor, arising out of or in any way related to Lessee's lease or use of the Equipment; and (ii) any and all losses, claims damages, suits, expenses, liability, actions or proceedings of any kind or nature whatsoever (including attorneys' fees and related costs) asserted by any entity holding a security interest in the Equipment arising out ofLessee's failure to secure the required consent ofany such entity to this Lease. 22. SECURITY DEPOSIT. As security for the performance ofits obligations under this Lease, Lessee, on execution of this Lease, shall deposit with Lessor the Security Deposit, and from time to time shall pay to Lessor, within three (3) business days following receipt ofa request therefor, any sum or sums of money paid or deducted from the Security Deposit by Lessor pursuant to the provisions of this Lease, order that at all times during the Term there shall be continually deposited with Lessor, a sum which sh never be less than the amount originally deposited with the Lessor as the Security Deposit. The Security . I Deposit shall not be deemed a measure of damages for any default by Lessee under this Lease, nor shall the -'ecurity Deposit be a bar or a defense to any action that Lessor may commence against Lessee. In the event any default by Lessee hereunder, Lessor shall have the right, but shall not be obligated, to apply or retain all or any portion of the Security Deposit in payment of Lessee's obligations hereunder, but any such application or retention shall not have the effect of curing any such default. Lessor shall not be obligated to hold the Security Deposit as a separate fund, but may commingle the same with its other funds. No interest shall be payable with respect to the Security Deposit. Lessee may transfer or assign the Security Deposit to any new owner of the Equipment or to any assignee or transferee of this Lease or may credit the Security Deposit against the purchase price of the Equipment and upon such transfer or credit all liability of the transferor or assignor of such security shall cease and come to an end. No lender or person or entity who acquires legal or beneficial title to the Equipment from such mortgagee shall be liable for the return of the Security Deposit unless such funds are actually received by such lender or purchaser. Upon the performance by Lessee, in accordance with the terms of this Lease, of all of its obligations hereunder, Lessor, or its successor, will return to Lessee any then remaining portion of the Security Deposit, without interest. 23. MISCELLANEOUS. (a) Time is of the essence hereof. (b) Whenever any term, covenant or provision of this Lease grants to Lessor a right of approval or consent, Lessor agrees that such consent or approval, except as otherwise specifically provided, will not be unreasonably withheld nor delayed. (c) Wherever there is provided in this Lease a time limitation for performance by Lessor Lessee of any obligation, including but not limited to obligations related to repair, maintenance or service (but excluding Lessee's obligation to pay Rent and other monetary obligations ofLessee hereunder), the time provided for shall be extended for as long as, and to the extent that delay in compliance with such limitation is due to, an act ofGod, government control, labor disputes, strikes, civil disturbance or other factors beyond the reasonable control of either Lesser or Lessee, as applicable. (d) This Lease is not intended to, and shall not, create any rights in or confer any benefits upon any person other than the parties hereto. (e) This Lease may be executed in two (2) or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and it shall not be necessary in making proof of this Lease to produce or account for more than one counterpart. A facsimile copy, including a facsimile copy ofa signature, shall have the same force and effect as an original. (f) Any headings in this Lease are for convenience ofreference only and shall not define or limit any of the terms or provisions hereof. All pronouns shall be deemed to refer to the masculine, feminine, neuter, singular or plural as the identity of the person or persons referred to may require. Each defined term or phrase identified herein with initial capital letters shall have the meaning ascribed to such term or phrase herein. Each party agrees that the language and all parts ofthis Lease shall be construed as a whole according to its fair meaning, and irrespective of any party or its counsel's role in drafting this Lease ' all not be strictly construed for or against any party. The parties acknowledge that each has reviewed this ase and has had the opportunity to have it reviewed by its attorney and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in the interpretation ofthis Lease or any part thereof or attachment thereto. (g) The parties acknowledge and agree that, upon ten (10) days written notice to Les Lessor shall have the complete and unfettered right to sell or substitute the Equipment or any individual but complete item ofEquipment at any time during the Term ofthis Lease. Promptly upon the expiration ofthe ten (10) days written notice by Lessor to Lessee of any such sale or substitution, Lessee agrees to immediately deliver the Equipment to Lessor as specified in paragraph 15 above, and this Lease, as to such Equipment, shall terminate. (h) Lessee agrees that in the event Lessee shall have any claim against Lessor under this Lease arising out ofthe subject matter ofthis Lease, Lessee's sole recourse shall be against Lessor's interest in the Equipment for the satisfaction ofany claim, judgment or decree requiring the payment ofmoney by Lessor as a result of a breach hereof or otherwise in connection with this Lease, and no other property or assets of Lessor, its successors or assigns, shall be subject to the levy, execution or other enforcement procedure for the satisfaction of any such claim, judgment, injunction or decree. Moreover, Lessee agrees that Lessor shall in no event and under no circumstances be responsible for any consequential damages incurred or sustained by Lessee, or its employees, agents, contractors or invitees as a result of or in any way connected to Lessee's use of the Equipment. Lessee further hereby waives any and all right to assert any claim against or obtain any damages from, for any reason whatsoever, the trustees, directors, officers and partners of Lessor including all injuries, damages or losses to Lessee's property, real and personal, whether known, unknown, foreseen, unforeseen, patent or latent, which Lessee may have against Lessor or its directors, officers or partners under this Lease or arising out of the subject matter of this Lease. Lessee understands and acknowledges the significance and consequence ofsuch specific waiver. Lessor shall not b- liable or responsible to Tenant for any loss or damage to any property or person occasioned by theft, fire, of God, public enemy, injunction, riot, strike, insurrection, war, court order, requisition, or order oi governmental body or authority, or for any damage or inconvenience that may arise through repair or alteration of any part ofthe Equipment, or a failure to make any such repairs, except as expressly provided in this Lease. .. ADDENDUM ThisAddendum madethis Â· day of June, 2008 by andÂ·between D.C.S. America Inc.; Lessor, and the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, Lessee. Lessor and Lessee hereby agree to modify the terms and conditions of the Equipment Lease dated the day of June, 2008 between the parties as follows: 1. Paragraph 7 of the Lease shall be amended by the addition of the following sentence: "Any repair of the Equipment above $500.00 shall be the responsibility of Lessor. Lessee shall contact Lessor in writing stating the estimated cost of the repair at least three (3) days prior to the beginning of said repair. 2. Paragraph 11 (c) Assignment shall be amended to read as follows: "Permit any part of the Equipment to be used by anyone other than Lessee or Lessee's employees except Lessee shall be entitled to use McDonald Transit employees as operators and drivers of the Equipment." 3. Paragraph 21 Indemnification shall be amended to read as follows: "During the Term of this Lease, and to the extent permitted by law, Lessee agrees to hold harmless, indemnify and release Lessor and its officers, agents and employees from and against (i) any and all loss or damage to property, or injuries or death of any persons, including property of and employees or agents of Lessee or Lessor, arising out of or in any way related to Lessee's lease or use of the Equipment in the event such damage, loss or injury is caused in whole or in part, by the negligent act, omission, error, or other negligent fault of Lessee or any negligent act, omission or error of any subcontractor of Lessee in the operation of the Equipment. 4. Paragraph 23 Miscellaneous shall be amended by the deletion of subparagraph (g) in its entirety. 5. Paragraph 23 Miscellaneous shall be amended by the insertion of the following subparagraph (i) as follows: (i) The terms and conditions of this Lease shall not be construed and interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any immunities, rights, benefits and protections of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (C.R.S. Section 24- 10-101, et seq). .. Mayor's Office Memo To: Board of Trustees From: Mayor Pinkham Date: June 18, 2008 Subject: Wayne Newsom Appointment as EPURA Commissioner On June 13~h, I appointed Wayne Newsom to fill the EPURA Commissioner position vacated by Trustee John Ericson. Newsom was one of eight individuals who responded to the published request for candidates. Following structured interviews of all candidates, he was the unanimous recommendation of the selection committee which consisted of John Ericson, Wil Smith and Gerry Swank. Newsom has been a resident of Estes Park has served the community in numerous capacities for 29 years. He recently completed two terms as Town Trustee. During that time he was influential in facilitating and implementing numerous plans and processes that contributed to the continued improvement of Estes Park. He has also served on the Board of Adjustment for over 12 years. Newsom was one of the founders of Coldwell Banker Estes Village Properties, and has been President and Realtor of the Year of the Estes Park Board of Realtors. Newsom has an excellent understanding of EPURA and its role as an economic engine for community improvements to ensure our economic sustainability. His knowledge and experience will be an excellent addition to the EPURA Board. Town of Estes Palic Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Director Date: June 16, 2008 Subject: The Links of Estes Park Supplemental Condominium Map #2, A Portion of Lot 3, South Saint Vrain Addition, Roy Johnson/Applicant Background. The applicant has submitted a supplemental condominium map application for The Links of Estes Park to condominiumize the last of three residential duplexes on a 1.016-acre lot, zoned RM-Multi-Family Residential. The units are numbered 1008-A and 1008-B, are addressed 1008 A and B South Saint Vrain Avenue (CO Highway 7), and are accessed via a private driveway through the Eagles Landing Condominiums. The condominium map is consistent with the approved Development Plan #05-02. The Town Board approved the first supplemental map application for this property at the April 22,2008 meeting. Budget. Location Map None. -r- ---9 --72 1 Trail 0219 -'0----1 4 Ridge Action. 34 Approval of the application conditioned on ~oj~Landing > $1 "RM" The Links of compliance with the comments in Greg 4 Z Eagles -Estes Park White's letter dated June 9,2008. 4 2,1 r- RIng!*- Family j Eagle .E" ~ View y-*- N - IGolf Course-~*Z 18 Hole Golf 1~2 - jÂ©*Kt .. CMS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FAX TO: JACKIE WILLIAMSON FROM: FRANK THEIS DATE: 6/17/08 RE: ELKHORN LODGE REDEVELOPMENT This Fax contains 1 page including this cover sheet. JACKIE: ON BEHALF OF ROCK CASTLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, I AM REQUESTING THAT THE TOWN BOARD HEARING OF THE ELKHORN LODGE REDEVELOPMENT RE- ZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND PRELIMINARY P.U.D. BE CONTINUED UNTIL JULY 22,2008. PLEASE CALL ME IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. SINCERELY, FRANK (rHEIS CMS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT,INC. P.O.BOX 416 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 TEL/FAX (970) 577-9744 1 1 Audit Committee Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board ofTrustees Town Administrator Halbumt From: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer Date: June 24,2008 Subject: 2007 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) Background The Town of Estes Park undergoes an annual independent audit of its financial statements. The audit report for the year ended December 31, 2007 is complete and has been delivered to the Audit Committee by the independent auditing firm of Swanhorst & Company, LLC. The independent auditors' report expressed an unqualified opinion that the financial statements presented fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the funds and activities of the Town of Estes Park in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principals (GAAP). There were no findings or material weaknesses. Comments made by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) regarding previous years have been addressed. Historically, the Audit Committee meets with the Auditors prior to the second Town Board meeting in June. Approval of the CAFR is sought at this time annually because the CAFR must be submitted to the GFOA by June 30' in order to qualify for the Achievement in Excellence in Financial Reporting Award. At the Audit Committee meeting, the CAFR and its findings are reviewed and the Town Board is then apprised ofthe results. This year, unusual scheduling challenges (GFOA conference was June 15-18, CML conference was June 17-20) prevented the Audit Committee from meeting prior to the publication deadline ofthis memo. The Audit Committee will meet with Wendy Swanhorst and/or Kyle Logan, of Swanhorst & Company, LLC on June 24,2008, just before the Board meeting. The Committee is in possession of the DRAFT version of both the Management letter and the CAFR, which is attached to this memo. Relevant information as cited in the auditors' report will be duly noted by the Audit Committee in its review of the CAFR at the Committee meeting on June 24, 2008. Some items have in fact already been addressed. The 2007 CAFR not only satisfies government and legal accounting standards, but also reflects the professionalism and detennination of the Town administration and staff to effectively manage the Town finances. It is clear that the Town Board and staff share a strong sense of fiscal responsibility to ensure the continued economic well-being ofthe Town. .. Wendy Swanhorst and/or Kyle Logan, CPAs, (President, Project Manager (respectively) of the 2007 audit process and CAFR) of Swanhorst & Company LLC, will be at the June 24,2008 Board meeting and will provide comments and answer questions in regards to the audit and CAFR process. Action steps requested The Audit Committee anticipates recommending acceptance of the audit report and Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year ended December 31, 2007. â€¢ Page 2 -=.il 4 . June 2,2008 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Board of Trustees Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado We have audited the financial statements of the Town of Estes Park (the "Town") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, and have iss}idct our report thereon dated June 2,2008. Professional standards require that we provide you with the following ihformation related to our audit. 09 f j Our Responsibility under Gene,3lly Ac4pted Auditing Standards As stated in our engagement letter, our responsibility, a;described byprofessional standards, is to plan and perform our audit to obtain reasonable, but not atisolUte, asslirance about whether the financial statements are free ofmaterial misstatement. Because an audit is designed to pkovide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance and because we did not perform a detailed examination of all transactions, there is a risk that material misstatements or noncompliance may exist and not be detected by us. In addition, an audit is not designed to detect immaterial misstatements or violations of laws or regulations that do not have a direct and material bffeet on the financial statements. A r In planning and performing our audit of the financial stat~ments, we donsideted the Town's internal control as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing>our opinion on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Town's i~gernal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Town's internal controld> / Significant Accounting Policies -4, 9% t., Management has the responsibility for selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. In accordance with the terms o f our engagement letter, we will advise management about the appropriateness of accounting policies and their application. The significant accounting policies used by the Town are described in Note 1 to the financial statements. We noted no transactions entered into by the Town during the year that were both significant and unusual, and of which, under professional standards, we are required to inform you, or transactions for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. Accounting Estimates Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management's current judgments. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from management's currentjudgments. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the significant estimates in determining that they are reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. . 1 Significant Audit Adjustments For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a significant audit adjustment as a proposed correction of the financial statements that, in ourjudgment, may not have been detected except through our auditing procedures. We provided management with a schedule of audit adjustments. An audit adjustment may or may not indicate matters that could have a significant effect on the Town's financial reporting process (that is, cause future financial statements to be materially misstated). Management has determinedthat the effects ofthe uncorrected misstatements are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole. In ourjudgment, none of the adjustments we proposed, whether recorded or unrecorded by the Town, either individually or in the aggregate, indicate matters that could have a significant effect on the Town's financial reporting process. Disagreements with Management For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, concerning a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditors' report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit.,5:';. Consultations with Other Independent Accountants bÂ» // 1 f In some cases, management inay decide to consultwith other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a "second opinion" bn ceitain ituations. If a consultation involves the application of an accounting principle to the Town's financial statÂ£mentsor a determination ofthe type ofauditors' opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our Drofessional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the Pelevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants. 1 1 2.-m 4 J Issues Discussed Prior to Retention of Independent Auditors We generally discuss a variety ofmatters, including the aMilication ofaccounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the Town's auditdri. Howeve0hese discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and the responses were ndt a cdndit~n to our retention. Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit 04/ BÂ·// We encountered no significant difficulties in performing our audit. V Other Information Grants The Town has received several federal grant awards. However, the procedures currently in place were not adequate to identify all of the federal grants. For example, the grants awarded to the Town and passed through to the Housing Authority were not recorded in the Town's accounting records. We recommend that the Town establish internal controls to identify federal grants, maintain the grant documentation, and properly account for the federal revenues and expenditures. Budget Compliance Forthe yearendedDecember31,2007, expenditures ofthe Estes ParkUrban Renewal Authority (EPURA)exceeded the budget appropriations. We recommend that EPURA monitor actual expenditures compared to budget more closely during the year. All expenditures require the approval of the Board ofDirectors. . 8 Post-Employment Benefits The Town currently offers health insurance benefits to certain employees after retirement from the Town. New accounting standards will require the Town to measure and report this liability by the end of 2008. Ongoing actualial studies will be required to determine the liability as well as the annual required contributions. We understand that the Town has performed an actuarial study to determine the liability for these benefits: We recommend that the Town continue to monitor and discuss the future of these benefits, and the potential funding of any liability. Conclusion We would like to thank Steve MeFarland, Debbie Parrack, Debbie McDougall, and the entire Town staff for making the audit process efficient and enjoyable. Everyone was very helpful and cooperative. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Trustees and management of the Town of Estes Park and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. Very truly yours, 11 a f f i L Swanhorst & Company LLC :71% I -Â·~~ . 09 :f ;..r 11; 7 - 4/ 7 14 %23. b ... I. I 4 .., 7 4/1.* 34':03 June 24,2008 To: the Honorable Mayor, Members of the Governing Body, and Citizens of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado: The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado (the Town) for the fiscal year ended December, 31, 2007, is hereby submitted. Responsibility for both the accuracy of the data and the completeness and fairness o f the presentation, including all disclosures, rests with the Town. To the best of our knowledge and belief, the enclosed data are accurate in all material respects and are reported in a manner designed to present fairly the financial position and results of operations of the various funds and account groups of the Town. All disclosures necessary to enable the reader to gain an understanding of the Town's financial activities have been included. This report includes all Town funds. The Town provides a full range of services, including police and fire protection, electric and water utility services, the construction and maintenance of highways, streets, and infrastructure, business development, recreational activities and cultural events. In addition to general government activities, the Town Board has significant operational and/or financial relationships with the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority and the Estes Park Building Authority; therefore, these activities are included in the reporting entity as blended component units. Profile of the Government The Town of Estes Park, incorporated in 1917, is a resort community nestled in the Rocky Mountain foothills 65 miles northwest of Denver, Colorado. The Town is at the entrance to Rocky Mountain National Park and is visited by approximately three million people each year. Rocky Mountain National Park has been the number one tourist attraction in the State of Colorado for as long as records have been compiled. Tourism is the Town's main industry; therefore, the Town's facilities are geared for a large seasonal usage in the summer months. The Town of Estes Park currently occupies a land area of six square miles and serves an estimated population of 5,413. The Town is empowered to levy a property tax on both real and personal properties located within its boundaries. Vili 1.- .. It is also empowered to extend its corporate limits by annexation, which occurs periodically when deemed appropriate by the governing body. The Town has operated under the board-administrator form of government since 1968. Policy-making and legislative authority are vested in the governing board consisting of the Mayor and six Trustees. The governing board is responsible, among other duties, for passing ordinances, adopting the budget, appointing committees, and hiring the Town Administrator. The Town Administrator is responsible for carrying out the policies and ordinances of the governing body, and for overseeing the day-to-day operations of the government. The board is elected on a non-partisan basis. Board members serve four- year staggered terms, with three trustees elected every two years. The Mayor is elected to serve a four-year term. All offices are elected at large. Elected officials are limited to two consecutive terms of office. The Town provides a full range of services including police and fire protection, the construction and maintenance of street, pathways and other infrastructure, business development, and recreational activities and cultural events. A water utility and an electric distribution utility are provided by the Town. An urban renewal agency (EPURA) operates as a legally separate authority, which functions in essence as a department of the Town, and therefore has been included as an integral part of the Town's financial statements. The Town is also financially accountable for another legally separate entity, the Estes Park Building Authority, which provides financing for golf course improvements. Additional information on these entities can be found in Note 1 in the Notes to the Financial Statements. The annual budget serves as the foundation for the Town's financial planning and control. All departments of the Town are required to submit requests annually for appropriation to the Town's designated budget officer by the third week of August. The budget officer uses these requests as the starting point for developing a proposed budget. The budget officer then presents this proposed budget to the Town Administrator for review and amendment. The budget is presented to the Town Board for deliberation in October. The board is required to hold public hearings on the proposed budget and to formally adopt the budget before December 15th. This date also serves as the deadline to certify the mill levy that will be assessed by the Town to the Larimer County Commissioners. The appropriated budget is prepared by fund, function (e.g., public safety and department (e.g., fire protection). Budget-to-actual comparisons are provided in this report for each individual fund for which an appropriated annual budget has been adopted. For the general fund, this comparison is presented as part of the basic financial statements for the governmental funds. For governmental funds, other than the general fund, with appropriated annual budgets, this comparison is presented behind the footnotes in this report. Factors Affecting Financial Condition iX The information presented in the financial statements is perhaps best understood when it is considered from the broader perspective of the specific environment within which the Town operates. Local economy. In 2007; the Town experienced contifiued expansion in the predominant local industry, tourism. A key local economic indicator, taxable sales, increased by $11,664,675, or 6.9%, in 2007. While the national unemployment rate remained unchanged at 4.6%, in 2007 Colorado's unemployment rate declined from 4.3% to 3.8%. Long term financial planning. The Town completed the new Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB) building in 2006. In addition to the new structure, a 175-car parking lot was added for both the CVB building and the new transit system through Estes Park and into Rocky Mountain National Park, as well as a 100-car parking lot on the south side of the river. The Town also constructed a new Parks Department operations and maintenance building on the land adjacent to the new CVB site. In 2007, further improvements were made as sidewalks and curbs were added. A retention wall was added to the Big Thompson River next to the CVB building and erosion control measures were put into place. Infrastructure improvements have begun at Stanley Park with the intention of upgrading the Fairgrounds complex so as to offer an improved and wider array of amenities and facilities for appropriate functions and events. The Fish Creek Trail project completed a 3.5-mile concrete connection between the local school campus and the Carriage Hills Ponds to the south. The scenic 10' wide trail follows Fish Creek Road and creates a loop when it reaches Highway 7. The trail system offers dramatically improved recreational opportunities as well as safer access for citizens utilizing the open areas along Fish Creek Road. A 100-foot portion of this trail will be constructed in 2008. The earthen dams that retain the 2 ponds were improved and bought up to their original condition. Staff and the Town Board continued to refine the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Both foreseeing and flexible, the CIP forecasts improvement projects and cash flow in the Town's major funds for the next 5-7 years. The CIP will allow for a combination of long-term cash management coupled with an orderly addressing of the evolving needs of the Estes Park community. In 2007 engineering design began on Fall River Trail Phase 4. When construction is completed in late 2008 this 8-foot wide concrete corridor extension will add 4,000 feet to the west end of the existing mile-long trail. The objective is to connect downtown Estes Park with RMNP. Only 3.5 miles remain on the 5.0-mile long trail. Other improvements in the Fish Creek Corridor included the re-lining of the 60 inch - diameter Brodie Avenue culvert in Fish Creek. This maintenance project helped to reestablish the inner bore of the old corrugated metal pipe. With design completed in late X 1 . 2007, this short 100-foot link of concrete trail will span Fish Creek alongside Scott Avenue, and create a safe pedestrian surface crossing of that street. The Town Hall building was originally constructed in 1929 as the region's only school. In 1973 it was purchased by the Town, following the school's growth and relodation. The facility has received many facelifts and modernizations throughout the years. In 2007 staff designed for the fabrication and installation of a new gate on the 2nd floor balcony. This provides for increased security to the police communications division. Public Works also focused on maintenance projects in 2007 by removing and repaving a portion of North Lake Ave. to control surface drainage, storm water control and erosion issues in that area. The downtown area also received major maintenance attention with the reconstruction of the Post Office Parking Lot. This project addressed subgrade deficiencies which caused asphalt failures for over twenty years. The final product was a total replacement of all wheelchair ramps, some sidewalk, and all asphalt surfacing. Fifteen mature cottonwood trees were replaced to eliminate further root damage to walkways and roadways. Cash management policies and practices. Cash temporarily idle during the year was invested in certificates of deposit, obligations of the U.S. treasury, local government investment pools, and agencies and instrumentalities of the United States. The Town's funds allocated as investments increased from $19.5 million in 2006 to $25.1 million in 2007. The increase is attributable to two components. First, a $6.1 million increase from a bond sale for the Light & Power fund for the construction of a new substation located at Mary's Lake Lodge ($4.Om) and for general distribution system improvements ($2. lm) was completed in November. The projects are not scheduled to begin until 2008, so proceeds rest in the investment accounts until the projects are completed. Second, EPURA funds were drawn down from approximately $900,000 at the end of 2006 to $146,000 at the end of 2007 as the Riverwalk project neared completion. The remaining increase in the investment accounts was generally the result of investment proceeds. The maturity of the investments ranges from overnight to five years. Investment income includes appreciation in the fair value of the investments. Increases in the fair value during the current year do not necessarily represent trends that will continue; nor is it always possible to realize such amounts, especially in the case of temporary changes in the fair value o f investments that the Town intends to hold to maturity. Risk management. The objectives of the Town's risk management program is to minimize risk and protect against loss, which could significantly affect the public, personnel, property, budget, or the ability of the Town to fulfill its responsibilities. Potentially hazardous risk exposures are evaluated on an ongoing basis and reduced of eliminated where feasible and cost-effective. The Town is a member of the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA), a separate and independent governmental and legal entity formed by intergovernmental agreement by member municipalities pursuant to State statute. CIRSA Xi , I defends and indemnifies the Town against the risks of loss related to torts; theft of, damage to, and destruction of assets, errors and omissions, injuries to employees, and natural disasters. The Town is partially self-insured for health insurance to eligible employees and dependents. The insurance coverage for workers compensation is carried by Pinnacol Assurance. The Town' also maintains a separate internal service fund, the Catastrophic Loss Fund, to be used in the event of disasters not covered by other insurance. Net assets in this fund on December 31, 2007 were $2,333,425. Budgetary controls. The Town maintains budgetary controls, the objective of which is to ensure compliance with legal provisions embodies in the annual appropriated budget approved by the Town Board. The level of budgetary controls (the level at which expenditures cannot legally exceed the appropriated amount) is established by fund. The Town also maintains an encumbrance accounting systems as a budgetary control to prevent expenditures from exceeding legal appropriations. Encumbered amounts lapse at fiscal year-end, and qualifying encumbrances are formally appropriated in the following year when necessary. Award and acknowledgements The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reports to the Town for its comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006. In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, the government published an easily readable and efficiently organized CAFR. This report satisfied both GAAP and applicable legal requirements. A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. We believe that our current CAFR continues to meet the Certificate of Achievement Program's requirements and we are submitting it to the GFOA to determine its eligibility for another certificate. The successful preparation of this report on a timely basis could not have been accomplished without the dedication and efforts of the entire staff of the Finance Department: Jim Allen, Sammi Coleson, Carol Hillerson, Debbie Parrack, Debbie McDougall, Lorraine McCown, Amy Mitterer, and Debbie Parrack. We would like to express our sincere appreciation to all members of the department for the contributions made in the preparation of this report. Special thanks are extended to the accounting firm of Swanhorst & Company LLC for their professionalism in the performance of the independent audit for the Town. We also wish to extend appreciation to the Mayor, the Trustees, and the Town Administrator for their efforts and support in setting and administering policies for the prudent financial management o f the Town o f Estes Park. Sincerely, Steve MeFarland - Finance Officer Xii Management's Discussion and Analysis As management of the Town of Estes Park (Town), we offer readers of the Town's financial statements this narrative overview and analysis of the Â·financial activities of the Town for the fiscal year ended December 31,2007. Financial Highlights â€¢ The assets of the Town exceeded its liabilities at the close of the most recent fiscal year by $92,152,953 (net assets). Of this amount, $15,589,807 (unrestricted net assets) may be used to meet the government's ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors. â€¢ The Town's total net assets increased by $2,730,968. GASB 34 requires reporting of infrastructure assets at fair market value. Values were obtained and recorded during the 2005 fiscal year. â€¢ At the close of the current fiscal year, the Town's governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $7,561,949, a decrease of $1,591,640 in comparison with 2006. Approximately 99.6% of this total amount, $7,532,848, is available for spending at the government' s discretion (unreserved, undesignated fund balance). â€¢ At the end of the current fiscal year, unreserved, undesignated fund balance for the general fund was $4,024,503, or 51.6% oftotal general fund expenditures. â€¢ The Town's total long-term liabilities increased by $4,318,759 during the current fiscal year. This was a result of the Light & Power Revenue Bonds Series 2007, issued for $6,180,000. Pre-2007 long-term liabilities actually decreased $1,861,241. â€¢ The Town loaned the Estes Park Housing Authority $2,700,000 in 2006. The loan is due in full by June 1, 2008. The loan was funded as follows: $950,000 from the General Fund, $550,000 from Light and Power, $450,000 from Water, and $750,000 from Catastrophic Loss. As of December 31,2007, $90,000 of the loan was repaid. Overview of the Financial Statements This discussion and analysis are intended to serve as an introduction to the Town's basic financial statements. The Town's basic financial statements comprise three components: 1) government-wide financial statements, 2) fund financial statements, and 3) notes to the financial statements. This report also contains other supplementary information in addition to the basic financial statements themselves. Government-wide financial statements. The government-wide financial statements are designed to provide readers with a broad overview of the Town's finances, in a manner similar to a private-sector business. i The statement of net assets presents information on all of the Town's assets and liabilities, with the difference between the two reported as net assets. Over time, increases or decreases in net assets may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the Town is improving or deteriorating. The statement ofactivities presents information showing how the government's net assets changed during the most recent fiscal year. All changes in net assets are reported as soon as the underlying event giving rise to the change occurs, regardless Of the timing of related cash flows. Thus, revenues and expenses are reported in this statement for some items that will only result in cash flows in future fiscal periods (e.g., uncollected taxes and earned but unused vacation leave). Both of the government-wide financial statements distinguish functions of the Town that are principally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues (governmental activities) from other functions that are intended to recover all or a significant portion of their costs through user fees and charges (business-type activities). The governmental activities of the Town include general government, public safety, public works, and culture and recreation. The business-type activities of the Town include an electric distribution operation (light and power fund) and a water utility that treats and distributes under the water fund. The government-wide financial statements include not only the Town itself (known as the primag governmenO, but also the legally separate entities, Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) and Estes Park Building Authority. Financial information for these component units is reported with the financial information presented for the primary government, as blended component units. EPURA issues separate financial statements, whereas the Building Authority does not. Fund financial statements. A fund is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or objectives. The Town, like other state and local governments, uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal requirements. All of the funds of the Town can be divided into three categories: government funds, proprietary funds, and fiduciary funds. Governmentalfunds. Governmentalfunds are used to account for essentially the same functions reported as governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. However, unlike the government-wide financial statements, governmental fund financial statements focus on near-term inflows and outflows of spendable resources, as well as on balances ofspendable resources available at the end of the fiscal year. Such information may be useful in evaluating a government's near-term financing requirements. Because the focus of governmental funds is narrower than that of the government-wide financial statements, it is useful to compare the information presented for governmental funds with similar information presented for governmental activities in the government- 11 .. wide financial statements. By doing so, readers may better understand the long-term impact of the government's near-term financing decisions. Both the governmental fund balance sheet and the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate this comparison between governmental funds and governmental activities. The Town maintains 12 individual governmental funds. Infonnation is presented separately in the governmental fund balance sheet and in the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances for the General fund, the Convention and Visitors Bureau fund, and the Urban Renewal Authority Debt Service and Capital funds, all of which are considered to be major funds. Data from the other 8 governmental funds are combined into a single, aggregated presentation. Individual fund data for each of these non-major governmental funds is provided in the form of combining and individual fund statements and schedules elsewhere in this report. The Town adopts annual appropriated budgets for all funds. Budgetary comparison schedules have been presented for all funds (except fiduciary funds) to demonstrate compliance with the budgets. Proprietary funds. The Town maintains two different types of proprietary funds. Enterprise funds are used to report the same functions presented as business-type activities in the government-wide financial statements. The Town uses enterprise funds to account for its electric and water utilities. Internal service fields are an accounting device used to accumulate and allocate costs internally among the Town's various functions. The Town uses internal service funds to account for its Fleet Maintenance Fund, Vehicle Replacement Fund, Catastrophic Loss Fund, Health Insurance Fund, and Information Technology Fund. Because these internal services predominantly benefit governmental and business-type functions, they have been allocated between the governmental and business-ape activities in the government-wide financial statements. Proprietary funds provide the same type of information as the government-wide financial statements, only in more detail. The proprietary fund financial statements provide separate information for the Water and Light & Power funds both of which are considered to be major funds ofthe Town. Conversely, all four internal service funds are combined into a single, aggregate presentation in the proprietary fund financial statements. Individual fund data for the internal service funds is provided in the form of combining statements elsewhere in this report. Fiduciary funds. Fiduciary funds are used to account for resources held for the benefit of parties outside the government. Fiduciary funds are not reflected in the government- wide financial statements because the resources of those funds are not available to support the Town's own programs. The accounting used for fiduciary funds is much like that used for proprietary funds. Notes to the financial statements. The notes provide additional information that is essential to a full understanding of the data provided in the government-wide and fund iii financial statements. The notes to the financial statements can be found immediately following the basic financial statements. Other information. In addition to the basic financial statements and accompanying notes, this report also presents certain required supplemental information concerning the 0 Town's progress in funding its obligation to provide pension benefits to its employees, and budgetary comparison schedules for the general and major special revenue funds. The combining and individual fund statements and schedules referred to earlier in connection with non-major governmental funds and internal service funds are presented immediately following the required supplementary information. Government-wide financial analysis Town of Estes Park's Net Assets Governmental Activities Business-type Activities Total 2007 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006 Current and other assets $14,661,685 $16,159,309 $19,660,612 $11,521,988 $34,322,297 $27,681,297 Capital assets 45,868,488 45,116,815 26,349,411 26,336,846 72,217,899 71,453,661 Total assets 60,530,173 61,276,124 46,010,023 37,858,834 106,540,196 99,134,958 Long term liabilities 297,801 1,453,122 8,181,446 2,707,366 8,479,247 4,160,488 Other liabilities 3,504,982 3,702,825 2,403,014 1,849,660 5,907,996 5,552,485 Total liabilities 3,802,783 5,155,947 10,584,460 4,557,026 14,387,243 9,712,973 Invested in capital assets, net of related debt 44,604,637 42,728,991 23,789,534 23,256,846 68,394,171 65,985,837 Restricted 2,044,071 2,609,999 6,124,904 0 8,168,975 2,609,999 Unrestricted 10,078,682 10,781,187 5,511,125 10,044,962 15,589,807 20,826,149 Total net assets $56,727,390 $56,120,177 $35,425,563 $33,301,808 $92,152,953 $89,421,985 As noted earlier, net assets may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position. In the case of the Town, assets exceeded liabilities by $92,152,953 at the close of the most recent fiscal year. By far the largest portion of the Town's net assets (68%) reflects its investment in capital assets (e.g., land, buildings, machinery, and equipment), less any related still-outstanding debt used to acquire those assets. The Town uses these capital assets to provide services to citizens; consequently, these assets are not available for future spending. Although the Town's investment in its capital assets is reported net of related debt, it should be noted that the resources needed to repay this debt must be provided from other sources, since the capital assets themselves cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities. iV An additional portion of the Town's net assets (9%) represents resources that are subject to external restrictions on how they may be used. The increase from 3% in 2006 to 9% in 2007 is due to the Light & Power Revenue Bond that is yet to be accessed for construction costs of the new substation at Marys Lake ($4.lm in 2008) and upgrading the distribution system ($2.Om in 2008 and 2009). The remaining balance of unrestricted net assets ($15,589,807) may be used to meet the government's ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors. At the end of the current fiscal year, the Town is able to report positive balances in all three categories of net assets, both for the government as a whole, as well as for its separate governmental and business-type activities. The same situation held true for the prior fiscal year. Town of Estes Park's Changes in Net Assets Governmental Activities Business-type Activities Total 2007 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006 Revenues: Program revenues Charges for services $2,378,111 $2,166,661 $13,023,712 $12,573,698 $15,401,823 $14,740,359 Operating grants/contributions 735,916 895,340 0 0 735,916 895,340 Capital grants/contributions 76,153 32,729 688,403 609,468 764,556 642,197 General revenues: Property taxes 1,134,800 1,028,896 0 0 1,134,800 1,028,896 Other taxes 7,862,603 7,375,393 0 0 7,862,603 7,375,393 Other 922,273 898,607 822,676 847,471 1,744,949 1,746,078 Total revenues 13,109,856 12,397,626 14,534,791 14,030,637 27,644,647 26,428,263 Expenses: General government 3,420,170 3,822,578 0 0 3,420,170 3,822,578 Public safety 3,411,343 3,090,570 0 0 3,411,343 3,090,570 Public works 2,197,576 1,905,687 0 0 2,197,576 1,905,687 Culture and recreation 4,438,036 3,918,854 0 0 4,438,036 3,918,854 Interest on long-term debt 65,619 96,732 0 0 65,619 96,732 Water 0 0 2,687,000 2,627,297 2,687,000 2,627,297 Electric 0 0 8,693,935 8,383,238 8,693,935 8,383,238 Total expenses 13,532,744 12,834,421 11,380,935 11,010,535 24,913,679 23,844,956 Increase in net assets before Transfers (422.888) (436,795) 3,153,856 3,020,102 2,730,968 2,583,307 Transfers 1,030,101 989,788 (1.030.101) (989,788) 0 0 Increase/decrease in net assets 607,213 552,993 2,123,755 2,030,314 2,730,968 2,583,307 Net assets - beginning 56,120,177 55,567,184 33,301,808 31,271,494 89,421,985 86,838,678 Net assets - ending $56,727,390 $56,120,177 $35,425,563 $33,301,808 $92,152,953 $89,421,985 The Town's net assets increased $2,730,968 during the current fiscal year. Government- wide revenues increased 4.6% from 2006 to 2007. Governmental activities. Governmental activities increased the Town's net assets by $607,213. The key element of the increase was the $400,000 land acquisition through the Open Space Fund. General government expenses decreased largely due to the one-time V expenditure of the 2006 Housing Authority loan (mentioned earlier). Public safety expenses increased largely due to a $192,000 depreciation expense. Public works expenses increased due to capital expenditures described in the transmittal letter, as well as the addition of the Public Works Director to (among other things) direct the implementation ofthe Town's long-term Capital Improvement Plan. The Town's major source of revenue is sales tax. Sales tax increased $466,587 from $6,767,120 in 2006 to $7,233,707 in 2007. This translates in gross sales of $169,178,000 and $180,842,675, respectively. Other revenues increased $245,643. Expenses increased $698,323, from $12,834,421 in 2006 to $13,532,744 in 2007. . Business-type activities. Business-type activities, which include the Light & Power and Water funds, increased the Town's net assets by $2,123,755. Income increased through charges for services by 3.6% (approximately $450,014). Costs in the Light & Power Fund increased primarily due to refurbishing exterior displays for the holidays. Financial Analysis of the Government's Funds As noted earlier, the Town uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal requirements. Governmental funds. The focus of the Town's governmental funds is to provide information on near-term inflows, outflows and balances of spendable resources. Such information is useful in assessing the Town's financing requirements. In particular, unreservedfund balance may serve as a useful measure of a government's net resources available for spending at the end of theÂ· fiscal year. As of the end of the current fiscal year, the Town's governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $7,561,949, a decrease of $1,591,640 from 2006. Approximately 99.6% of this amount constitutes unreserved undesignatedfund balance, which is available for spending at the government's discretion. The remainder of fund balance is reserved to indicate that it is not available for new spending because it has already been committed to inventories, and to other prepaid expenses. The General Fund is the chief operating fund of the Town. At the end of the current fiscal year, unreserved, undesignated fund balance of the general fund was $4,024,503. As a measure of the general fund's liquidity, it may be useful to compare both unreserved fund balance and total fund balance to total fund operating expenditures (the ratio for 2007 is 51.7%). The general fund increased $1,188,883, and is related to revenues exceeding budget by $211,303, as well as expenditures being curbed by $424,565. Savings were specifically evidenced in the Public Works department, where "repairs and maintenance" and "materials and supplies" came in significantly under budget. Other financing sources were $221,907 to the positive. Vi .. The Convention and Visitors Bureau saw a reduction in its fund balance by $121,418, decreasing to $139,303. Revenues slightly trailed estimates ($12,643), but cuts in anticipated expenditures of $72,450 allowed fund balance to end the year $59,807 higher than budget. The EPURA debt fund exists to pay debt. It is funded by tax revenues and rental income. The EPURA capital fund houses the expenditures for EPURA's Riverwalk project. Proprietao, funds. The town's proprietary funds provide the same type of information found in the government-wide financial statements, but in more detail. Unrestricted net assets of the Light and Power fund at the end of the year amounted to $5,920,340, and those for the Water fund totaled $4,615,887. The change in total net assets for both funds was $1,224,629 and $731,240, respectively. Other factors concerning the finances of these two funds have already been addressed in the discussion ofthe Town's business-type activities. General Fund Budgetary Highlights Sales tax revenues of $7,233,707 exceeded forecasts by $133,707. Total General Fund revenues ($10,388,611) exceeded revised budget ($10,177,308) by $211,303, $33,627 of which was investment income. With General Fund balance significantly exceeding expectations, increased investment income was welcome byproduct. The savings in expenditures was discussed in detail in the Financial Analysis of Governmental Funds section. Transfers out of the General fund were $2,429,939 and included dispersals to the Museum, Senior Center, and CVB. An annual transfer of approximately $200,000 per intergovernmental agreement is also made to the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority. Ending actual fund balance for the General Fund of $4,037,922 was 27% greater than budgeted fund balance. Capital Asset and Debt Administration Capital assets. Depreciable capital assets increased $3,576,212; the net increase (after disposal/retirement of capital assets) was $3,504,939. Monies were spent on Walkways and Bikeways ($126,833), Stanley Park (second phase - $78,457), Carpet and Furniture replacement at the Conference Center ($113,521), Parking lot (Post Office) improvements ($362,894), and the EPURA Riverwalk ($2,470,589). Non-depreciable capital assets increased by $442,732, and include construction in progress as well as the co-op purchase of Hermit Park with other Larimer County Open Space participants. Business-type capital assets increased $1,132,060, with a net increase of $838,805. The largest expenditures in this area were transfonners ($251,000), underground Vii infrastructure improvements ($342,867), the new telephone system ($99,936), and the new MacGregor Water Tank ($214,356) per the Town Master Plan. Additional info can be found in notes to the financial statements on pages 20-21. Long-term debt. Scheduled debt payments were made in accordance with loan parameters; there were no other changes in long-term debt structure. The Urban Renewal Authority's outstanding long term debt was $895,000 on December 31, 2007. This is expected to be paid in full by December 31, 2008. The Town Light & Power fund maintains a rating from Standard & Poor's and Fitch of "AAA" on its outstanding revenue bonds. In 2007, the Town took on a $6,180,000 Revenue Bond to relocate and make improvements to the Town's Light and Power facilities. State statutes limit the amount of general obligation debt a government entity may issue to 3% of its total assessed valuation. The current debt limitation for the Town is $43,475,237. The Town currently has no outstanding general obligation debt. Refer to footnotes on pp. 21-24 for further information on debt structure and obligations. Economic Factors and Net Year's Budgets and Rates â€¢ The forecasted 2008 CPI for Denver/Boulder is 3.4%. â€¢ Taxable sales increased by $11,664,675; up 6.89% from 2006. â€¢ Major capital initiatives for the 2008 budget include : o New fire truck ($270,000) o Street overlay play ($250,000) o Revitalization ofarea around Dairy Que6n ($100,000) o Construction ofbarns complex at Stanley Fairgrounds ($4,250,000) o Fall River Trail improvements ($350,000) o Light & Power substation upgrade at Marys Lake ($6,000,000) o Water treatment plant upgrade at Marys Lake ($4,700,000) o Vehicle fleet replacements from Vehicle Replacement Fund ($208,000) â€¢ The Town recognizes the general deterioration of the economy in the beginnings of 2008 and stands ready to react appropriately to any deviations in sales tax receipts and other revenue sources All of these factors and many others were considered in preparation for the Town's budget fof the 2008 fiscal year. Request for information This financial report is designed to provide a general overview of the Town's finances for all those with an interest in the government's finances. Questions concerning any of the Vili information provided in this report or requests for additional financial information should be addressed to the Finance Department, P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, Colorado, 80517. iX TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT For the Year Ended December 31, 2007 Prepared By FINANCE DEPARTMENT .. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTORY SECTION Title Page 0 Table of Contents i-iv List of Principal Officials v Organization Chart vi GFOA Certificate of Achievement vii Transmittal Letter > V111 - X11 FINANCIAL SECTION Independent Auditors' Report Management's Discussion and Analysis a-h Basic Financial Statements Statement ofNet Assets , 1 Statement of Activities 2 Balance Sheet - Governmental Funds 3 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Governmental Funds 4 Reconciliation ofthe Statement ofRevenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities 5 Statement ofNet Assets - Proprietary Funds 6 Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Assets - Proprietary Funds 7 Statement of Cash Flows - Proprietary Funds 8 Statement of Fiduciary Net Assets 9 Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Assets , 10 Notes to Financial Statements 11-31 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE FINANCIAL SECTION (Continued) Required Supplementary Infdrmation Schedule of Funding Progress - Volunteer Firefighter's Pension Plan 32 General Fund - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 33-34 Convention/Visitor Bureau Fund - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 35 Notes to Required Supplementary Information 36 Combining and Individual Fund Financial Statements and Schedules Governmental Funds (- 0Â· r Combining Balance Sheet - Nonmajor Governmental Funds 37 Combining Statement ofRevenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - 38 Nonmajor Governmental Funds Community Reinvestment Fund - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 39 Museum Fund - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 40 Conservation Trust Fund - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 41 Open Space Fund - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 42 Senior Citizens Fund - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 43 Urban Renewal Authority (Special Revenue) - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 44 Building Authority - Budgetary Comparison Schedule ~ : i 45 Urban Renewal Authority (Capital Projects) - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 46 Urban Renewal Authority (Debt Service) - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 47 Enterprise Funds Light and Power Fund - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 48 Water Fund - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 49 ii .. TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE FINANCIAL SECTION (Continued) Combining and Individual Fund Statements and Schedules (Continued) Internal Service Funds Combining Statement ofNet Assets 50 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Assets 51 Combining Statement of Cash Flows 52 Fleet Maintenance Fund - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 53 Health Insurance Fund - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 54 Information Technology Fund - Budgetary Comparison Schedule 55 Agency Funds Combining Statement of Changes in Assets and Liabilities 56 STATISTICAL SECTION Financial Trends Net Assets 57 Changes in Net Assets 58 - 59 Fund Balances, Governmental Funds 60 Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental Funds 61 Revenue Capacity Sales Tax Revenue by Type of Industry 62 Direct and Overlapping Sales Tax Rates 63 Principal Sales Tax Categories 64 Debt Capacity Ratio of Outstanding Debt, by Type 65 Ratio of General Bonded Debt Outstanding and Legal Debt Margin 66 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE STATISTICAL SECTION (Continued) Debt Capacity (Continued) Direct-and Overlapping Governmental Activities Debt 67 Pledged-Revenue Coverage 68 Demographic and Economic Information Demographic and Economic Statistics 69 Principal Employers Â£ 70 Operating Information Full-Time Town Employees by Function/Program 71 Operating Indicators by Function/Program 72 Capital Asset Statistics by Function/Program 73 COMPLIANCE SECTION Local Highway Finance Report ~ , 74 - 75 iV . This page intentionally left blank. FINANCIAL SECTION Honorable Mayor and Members of the Board of Trustees Town ofEstes Park Estes Park, Colorado INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information ofthe Town of Estes Park, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, which collectively comprise the basic financial statements of the Town of Estes Park, as listed in the table of contents. Th6se financial statements are the responsibility of the Town of Estes Park's management. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinions. In ouropinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position ofthe governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information ofthe Town ofEstes Park, as ofDecember 31,2007, and the respective changes in financial position and cash flows, where applicable, for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The management's discussion and analysis and required supplementary information listed in the table of contents are not a required part of the basic financial statements but are supplementary information required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. We have applied certain limited procedures, which consisted principally of inquiries ofmanagement regarding the methods ofmeasurement and presentation ofthe supplementary information. However, we did not audit the information and express no opinion on it. Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the Town of Estes Park's basic financial statements. The combining and individual financial fund statements and schedules and local highway finance report listed in the table of contents are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. The introductory and statistical sections listed in the table of contents have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit ofthe basic financial statements, and accordingly, we express no opinion on them. April 4,2008 BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS .. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS December 31, 2007 PRIMARY GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENTAL BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES ACTIVITIES TOTAL ASSETS Cash and Investments $ 9,274,563 $ 8,232,818 $ 17,507,381 Restricted Cash and Investments 1,354,498 6,124,904 7,479,402 Accounts Receivable 334,739 2,340,778 2,675,517 Interest Receivable 23,021 4,374 27,395 Taxes Receivable 2,084,228 - 2,084,228 Inventories 36,744 748,025 784,769 Prepaid Expenses 67,538 2,992 70,530 Internal Balances , (1,099,802) 1,099,802 - Net Pension Obligation 926,817 - 926,817 Notes Receivable 1,643,300 966,700 2,610,000 Bond Issuance Costs, Net ofAccumulated Amortization 16,039 140,219 156,258 Capital Assets, Not Being Deprediated 6,817,394 2,943,951 9,761,345 Capital Assets, Net ofAccumulated Depreciation 39,051,094 23,405,460 62,456,554 TOTAL ASSETS 60,530,173 46,010,023 106,540,196 LIABILITIES Accounts Payable 420,624 1,274,276 1,694,900 Accrued Liabilities 388,138 138,617 526,755 Accrued Interest Payable . 3,636 43,739 47,375 Customer Deposits and Advances : - 122,729 122,729 Deferred Revenues 1,274,779 - 1,274,779 Noncurrent Liabilities Due Within One Year 1,417,805 823,653 2,241,458 Due in More Than One Year 297,801 8,181,446 8,479,247 TOTAL LIABILITIES 3,802,783 10,584,460 14,387,243 NET ASSETS Invested in Capital Assets, Net of Related Debt 44,604,637 23,789,534 68,394,171 Restricted for Emergencies 544,000 - 544,000 Restricted for Capital Projects 131099 6,124,904 6,256,003 Restricted for Debt Service 1,368,972 - 1,368,972 Unrestricted 10,078,682 5,511,125 15,589,807 TOTAL NET ASSETS $ 56,727,390 $ 35,425,563 $ 92,152,953 The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 1 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES Year Ended December 31,2007 PROGRAM REVENUES CHARGES OPERATING CAPITAL FOR GRANTS AND GRANTS AND FUNCTIONS/PROGRAMS EXPENSES SERVICES CONTRIBUTIONS CONTRIBUTIONS PRIMARY GOVERNMENT Governmental Activities General Government $ 3,420,170 $ 892,589 $ -$ - Public Safety 3,411,343 594,475 - 76,153 Public Works 2,197,576- 8,655 405,038 - Culture and Recreation 4,438,036 882,392 330,878 - Interest on Long-Term Debt 65,619 - - Total Governmental Activities 13,532,744 2,378,111 735,916 76,153 Business-Type Activities Light and Power 8,693,935 10,446,230 - - Water 2,687,000 2,577,482 - 688,403 Total Business-Type Activities 11,380,935 13,023,712 - 688,403 TOTAL PRIMARY GOVERNMENT $ 24,913,679 $ 15,401,823 $ 735,916 $ 764,556 GENERAL REVENUES Sales Taxes Property Taxes 1 (>Â·C Franchise Taxes Use Taxes Investment Income Miscellaneous TRANSFERS TOTAL GENERAL REVENUES AND TRANSFERS CHANGE IN NET ASSETS NET ASSETS, Beginning NET ASSETS, Ending The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 2 .. NET (EXPENSE) REVENUE AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS PRIMARY GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENTAL BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES ACTIVITIES TOTAL $ 0,527,581) $ - $ (2,527,581) (2,740,715) - 0,740,715) (1,783,883) - (1,783,883) 0,224,766) - 0,224,766) (65,619) - (65,619) 00,342,564) - (10,342,564) - 1,752,295 1,752,295 - 578,885 578,885 - 2,331,180 2,331,180 (10,342,564) 2,331,180 (8,011,384) 7,239,214 - 7,239,214 1,134,800 - 1,134,800 414,286 - 414,286 209,103 - 209,103 657,571 499,506 1,157,077 264,702 323,170 587,872 1,030,101 (1,030,101) - 10,949,777 (207,425) 10,742,352 607,213 2,123,755 2,730,968 56,120,177 33,301,808 89,421,985 $ 56,727,390 $ 35,425,563 $ 92,152,953 4 Â· Â· , TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO 2,41~40- BALANCE SHEET f- GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS December 31,2007 ~/ - URBAN .URBAN RENEWAL RENEWAL CONVENTION/ AUTHORITY AUTHORITY :..: VISITOR (CAPY[AL (DEBT GENERAL BUREAU PROJECTS) SERVICE) ASSETS Cash and Investments $ 3,542,915 $ 218,814 $ - $ 14,474 Restricted Cash and Investments - - 1,354,498 Accounts Receivable 127,661 14,701 136,836 Taxes Receivable 1,118,273 - - 965,955 Inventories - 12,373 - Prepaid Expenses 13,419 2,150 Notes Receivable 918,500 - - TOTAL ASSETS $ 5,720,768 $ 248,038 $ 136,836 $ 2,334,927 LIABILI'TIES AND FUND BALANCES LIABILrTIES Accounts Payable $ 261,149 $ 62,034 $ 5,737 $ - Accrued Liabilities 210,577 30,796 - Deferred Revenues 1,211,120 15,905 - 965,955 TOTAL LIABILITIES 1,682,846 108,735 5,737 965,955 FUND BALANCES Reserved for Inventories - 12,373 Reserved for Prepaid Expenses 13,419 2,150 - Unreserved, Reported in General Fund 4,024,503 Special Revenue Funds ~ - 124,780 Capital Projects Funds - - 131,099 - Debt Service Funds - - - 1,368,972 TOTAL FUND BALANCES 4,037,922 139,303 131,099 1,368,972 TOTAL LIABILHIES AND FUND BALANCES $ 5,720,768 $ 248,038 $ 136,836 $ 2,334,927 Amounts Reported for Governmental Activities in the Statement ofNet Assets are Diffbrent Because: Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources ant therefore, are not reported in the funds. The net pension obligation is not available to pay current expenditures and, therefore, is not reported in the funds. Other long-term assets are not available to pay current expenditures and, therefore, are deferred in the funds. Internal service funds are used by management to charge the costs of fleet maintenance, vehicle replacement health insurance, and information technology to individual funds. A portion ofthe assets and liabilities ofthe internal service funds are included in governmental activities in the statement ofnet assets. Long-term liabilities, including bonds ($895,000), bond premium ($10,077),deferred amount on refunding $10,862, bond issuance costs $16,039, certificates ofparticipation ($172,000), capital leases ($213,675), accrued interest payable ($3,636) and accrued compensated absences ($405,234), are not due and payable in the current year and, therefore, are not reported in the funds. Net Assets ofGovernmental Activities The accompanying notes are an integral part ofthe financial statements. 3 OTHERy GOVERNMENrAL FUNDS , TOTAL $ 1,908,069 $ 5,684,272 1,354,498 51,076 330,274 2,084,228 - 12,373 1,159 16,728 918,500 $ 1,960,304 $ 10,400,873 $ 63,154 $ 392,074 12,198 253,571 299 2,193,279 75,651 2,838,924 12,373 1,159 16,728 4,024,503 1,883,494 2,008,274 131,099 - 1,368,972 1,884,653 7,561,949 $ 1,960,304 45,823,182 926,817 918,500 3,170,448 (1,673,506) $ 56,727,390 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Year Ended December 31, 2007 URBAN URBAN RENEWAL RENEWAL CONVENTION/ AUTHORITY AUTHORITY VISrrOR (CAPITAL (DEBT GENERAL BUREAU PROJECTS) SERVICE) REVENUES Taxes $ 8,155,741 $ . $ . $ 841,662 Licenses and Permits 665,053 - - Intergovernmental 555,556 - . . Charges for Services 60,472 647,602 17,632 - Fines and Forfeitures 41,552 - - - Rental Income 166,850 - - 214,766 Investment Income , j 233,627 11,082 - 63,313 Miscellaneous 509,760 106,848 - - TOTAL REVENUES 10,388,611 765,532 17,632 1,119,741 EXPENDITURES Current General Government 2,465,930 - - - Public Safety 3,273,503 - - - Public Works 1,275,410 - - - Culture and Recreation 787,029 2,736,950 - - Capital Outlay - - 2,336,226 - Debt Service Principal _ ~ . 42,488 - - 860,000 Interest and Fiscal Charges TOTAL EXPENDITURES 7,801,872 2,736,950 2,336,226 902,488 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 2,586,739 (1,971,418) (2,318,594) 217,253 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers In 1,032,083 1,850,000 1,800,498 - Transfers Out (2,429,939).- . (263,103) TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) (1,397,856) 1,850,000 1,800,498 (263,103) NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES 1,188,883 (121,418) (518,096) (45,850) FUND BALANCES, Beginning 2,849,039 260,721 649,195 1,414,822 FUND BALANCES, Ending $ 4,037,922 $ 139,303 $ 131,099 $ 1,368,972 The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 4 OTHER GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS TOTAL $ - $ 8,997,403 - 665,053 302,108 857,664 11,594 737,300 41,552 92,805 474,421 126,244 434,266 52,410 669,018 - 585,161 12,876,677 269,361 2,735,291 3,273,503 4,738 1,280,148 448,748 3,972,727 690,464 3,026,690 284,161 1,144,161 23,410 65,898 1,720,882 ~ 15,498,418 ~ (1,135,721) (2,621,741) 579,939 5.262,520 (1,539,377) (4,2323]91 --1 (959,438) 1,030,101 (2,095,159) (1,591,640) 3,979,812 9,153,589 $ 1,884,653 $ 7,561,949 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO RECONCILIATION OF THE STATEMENT OF REVENUES. EXPENDmJRES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS TO THE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES Year Ended December 31, 2007 Amounts R@ortbd for Governmental Activities in the Statement ofActivities are Different Because: Net Change in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds $ 0,591,640) Capital outlays to purchase or build capital assets are reported in governmental funds as expenditures. However, for governmental activities those costs are capitalized in the statement ofnet assets and allocated over their estimated useful lives as annual depreciation expense in the statement of activities. This is the amount by which capital outlays $3,916,884 exceeded annual depreciation expense ($3,136,742) and loss on disposal ($18,076) in the current year. 762,066 Repayment of long-term debt principal is an expenditure in the governmental funds, but the repayment reduces long-ten*liabilities in the statement of net assets. These include payments on bonds $860,000, paymentsÂ·on certificates of participation $79,000, payments on capital leases $205,161, and the net decrease in accrued compensated absences ($82,511). 1,060,865 Debt proceeds provide current financial resources to governmental funds, but issuing debt increases long-term liabilities in the statement of net assets. This amount is the net effect of these differences in the treatment of long-term debt and related items: amortization of bond pfemium $12,093, amortization of bond issuance costs ($19,247), and amortization ofdeferred (20,188) amount on refunding ($13,034). Revenues in the statement ofactivities that do not provide current financial resources are not reported as revenues in the funds. (31,500) Some expenses reported in the statement of activities do not require the use of current financial resources and, therefore, are not reported as expenditures in governmental funds. This includes a decrease in accrued interest payable $1,220 and an increase in pension costs due to the change in the net pension obligation $34,656. 35,876 Internal service funds are used by management to charge the costs of fleet maintenance, vehicle replacement, health insurance and information technology to individual funds. A portion of the net income ofthe internal service funds is reported with governmental activities in the statement ofactivities. ....4 ..62. 391,734 Change in Net Assets ofGovernmental Activities $ 607,213 The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 5 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS PROPRIETARY FUNDS December 31,2007 GOVERNMENTAL BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES ACTIVITIES LIGHT AND INTERNAL POWER WATER TOTAL SERVICE ASSETS Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 4,246,676 $ 3,986,142 $ 8,232,818 $ 3,590,291 Restricted Cash and Investments 6,124,904 - 6,124,904 Accounts Receivable 1,987,559 353,219 2,340,778 4,465 Interest Receivable 2,406 1,968 4,374 23,021 Inventories 637,711 110,314 748,025 24,371 Prepaid Expenses 873 2,119 2,992 50,810 TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS 13,000,129 4,453,762 17,453,891 3,692,958 NONCURRENT ASSETS Notes Receivable 532,000 434,700 966,700 724,800 Debt Issuance Costs, Net ' 140,219 - 140,219 Capital Assets, Not Being Depreciated 227,489 2,716,462 2,943,951 - Capital Assets, Net ofAccumulated Depreciation 9,954,230 13,451,230 23,405,460 45,306 TOTAL NONCURRENT ASSETS 10,853,938 16,602,392 27,456,330 770,106 TOTAL ASSETS 23,854,067 21,056,154 44,910,221 4,463,064 LIABILITIES Current Liabilities Accounts Payable 1,129,718 144,558 1274,276 28,550 Accrued Liabilities 93,493 45,124 138,617 12,259 Accrued Interest Payable 32,666 11,073 43,739 - Customer Deposits and Advances 122,729 - 122,729 - Insurance Claims Payable - - 122,308 Compensated Absences, Current Portion 88,043 40,610 128,653 29,697 Loans Payable, Current Portion - 250,000 250,000 - Revenue Bonds Payable, Current Portion 445,000 - 445,000 - TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES 1,911,649 491,365 2,403,014 192,814 Noncurrent Liabilities Compensated Absences 20,236 31,210 51,446 - Loans Payable - 660,000 660,000 - Revenue Bonds Payable 7,470,000 ' .t ~K - 7,470,000 TOTAL NONCURRENT LIABILITIES 7,490,236 ;' 691,210 8,181,446 - TOTAL LIABILITIES 9,401,885 1,182,575 10,584,460 192,814 NET ASSETS Invested in Capital Assets, Net of Related Debt 8,531,842 15,257,692 23,789,534 45,306 Restricted for Emergencies - - 544,000 Restricted for Capital Projects / 6,124,904 j - 6,124,904 Unrestricted d (204,364) / 4,615,887 4,411,323 3,680,944 TOTAL NET ASSETS $ U4,451,182 $ 19,873,579 34,325,761 $ 4,270,250 Amounts Reported for Business-Type Activities in the Statement ofNet Assets are Different Because: Internal service funds are used by management to charge the costs offleet maintenance, vehicle replacement, health insurance and information technology to individual funds. A portion of the assets and liabilities ofthe internal service funds are included in business-type activities in the statement ofnet assets. 1,099,802 Net Assets of Business-Type Activities $ 35,425,563 The accompanying notes are an integral part ofthe financial statements. 6 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO STATEMENT OF REVENUES. EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS PROPRIETARY FUNDS Year Ended December 31, 2007 GOVERNMENTAL BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES ACTIVITIES LIGHT AND INTERNAL POWER WATER TOTAL SERVICE OPERATING REVENUES Charges for Services $ 10,446,230 $ 2,577,482 $ 13,023,712 $ 1,197,306 Miscellaneous 263,603 59,567 323,170 6,718 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 10,709,833 2,637,049 13,346,882 1,204,024 OPERATING EXPENSES Source of Supply 4,657,040 123,362 4,780,402 - Purification 489,999 489,999 Distribution 1,487,159 748,197 2,235,356 - Customer Accounts 658,655 322,499 981,154 Administration and General ' 1,333,077 500,805 1,833,882 477,824 Depreciation 574,398 473,394 1,047,792 10,393 Health Benefits - - - 379,492 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 8,710,329 2,658,256 11,368,585 867,709 OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) 1,999,504 (21,207) 1,978,297 336,315 NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES) Investment Income 269,820 229,686 499,506 223,305 Interest Expense (111,855) (68,381) (180,236) TOTAL NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES) 157,965 161,305 319,270 223,305 NET INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND TRANSFERS 2,157,469 140,098 2,297,567 559,620 Capital Contributions - 688,403 688,403 Transfers Out (932,840) (97,261) (1,030,101) CHANGE INNET ASSETS 1,224,629 6- ~ 731,240 1,955,869 559,620 NET ASSETS, Beginning, as Restated 13,227,553 19,142,339 32,369,892 3,710,630 NET ASSETS, Ending $ 14,452,182 $ 19,873,579 $ 34,325,761 $ Â· 4,270,250 Amounts Reported for Business-Type Activities in the Statement ofActivities are Different Because: Change in Net Assets of Proprietary Funds $ 1,955,869 Internal service funds are used by management to charge the costs of fleet maintenance, vehicle replacement health insurance and information technology to individual funds. A portion ofthe net income ofthe internal service funds is reported with business-type activities in the statement ofactivities. 167,886 Change in Net Assets ofBusiness-Type Activities $ 2,123,755 The accompanying notes are an integral part ofthe financial statements. 7 . TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS PROPRIETARY FUNDS Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents Year Ended December 31,2007 GOVERNMENTAL BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES ACTIVITIES LIGHT AND INTERNAL POWER WATER TOTAL SERVICE CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Cash Received from Customers $ 10,469,971 $ 2,547,498 $ 13,017,469 $ 1,197,141 Cash Received from Other Sources 263,603 59,567 323,170 6,718 Cash Paid to Suppliers (6,864,801) (1,562,630) (8,427,431) (549,924) Cash Paid to Employees (1,280,719) (484,339) (1,765,058) 025,792) Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities 2,588,054 560,096 3,148,150 328,143 CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES Transfers to Other Funds (932,840) (97,261) (1,030,101) Loans Payments Received 18,000 15,300 33,300 25,200 Net Cash Provided (Used) by Noncapital Financing Activities (914,840) (81,961) (996,801) 25,200 CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES Purchases ofCapital Assets (805,255) 026,805) (1,132,060) - Principal Paid (200,000) (235,000) (435,000) - Interest and Fees Paid (99,401) (71,411) (170,812) - Bond Issuance Costs (140,219) - 040,219) Bond Issuance 6,180,000 - 6,180,000 - Capital Contributions Received - 688,403 688,403 - Net Cash Provided by Capital and Related Financing Activities 4,935,125 55,187 4,990,312 - CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Interest Received . 269,048 229,107 498,155 202,571 Net Cash Provided by Investing Activities 269,048 229,107 498,155 202,571 NET INCREASE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS 6,877,387 762,429 7,639,816 555,914 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, Beginning 3,494,193 3,223,713 6,717,906 3,034,377 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, Ending $ 10,371,580 $ 3,986,142 $ 14,357,722 $ 3,590,291 RECONCILIATION OF OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) TO NET CASH PROVIDED BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES Operating Income (Loss) $ 1,999,504 $ (21,207) S 1,978,297 $ 336,315 Adjustments to Reconcile Operating Income (Loss) to Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities Depreciation 574,398 473,394 1,047,792 10,393 Loss on Disposal ofCapital Assets 65,202 6,501 71,703 - Changes in Assets and Liabilities Accounts Receivable 10,194 (29,984) (19,790) (165) Inventories (210,270) 10,205 (200,065) (3,825) Prepaid Expenses (678) (2,119) (2,797) (3,030) Accounts Payable 83,799 106,840 190,639 (25,416) Accrued Liabilities 37,571 11,066 48,637 2,261 Customer Deposits and Advances 13,547 - 13,547 - Insurance Claims Payable - - - 6,625 Compensated Absences 14,787 5,400 20,187 4,985 Total Adjustments 588,550 581,303 1,169,853 (8,172) Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities $ 2,588,054 $ 560,096 $ 3,148,150 $ 328,143 The accompanying notes are an integral part ofthe financial statements. 8 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO STATEMENT OF FIDUCIARY NET ASSETS December 31, 2007 ' PENSION TRUST AGENCY ASSETS Cash $ 22,401 $ - Investments Local Government Investment Pools 67,031 442,582 U.S. Agency Securities 663,849 Money Market Funds 49,441 - Mutual Funds 367,110 - TOTAL ASSETS 1,169,832 442,582 LIABILITIES Due to Friends of Stanley Hall 4 , - 442,582 TOTAL LIABILITIES t' - 442,582 NET ASSETS Held in Trust for Pension Benefits $ 1,169,832 $ - The accompanying notes are an integral part ofthe financial statements. 9 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FIDUCIARY NET ASSETS Year Ended December 31, 2007 PENSION TRUST ADDITIONS State Cohtributions $ 48,605 Town Contributions 65,168 Investment Income 36,960 TOTAL ADDITIONS 150,733 DEDUCTIONS Pension Benefit Payments 100,744 CHANGE IN NET ASSETS ' -., ~ 49,989 NET ASSETS, Beginning 1,119,843 NET ASSETS, Ending $ 1,169,832 The accompanying notes are an integral part ofthe financial statements. 10 ' 1 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2007 NOTE 1: SUMMARY OP SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES f. Â· - The Town of Estes Park, Colorado (the "Town") is a statutory municipality governed by a council- manager form of government through a Mayor and six-member Board of Trustees elected by the residents. The accounting policies of the Town and its component units conform to generally accepted accounting principles as applicable to governments. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is the accepted standard-setting body for establishing governmental accounting and financial reporting principles. Following is a summary of the more significant policies. Reporting Entity In accordance with governmental accounting standards, the Town has considered the possibility of inclusion ofadditional entities in its financial statements. The definition ofthe reporting entity is based primarily on financial accountability. The Town is financially accountable for organizations that make up its legal entity. It is also financially accountable for legally separate organizations if Town officials appoint a voting majority of the organization's governing body and either it is able to impose its will on that organization or there is a potential for the organization to provide specific financial benefits to, or to impose specific financial burdens on, the Town. The Town may also be financially accountable for organizations that are fiscally dependent Upon it. Based on the application ofthese criteria, the Town includes the following component units in its financial statements. The Estes Park UrbanRenewalAuthority (EPURA) provides redevelopmentwithin the Town limits. The Town Board ofTrustees appoints the governing board ofEPURA. EPURA is blended into the Town's financial statements because it provides services exclusively to the Town, receives all of its funding from the Town, and agreements between the entities restrict EPURA's activities to those approved by the Town Board of Trustees.. EPURA is reported using three funds, special revenue, debt service, and capital projects. The Estes Park Building Authority (Building Authority) was formed to provide fmancing for improvements to the Town-owned golf course. The Estes Valley Recreation and Park District operates the course under a management agreement. The Town Board of Trustees appoints the directors of the Building Authority. The Building Authority is reported as a debt service fund. Complete financial statements for EPURA may be obtained by contacting the Town's Finance Department at 170 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado 80517. The Building Authority does not issue separate financial statements. Â· /' 4 7 11 .. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2007 NOTE 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued) Reporting Entity (Continued) Joint Fenture - In 1975, the Town joined with the cities ofFort Collins, Longmont, and Loveland to establish the Platte River Power Authority (Authority), to provide electrical power and energy to the Town and cities. The Authority is governed by an eight-member Board. Each participant's board appoint two members tothe Authority's Board. The Town hasaresidual interest intheassets of the Authority that may revert to the Town upon dissolution of the Authority. The Town has no equity interest in the Authority. Complete financial statements of the Authority may be obtained by contacting the Platte River Power Authority at 2000 East Horsetooth Road, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80525-5721. Government-Wide and Fund Financial Statements The government-wide financial statements (i.e., the statement of net assets and the statement of activities) report information on all ofthe nonfiduciary activities ofthe Town. For the most part, the effect of interfund activity has been removed from these statements. Exceptions to this general rule are charges for interfund services that are reasonably equivalent to the services provided. Governmental activities, which normally are supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues, are reported separately from business-type activities, which rely to a significant extent on fees and charges for support. - The statement of activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of the given function or segment are offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a specific function or segment. Program revenues include 1) charges to customers or applicants who purchase, use, or directly benefit from goods, services, or privileges provided by a given function or segment and 2) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements ofa particular function or segment. Taxes and other items not properly included among program revenues are reported instead as general revenues. Separate financial statements are provided for governmental funds, proprietary funds, and fiduciary funds, even though the latter are excluded from the Town's government-wide financial statements. Major individual governmental and enterprise funds are reported as separate columns in the fund financial statements. Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting, and Financial Statement Presentation The government-wide financial statements arereported usingthe economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting, as are the proprietary fund and pension trust fund financial statements. The agency funds utilize the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when the liability is incurred, regardless of the timing ofrelated cash flows. Property taxes are recognized as revenues in the year for which they are levied. Grants and similar items are recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements imposed by the provider have been met. 12 . TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2007 NOTE 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNT]NG POLICIES (Continued) Measurement Focus, Basis ofAccounting, and Financial Statement Presentation (Continued) Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurementfocus andthemodified accrual basis ofaccounting. Revenues arerecognizedas soon as they are both measurable and available. Revenues are considered to be available when they are collected within the current year or soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities ofthe current year. For this purpose, the Town considers revenues to be available ifthey are collected within 60 days ofthe end of the curfent year. Property taxes, specific ownership taxes, sales taxes, grants, and interest associated with the current year are considered to be susceptible to accrual and so have been recognized as revenues of the current year. All other revenues are considered to be measurable and available only when cash is received by the Town. Expenditures generally are recorded when a liability is incurred, as under accrual accounting. However, debt service expenditures, as well as expenditures related to compensated absences, are recorded only when payment is due. Private-sector standards. of accounting and financial reporting issued prior to December 1,1989, generally are followed in both the government-wide and proprietary (enterprise and internal service) fund financial statements.to the extent that those standards do not conflict with or contradict guidance ofthe Governmental Accounting Standards Board. Governments also have the option of following subsequent private-sectorguidance fortheirbusiness-type activities and enterprise funds, subject to this same limitation. The Town has elected not to follow subsequent private-sector guidance. Proprietary funds distinguish operating revenues and expenses from nonoperating items. Operating revenues and expenses generally result from providing services and producing and delivering goods in connection with a proprietary fund's principal ongoing operations. Operating expenses for enterprise funds and internal service funds include the cost of sales and services, administrative expenses, and depreciation on capital assets. All revenues and expenses not meeting this definition are reported as nonoperating revenues and expenses. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the Town's practice to use restricted resources first, then unrestricted resources as they are needed. In the fund financial statements, the Town reports the following major governmental funds: The General Fund is the Town's primary operating fund. Itaccounts for all financial resources of the Town, except those required to be accounted for in another fund. The Convention/Visitor BmÂ·eau Fundaccounts for the activities ofthe Town related to tourism, and culture and recreation activities sponsored by the Town. 13 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2007 NOTE 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued) Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting, and Financial Statement Presentation (Continued) The Urban Renewal Authority Capital Projects Fund accounts for the ongoing capital projects of EPURA. The Urban Renewal,luthority Debt Service Fund accounts for the accumulation of resources for, and the payment of, long-term debt principal, interest, and related costs of EPURA. The Town reports the following major proprietary funds: The Light and Power Fund accounts for the financial activities associated with the provision of electric services. The WaterFundaccounts forthe financial activities associated with the provision ofwater services. Additionally, the Town reports the following fund types: The Internal Service Funds account for fleet maintenance, vehicle replacement, catastrophic loss health insurance, and information technology services provided to other departments of the Town on a cost reimbursement basis. The Pension Trust Funds account for the activities of the fire and police pension plans, which accumulate resources for benefits to qualified employees. The Agency Funds are used to account for resources collected to pay special assessment debt and to assist with a feasibility study and construction of a future performing arts facility. The Town holds all resources in a purely custodial capacity. Assets, Liabilities and Net Assets/Fund Balances Cash ed Investments - Cash equivalents include investments with original maturities of three months or less. Investments in pooled cash are considered cash equivalents. Investments are reported at fair value. Inte*nd Receivables/Payables - During the course of operations, numerous transactions occur between individual funds. The resulting receivables and payables are classified in the fund financial statements as due#om other,/imds and due to otherfunds ifthey are short-term in nature. Noncurrent portions of interfund receivables and payables are reported as advances and are offset equally by a fund balance reserve account which indicates that they do not constitute expendable available financial resources and therefore are not available for appropriation. Any residual balances outstanding between governmental and business-type activities are reported in the government-wide financial statements as internal balances. 14 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2007 NOTE 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued) Assets, Liabilities and Net Assets/Fund Balances (Continued) Inventories - Inventories are valued at cost, using the first-in, first-out (FIFO) method. The costs of inventories are recorded as expenditures when consumed rather than when purchased. Prepaid Expenses - Certain payments to vendors reflect costs applicable to future years and are recorded as prepaid expenses. Capital Assets - Capital assets, which include land, buildings, equipment, and all infrastructure owned bydie Town, are reported in the applicable governmental or business-type activities columns in the g6vernment-wide financial statements and the proprietary funds in the fund financial statem6nts. Capital assets are defined bythe Town as assets with an initial, individual cost of more than $5,000 and an estimated useful life in excess ofone year. Such assets are recorded at historical cost or estimated historical cost if purchased or constructed. Donated capital assets are recorded at estimated fair market value at the date ofdonation. The costs of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to the value of the asset or materially extend asset lives are not capitalized. Capital assets of the Town. are depreciated using the straight-line method over the following estimated useful lives. % ~ollect~ and Distribution Systems 30 - 40 years 25 - 50 years Streets, Bridges, and Trails 30 - 40 years Machinery and Equipment 20 - 25 years Vehicles 5 - 10 years CustomerDepositsandAdvances -Customeradvances represent amounts received fromcustomers for construction of electric service facilities at thâ‚¬ ir locations. These deposits are refunded to the customers by reducing their annual electric charges by 20% each year, for the lessor of five years or until the entire deposit has been refunded. DekrredRevenues-Deferred revenues arise when resources are received by the Town before it has a legal claim to them or when assets are not available as current financial resources in the governmental funds. Grant funding received prior to the incurrence ofqualifying expenditures and property taxes earned but not levied for the current year are reported as deferred revenues. CompensatedAbsences - Employees of the Town are allowed to accumulate unused vacation and sick time. Upon termination ofemployment from the Town, an employee will be compensated for all accrued vacation time and, if the employee has completed 20 years of continuous service, will be compensated for 50% of accrued sick time at their current pay rate. 15 .'t .. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31,2007 NOTE 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNT]NG POLICIES (Continued) Assets, Liabilities and Net Assets/Fund Balances (Continued) These compensated absences are recognized as current salary costs when earned in the proprietary funds and when due in the governmental funds. A long-term liability has been recorded in the government-wide financial statements for the accrued compensated absences. Long-Term Obligations-In the government-wide financial statements, and proprietary funds in the fund financial statements, long-term debt and other long-term obligations are reported as liabilities in the applicable governmental activities, business-type activities, or proprietary fund statement of net assets.. Bond premiums and discounts, as well as issuance costs, aredeferred and amortized over the life of the bonds using the straight-line method. In the fund financial statements, governmental funds recognize bond premiums and discounts, as well as bond issuance costs, during the current year. The face amount of debt issued is reported as other financing sources. Premiums received on debt issuances are reported as other financing sources while discounts on debt issuances are reported as other financing uses. Issuance costs, whether or not withheld from the actual debt proceeds received, are reported as debt service expenditures. Net Assets/And Balances - In the government-wide financial statements, net assets are restricted when constraints placed on the'iiet assets are externally imposed. In the fund financial statements, governmental funds reportf reservations of fund balance for amounts that are not available for appropriation or are legally restricted by outside parties for use for a specific purpose. Property Taxes Property taxes attach as an enforceable lien on property on January 1 and are levied the following January 1. Taxesarepayable in full on April 30 or intwo installments on February 28 and June 15. The County Treasurer's Office collects property taxes and remits to the Town on a monthly basis. Since property tax revenues are collected in arrears during the succeeding year, a receivable and corresponding deferred revenue are recorded at December 31. Contraband Forfeitures The Colorado Contraband Forfeiture Act allows law enforcement agencies to retain proceeds from the seizure of contraband. These proceeds are not subject to appropriation in the budget process. Cash proceeds are recorded in the General Fund. Property and equipment seized are recorded as capital assets. 16 . TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2007 NOTE 2: STEWARDSHIP. COMPLIANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY f Legal Compliance For the year ended December 31,2007, the Urban Renewal Authority Special Revenue Fund, the Urban Renewal Authority Capital Projects Fund, and the Urban Renewal Authority Debt Service Fund expenditures and transfers out exceeded the budgeted amounts by $1,541,796, $36,226, and $260,603, respectively. These may be violations of State statute. NOTE 3: CASH AND INVESTMENTS A summaryofcash and investments at December 31,2007, follows: e' Petty Cash $ 2,670 Deposits 203,799 Investments 26392.728 Total $ 26.599.197 Cash and investments are reported in the financial statements as follows: Cash and Investments . p $ 17,507,381 Restricted Cash and Investments 7,479,402 Pension Trust Funds 1,169,832 Agency Funds 442.582 Total $ 26.599.197 Deposits The Colorado Public Deposit Protection Act (PDPA) requires that all units of local government deposit cash in eligible public depositories. Eligibility is determinedby State regulations. Amounts on deposit in excess of federal insurance levels must be collateralized by eligible collateral as determined by the PDPA. The financial institution is allowed to create a single collateral pool for all public funds held. The pool is to be maintained by another institution, or held in trust for the uninsured public deposits as a group. The market value ofthe collateral must be at least equal to 102% ofthe uninsured deposits. At December 31,2007, the Town had bank deposits of$214,503 collateralized with securities held by the financial institutions' agents but not in the Town's name. ...Y' Investments The Town is required to comply with State statutes which specify investment instruments meeting defined rating, maturity, and concentration risk criteria in which local governments may invest, which include the following. State statutes do not address custodial risk. The Town's investment policy follows State statutes. State statutes do not apply to public funds held or invested as part of any pension plan. 17 .. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2007 . NOTE 3: CASH AND INVESTMENTS (Continued) Â· Investments (Continued) â€¢ Obligations ofthe United States and certain U.S. Agency securities â€¢ Certain international agency securities â€¢ General obligation and revenue bonds of U.S. local government entities â€¢ Bankers' acceptances of certain banks â€¢ Commercial paper â€¢ Local government investment pools â€¢ Written repurchase agreements collateralized by certain authorized securities â€¢ Certain money market funds â€¢ Guaranteed investment contracts At December 31,2007, the Town had the following investments: Investment Maturities (in Years) S&P Less Fair Investment Type Rating Than 1 1-5 Value Local Government Investment Pools AAAm $ 16,159,436 $ - $ 16,159,436 U.S. Treasury Securities N/A 1,008,450 509,000 1,517,450 U.S. Agency Securities AAA 999,150 5,038,993 6,038,143 Money Market Funds AAAm 1,530.268 - 1.530.268 Total $ 19.697,304 S 5.547.993 $ 25,245.297 At December 31, 2007, the Town's Pension Funds had the following investments: Investment Maturities (in Years) S&P Less Fair Investment Type Rating Than 1 1-5 Value Local Government Investment Pools AAAm $ 67,031 $ - $ 67,031 U.S. Agency Securities MA - 663,849 663,849 Money Market Funds MA 49,441 - 49,441 Mutual Funds Not Rated 367.110 - 367.110 Total $ 483,582 $ 663.849 $ 1,147,431 InterestRate Risk- State statutes limit investments in U.S. Agency securities to an original maturity of five years unless the governing board authorizes the investment for a period in excess of five years. Credit Risk - State statutes limit investments in U.S. Agency securities to the highest rating issued by two or more nationally recognized statistical rating organizations (NRSROs). State statutes also limit investments in money market funds to those that maintain a constant share price, with a maximum remaining maturity in accordance with Rule 2a-7, and either have assets of one billion dollars or the highest rating issued by a NRSRO. 18 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2007 NOTE 3: CASH AND INVESTMENTS (Continued) Investments (Continued) Concentration ofCredit Risk - State statutes do not limit the amount the Town may invest in one issuer. AtDecember31,2007, the Town's investment intheFederal Home Loan Bank, and Federal Farm Credit Bank were 9% and 7%, respectively, ofthe Town's total investments. Local GovernmentInvestmentPools - At December31,2007, the Townhad$964,539, $2,454,151, and $12,807,777, invested in the Colorado Surplus Asset Fund Trust (CSAFE), the Colorado Diversified Trust, and the Colorado Local Government Liquid Asset Trust (Colotrust), respectively, investment vehicles established by State statute for local government entities in Colorado to pool surplusÂ· funds. ~'The State Securities Commissioner administers and enforces the requirements of creating and operating the Pools. The Pools operate similarly to a money market fund and each share is equal in value to $1.00. The Pools are rated AAAm by Standard and Poor's. Investments ofthe pools are limited to those allowed by State statutes. A designated custodial bank provides safekeeping and depository services in connection with the direct investment and withdrawal functions. The custodian's internal records identify the investments owned by the participating governments. Restricted Cash and Investments EPURA held investments of$1,354,497 restricted forpayment ofdebt service and capital projects. In addition, the LightandPowerFundheld investments of$6,124,904 restricted for capital projects. NOTE 4: NOTES RECEIVABLE During 2006, the Town loaned $2,700,000 to the Estes Park Housing Authority to assist with the - acquisition of an affordable housing property. Interest accrues on the loan at 3.63% and is due quarterly, beginning September 1,2006, through June 1,2008, including an adjustment on June 1, 2007. Principal is due in full on June 1,2008. Â·At becember 31, 2007, the loan amounts of $918,500, $532,000, $434,700, and $724,800 were reported in the General, Light and Power, Water and Catastrophic Loss Funds, respectively. Subsequent to December 31,2007, the Town approved to extend the notes due to the Light and Power, Water and Catastrophic Loss Funds for an additional two years through June 2010. NOTE 5: PROPERTY HELD FOR RESALE In 2002, EPURA acquired property for resale as part ofthe urban reneWal plan. During 2004, the property was redeveloped as a commercial/residential site. Fortheyear ended December 31,2007, EPURA sold the property for $875,000. 19 .. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31,2007 NOTE 6; CAPITAL ASSETS Capital asset activity for the year ended December 31, 2007, is summarized below: Balance Balance 12/31/06 Additions Deletions 12/31/07 Governmental Activities Capital Assets, Not Being Depreciated Land $ 6,374,662 $ 400,000 $ - $ 6,774,662 Construction in Progress 102,060 /42.732 -102,060-1 42.732 Total Capital Assets, Not Being Depreciated 6,476.722 ( 442731> / 102.060 ) 6.817.394 Capital Assets, Being Depreciated Buildings t 13,812,106 141,281 560 13,952,827 Infrastructurd 93,825,849 3,160,951 - 96,986,801 Machinery.and Equipment 5.112.171 -273.979 3 10.713_ 5,315,437 Total Capitat-Assets, Being Depreciated 112.750.126 4-32.76.212< /- 71,073 1116.255.065 Less Accumulated Depreciation For Buildings (4,899,056) (414,081) (560) (5,312,577) Infrastructure (66,178,666) (2,375,192) - (68,553,858) Machinery and Equipment (3.032.311) (357.862) (52.637) (3,337.536) Total Accumulated Depreciation (74.110.033) (3.147.135) (53.197) (77.203.971) Total Capital Assets, Being Depreciated, Net 38.640.093 429.077 18.076 39,051,094 Governmental Activities Capital Assets;Net $ 45,116,815 $ 871,809 $ 120,136 $ 45,868.488 Business-Type Activities Capital Assets, Not Being Depreciated Land and Easements $ 2,943,951 $ . $ - $ 2,943.951 Capital Assets, Being Depreciated Buildings 2,345,028 24,862 - 2,369,890 Infrastructure 25,027,318 611,846 89,856 25,549,308 Machinery and Equipment 11,052,752 495.352 203.399 11,344.705 Total Capital Assets, Being Depreciated 38,425,098 1,132.060 293.255 39.263.903 Less Accumulated Depreciation For Buildings (1,442,804) (49,952) - 0,492,756) Infrastructure (8,118,683) (535,169) (89,856) (8,563,996) Machinery and Equipment (5.470.716) (462.671) (131.696) (5,801.691) Total Accumulated Depreciation (15.032.203) (1.047.792) (221.552) (15,858.443) Total Capital Assets, Being Depreciated, Net 23.392.895 84,268 71,703 23.405.460 Business-Type Activities Capital Assets, Net S 26,336,846 $ 84,268 $ 71,703 $ 26,349,411 20 , TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2007 NOTE 6: CAPITAL ASSETS (Continued) - Depreciation expense was charged to functions/programs of the Town as follows: Governmental Activities General Government $ 1,382,116 Public Safety 192,551 Public Works 972,682 Culture and Recreation 599.786 Total .. $ 3.147.135 Business-Type Activities Light and Power $ 574,398 Water 473.394 Total $ 1.047.792 NOTE 7: LONG-TERMDEBT Governmental Activities Following is a summary of long-term debt transactions for the governmental activities for the year ended December 31, 2007. Balance Balance Due Within 12/31/06 Additions Deletions 1281/07. One Year 2003 Revenue Refunding Bonds $ 1,755,000 $ - $ 860,000 $895,000 $ 895,000 Bond Premium 22,170 - 12,093 10,077 - Deferred Amount on Refunding (23,896) - (13,034) (10,862) - 1998 Certificates of Participation 251,000 - - 79,000 172,000 84,000 Capital Lease Obligations 418,836 - 205,161 213,675 213,675 Compensated Absences 347,435 308.570 220.289 435.716 225,130 Total $ 2,770.545 $ 308.570 $ 1.363,509 $ 1.715.606 $ 1.417.805 2003 Tax Increment Revenue RefundingBonds were issued by EPURA to refinance the Series 1993 Bonds. Principal payments are due annually on May 15. Interest is due semi-annually on May 15 and November 15, through 2008. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 3% to 3.25%. The bonds are payable solely from property and sales taxes collected within the increment area. During the:year ended December 31, 2007, revenues of $841,662 were available to pay annual debt service of $901388. Remaining debt service at December31,2007, was $909,544. Annualdebtservicerequirements for the outstanding bonds atDecember 31, 2007, are as follows. Year Ended December 31. Principal Interest Total 2008 $ 895,000 $ 14.544 $ 909,544 21 . I TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2007 NOTE 7: LONG-TERM DEBT (Continued) Governmental Activities (Continued) 1998 Refunding Certificates ofParticipation were issued bytheBuilding Authorityto refinance the Building Authority's 1990 Certificates ofParticipation. Principal payments are due annually on October 25. Interest payments are due quarterly on January 25, April 25, July 25 and October 25, through 2009. Interest accrues at a rate of 5.5% per annum. Annual debt service requirements for the outstanding certificates of participation at December 31,2007, are as follows. Year Ended December 31. Principal Interest Total 2008 $ 84,000 $ 9,460 $ 93,460 2009 88,000 4.840 92,840 Total $ 172,000 $ 14,300 $ 186,300 In 2003, the Town entered into a second amended capital lease agreement for the construction and equipping of the Conference Center, which will be paid from revenues of the Community Reinvestment Fund. Capital assets of$3,329,854 havebeen capitalized underthis lease agreement. Following is a schedule of the future minimum lease payments required under the outstanding capital lease obligation at December 31, 2007. Year Ended December 31. 2008 $ 217,125 Less: Amount Representing Interest O.450) Present Value of Future Minimum Lease Payments $ 213.675 Compensated absences are expected to be liquidated primarily with revenues ofthe General Fund. Business-Type Activities Following is a summary of long-term debt transactions for the business-type activities for the year ended December 31,2007. Balance Balance Due Within 12/31/06 Additions Payments 12/31/07 One Year 2007 Light and Power Revenue Bonds $ - $ 6,180,000 $ - $ 6,180,000 $ 235,000 1999 Light and Power Revenue Bonds 1,935,000 - 200,000 1,735,000 210,000 1997B Water Loan 455,000 - 80,000 375,000 85,000 1993A Water Loan 690,000 - 155,000 535,000 165,000 Compensated Absences 159,912 143.904 123,717 180.099 128,653 Total $ 3,239.912 $ 6.323.904 $ 558.717 $ 9.005.099 $ 823,653 22 I . TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2007 NOTE 7:' LONG-TERM DEBT (Contihued) Business-Type Activities (Continued) 2007 Light and Power Revenue Bonds were issued to relocate and make improvement to the Town's light and power facilities. Principal payments are due annually on November 1. Interest payments are due semi-annually on May 1 and November 1, through 2027. Interest accrues at 3.88%. The bonds are payable solely from Light and Power net revenues. During the year ended December 31,2007, revenues of $1,999,504 were available to pay annual debt service. Remaining debt service at December 31, 2007, was $8,956,011. 1999 Light add Power Revenue Bonds were issued to relocate and make improvements to the Town's light and power facilities. Principal payments are due annually on November 1. Interest payments are due semi-annually on May 1 and November 1,through 2014. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 4% to 5.45%. The bonds are payable solely from Light and Power net revenues. During the year ended December 31,2007, revenues of $1,999,504 were available to pay annual debt service of $300,940. Remaining debt service at December 31, 2007, was $2,124,762. Annual debt service requirements for the outstanding bonds at December 31,2007, are as follows. Year Ended December 31. Principal Interest Total 2008 $ 445,000 $ 302,676 $ 747,676 2009 435,000 311,009 746,009 2010 460,000 291,568 751,568 2011 480,000 270,746 750,746 2012 505,000 248,778 753,778 2013 -2017 1,935,000 917,948 2,852,948 2018 - 2022 1,655,000 584,738 2,239,738 2023 - 2027 2.000.000 238.313 2.238,313 Total $ 7.915.000 $ 3.165.776 $ 11.080.776 1997B Water Loan from the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority was obtained to finance improvements to the water system. Principal payments are due annually on October 1. Interest payments are due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1, through 2011. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 3.8% to 5%. 1993A Water Loan from the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority to finance improvements to the water system. Principal payments are due annually on November 1. Interestpayments are due semi-annually on May 1 andNovember 1, thiough 2010. Interest accrues at rates ranging from 2.7% to 5%. 23 41 .. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2007 NOTE 7: : LONG-TERM DEBT (Cohtinued) - 95 ~ Business-Type Activities (Continued) Annual debt service requirements for the outstanding loans at December 31,2007, are as follows. Year Ended December 31, Principal Interest Total 2008 $ 250,000 $ 49,293 $ 299,293 2009 270,000 28,883 298,883 2010 285,000 10,607 295,607 2011 105.000 - 105.000 Total $ 910.000 $ 88.783 $ 998.783 NOTE 8: INTERFUND TRANSFERS Interfund transfers for the year ended December 31, 2007, were comprised of the following: Transfers In Transfers Out Amount General ; ' Park Entrance - Capital Projects $ 1,982 General Light and Power 932,840 General Water 97,261 Museum General 235,895 - Senior Citizens General 144,044 - Convention/Visitors Bureau General 1,850,000 EPURA Special Revenue General 200,000 EPURA Capital Projects EPURA Special Revenue 1,537,395 EPURA Capital Projects EPURA Debt Service 263,103 $ 5.262.520 Total During the year ended December 31, 2007 the Park Entrance - Capital Projects Fund was closed and the remaining fund balance was transferred to the General Fund. Annually, the Light and Power and Water Funds reimburse the General Fund for overhead costs. The General Fund subsidizes the operations ofthe Convention/Visitor Bureau, Museum, Senior Citizens, and EPURA Special Revenue Funds. EPURA Special Revenue and EPURA Debt Service Funds subsidized capital projects and covered the negative cash of the EPURA Capital Projects Fund. 24 I . TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2007 NOTE 9: 1 RISK MANAGEMENT Public Entity Risk Pool The Town is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts; theft of, damage to, and destruction ofassets; errors and omissions; injuries to employees; and natural disasters. For these risks of loss, the Town is amemberofthe Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency(CIRSA), aseparate and independent governmental and legal entity formed by intergovernmental agreement by member municipalities pursuant to State statute. The purposes of CIRSA are to provide members defined liability, property, and workers compensation coverages and to assist members in preventing and reducing losses and injuries to municipalproperty and to persons or property which might result in claims being made against membâ‚¬rk bf CIRSA, their employees and officers. It is the intent ofthe members ofCIRSA to create an entity in perpetuity which will administer and use funds contributed bythe members to defend and indemnify, in accordance with the bylaws, any member ofCIRSA against stated liability ofloss, to the limit ofthe financial resources ofCIRSA. It is also the intent ofthe members to have CIRSA provide continuing stabilily and availability of needed coverages at reasonable costs. All income and assets of CIRSA shall be at all times dedicated to the exclusive benefit of its members. CIRSA is a separate legal entity and the Town does not approve budgets nor does it have the ability to significantly affect the operations of CIRSA. Self-Insured Medical Plan The Town is partially self-insured for health benefits to eligible employees and dependents. For the year ended December 31,2007, the Town was responsible for up to $5,000 per claim, per year. Self-insurance activities were reported in the Health Insurance Internal Service Fund. The Town recognizes claims payable at December 31, 2007, estimated at four months of premiums, to cover incurred claims should the Town terminate the health insurance contract with the commercial carrier. Settled claim amounts have not exceeded insurance coverage in the past three years. Claims payable as of and for the years ending December 31, 2007 and 2006, were as follows: Claims Payable, December 31,2005 $ 100,998 Claims Incurred and Adjustments 363,246 Claims Paid (348,561) Claims Payable, December 31,2006 115,683 Claims Incurred and Adjustments 379,492 Claims Paid (372.867) Claims Payable, December 31,2007 : $ 122.308 25 . 0 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31,2007 NOTE 10: RETIREMENT COMMITMENTS DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLAINS Management Employees and Police Money Purchase Pension Plans The Town contributes to a single-employer defined contribution money purchase pension plan on behalf of management employees and a similar plan for police officers. The contribution requirements ofPlan participants and the Town are established and may be amended by the Town Board ofTrustees. Management.Employees Plan - Management employees are eligible to participate in the Plan. The Plan is administered by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The TownÂ· is required tocontribute 10% ofeach participant's covered salary tothe Plan, and employees must contribute 7.5% of covered salary. During the year ended December 31,2007, the Town and employee contributions were $78,721 and $59,041, respectively, equal to the required contributions. Police Plan - All sworn police employees shall be eligible to participate in the Plan administered by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The Town is required to contribute 9.2% of each participating employee's covered salary, and each employee must contribute 8% of covered salary. During the year ended December 31, 2007, the Town and employee contributions were $121,384 and $105,551, respectively, equal to the required contributions. Death and disability coverage is provided for members through the Statewide Death and Disability Plan, which is administered by the Colorado Fire and Police Pension Association. All full-time, paid police officers ofthe Town are members ofthe Plan. The State Legislature establishes benefit provisions ofthe Plan. DEFINED BENEFIT PLANS Defined Benefit Multiple-Employer Pension Plan Plan Description - The Town contributes to the Municipal Division Trust Fund (MI)TF), a cost- sharing multiple-employer defined benefit pension plan administered by the Public Employee's Retirement Association of Colorado (PERA). MDTF provides retirement and disability, annual increases, and death benefits for members or their beneficiaries. Title 24, Article 51 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS), as amended, assigns the authorityto establish benefit provisions to the State Legislature. PERA issues a publicly available annual financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information for the4MDTF. That report may be obtained by contacting PERA of Colorado, 1300 Logan Street, Denver, Colorado, 80203. 26 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2007 NOTE 10: RETIREMENT COMMITMENTS (Continued) -Â·ir A U - DEFINED BENEFIT PLANS (Cont\nued) Defined Benefit Multiple-Employer Pension Plan (Continued) FundingPolicy - Plan members and the Town are required to contribute at a rate set by statute. The contribution requirements of Plan members and the Town are established under Title 24, Article 51, Part 4 ofthe CRS, as amended. The contribution rate for members was 8% and for the Town was 10.5% of covered salary. A portion ofthe Town's contribution (1.02% of covered salary) was allocated to the Health Care TrustFund (SeeNote 11). The Town's contributions to MDTF forthe years ended December 31, 2007, 2006, and 2005 were $406,922, $375,528, and $356,245, respectively, equal to the required contributions for each year. Volunteer Firefighters' Pension Plan Plan Description - The Town has established a single-employer defined benefit pension plan for volunteer firefighters as authorized by State statute. The Plan is administered by a Board of Trustees composed ofTown Trustee members and firefighters. The Board ofTrustees established the Plan benefits. Any firefighter who has both attained the age offifty and completed twenty years of active service shall be eligible for a monthly pension, currently $350. A firefighter who is disabled in the line of duty and whose disability is of such character and magnitude as to deprive the firefighter ofearning capacity and extends beyond one year, shall be compensated in an amount determined by the BoardofTrustees. Currently, the Plan covers 25 retirees and beneficiaries, has one inactive member eligible to receive benefits and 30 active members. The Plan does not publish a separate stand-alone report, but is included in these financial statements as a Pension Trust Fund. Funding Policy - The Volunteer Firefighters' Pension Plan may receive contributions from the Town in an amount not to exceed one-halfmill ofproperty tax revenue. As established by the State Legislature, the State of Colorado contributes ninety percent of the Town's contribution. The contribution requirements ofthe Town and Plan members are established and may be amended by the Town Board ofTrustees. The contributions are not actuarially determined. An actuary is used to determine the adequacy of contributions. The actuarial study as of January 1, 2007, indicated that the current level of contributions to the Plan are adequate to support on an actuarially sound basis the prospective benefits, including administrative costs, for the present Plan. Actuarial assumptions included the following: Actuarial Cost Method - Entry age Interest Rate - 5.5% per annum, compounded annually Retirement - Age 50 and 20 years of service Disability - None Mortality - 1994 Group Annuity Mortality Table Marital Status - 90% married Age Difference - Males assumed to be 3 years older Asset Valuation - Market value 27 . 0 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2007 NOTE 10: RETIREMENT COMMITMENTS (Continued) DEFINED BENEFIT PLANS (Continued) Volunteer Firefighters' Pension Plan (Continued) Based on an amortization period ofthirty-four years using the level dollar method on an open basis, the Plan's expected contributions exceed the amount recommended to eliminate the unfunded actuarial accrued liability. During the year ended December 31, 2007, the Town and the State contributed $65,168 and $48,605, respectively, to the Plan. The Plan's net,pension obligation for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006, and 2005 respectively, was as follows: 2007 2006 2005 Annual Required Contribution $ 70,001 $ 93,315 $ 93,315 Interest on Net Pension Obligation (49,069) (39,471) (38,912) Adjustment to Net Pension Obligation 58.185 50.734 49.287 Annual Pension Cost (APC) 79,117 104,578 103,690 Contributions Made (113,773) (119,600) (116.117) Change in Net Pension Obligation (34,656) (15,022) (12,427) Net Pension Obligation, Beginning.. (892.161) (877.139) (864.712) Net Pension Obligation, Endirig $ (926.817) $ (892.161) $ (877.139) Trend information ofthe Plan follows: Percentage Net Fiscal Year Annual Pension of APC Pension Ending Cost (APO Contributed Obligation 12/31/07 $ 79,117 144% - $ (926,817) 12/31/06 104,578 114% (892,161) 12/31/05 103,690 112% (877,139) 12/31/04 99,247 114% (864,712) 12/31/03 98,496 113% (851,225) 12/31/02 58,234 176% (838,740) Police Pension Plan Plan Description - The Town administers the single-employer Police Defined Benefit Pension Plan. Membership in the Plan consists ofone individual currently receiving benefits. The monthly benefit is $214 with no future increases scheduled. The Plan is closed to new entrants. Plan provisions and contributions are established and may be amended by the Town Board of Trustees. The Plan is included in these financial statements as a Pension Trust Fund. 28 . TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2007 NOTE 10; RETIREMENT COMMITMENTS (Continued) DEFINED BENEFIT PLANS (Cont\nued) Police Pension Plan (Continued) Funding Policy - No additional contributions are required by the Town based on an actuarial study completed in 1986. No further actuarial evaluations have been prepared. NOTE 11: POST-EMPLOYMENT HEALTHCARE BENEF[TS Defined Beliefit Multiple-Employer Pension Plan Plan Description - The Town contributes to the Health Care Trust Fund (HCTF), a cost-sharing multiple-employer postemployment healthcare plan administered by PERA. The HCTF provides a health care premium subsidy to PERA participating benefit recipients and their eligible beneficiaries. Title 24, Article 51, Part 12 of the CRS, as amended, assigns the authority to establish the HCTF benefit provisions to the State Legislature. PERA issues a publicly available annual financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information for the HCTF. That report may be obtained by writing to PERA ofColorado, 1300 Logan Street, Denver, Colorado 80203. Funding Policy - The Town was required to contribute at a rate of 1.02% of covered salary for all PERA members as set by statute. No member contributions are required. The contribution requirements for the Town are established by under Title 24, Article 51, Part 4 of the CRS, as amended. The Town's contributions to the HCTF for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006, and 2005, were $37,689, $36,382, and $36,337, respectively, equal to the required contributions for each year. Other Post-Employment Healthcare Benefits The Town provides health insurance to embloyees retiring between the ages of60 and 65. To be eligible, the employee must have been employed by the Town for at least 15 years. Coverage terminates at age 65. Payments are funded by the Town on a pay-as-you-go basis. During the year ended December 31,2007, the Town paid benefits of $29,291 to four retirees under this plan. 29 .. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2007 NOTE 12: PENSION TRUST FUNDS Combining statements for the Town's pension trust funds as of and for the year ended December 31,2007, were as follow: Fire Police Pension Pension Total Assets Cash and Investments $ 1.164.388 $ 5,444 $ 1.169.832 Net Assets Held in Trust for Pension Benefits $ 1.164.388 $ 5.444 $ 1,169.832 Additions State Contributions $ 48,605 $ - $ 48,605 Town Contribiltions 65,168 - 65,168 Investment Income 36,708 252 36.960 Total Additions 150.481 252 150.733 Pension Benefit Payments 98.179 2.565 100,744 Change in Plan Net Assets 52,302 (2,313) 49,989 Plan Net Assets, Beginning , 1.112,086 7.757 1,I 19,843 Plan Net Assets, Endingl $ 1.164.388 $ 5.444 $ 1.169.832 NOTE 13: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Tabor Amendment Colorado voters passed an amendment to the State Constitution, Article X, Section 20, which has severallimitations, including revenueraising, spending limitations, and other specific requirements of state and local government. In November, 2000, voters within the Town authorized the Town and EPURA to collect and retain all revenue in excess of the revenue limitations of the Amendment, and to spend all such revenues by transferring said revenues into the Community Reinvestment Fund for the purpose of acquisition, maintenance, repair and replacement of capital projects. The Town has established an emergency reserve, representing 3% of qualifying expenditures, as required by the Amendment. At December 31, 2007, the emergency reserve of $544,000 was reported as restricted net assets ofthe governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements and as restricted net assets in the Catastrophic Loss Internal Service Fund in the fund financial statements. 30 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31,2007 NOTE 13: COMM[TMENTS Â·AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued) Claims and Judgements The Town participates in a number of federal, state, and local programs that are fully or partially funded by grants received from other governmental units. Expenses financed by grants are subject to audit by the appropriate grantor government. If expenses are disallowed due to noncompliance with grant program regulations, the Town may be required to reimburse the grantor government. As of December 31, 2007, significant amounts of grant expenses have not been audited but management believes that subsequent audits will not have a material effect on the overall financial position of the Town. Litigation The Town is involved in various lawsuits. The outcome of this litigation cannot be determined at this time. Unconditional Purchase Obligation The Town is a participant in the Municipal Subdistrict Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The purpose of the .Subdistrict is to provide a supplemental water supply to the participants through the constfudion of the Windy Gap Project. The Town is an .8% participant in the Subdistrict. i. t C'' The Subdistrict issued bonds in 1986 tofinance the Windy Gap Project. The bonds have sincebeen refinanced. The participants have agreed to service this debt and pay operating expenses through water allotment contracts. The Town's required payments under this agreement are as follows: Year Ended December 31. 2008 $ 62,017 2009 61,970 2010 61,970 2011 61,970 2012 61,970 2013 - 2017 313.560 Total $ 623.457 31 .. REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO REOUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SCHEDULE OF FUNDING PROGRESS VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER'S PENSION PLAN Year Ended December 31,2007 UAAL as a Actuarial Percentage of Actuarial Actuarial Accrued Unfunded AAL Covered Valuation Value of Liability (AAL) (IJAAL) Funded Ratio Covered Payroll Date Assets (a) Entry Age (b) (b-a) (a/b) Payroll (c) ((b-a)/c) 1/1/97 $ 656,734 $ 821,522 $ 164,788 79.9% NA NA 1/1/99 758,599 845,446 86,847 89.7% NA NA 1/1/01 832,559 1,139,599 307,040 73.1% NA NA 1/1/03 933,823 Â· ~' < 1,588,888 655,065 58.8% NA NA 1/1/05 996,027 1,617,178 621,151 61.6% NA NA 1/1/07 1,112,086 1,496,221 384,135 74.3% NA NA See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 32 .. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO GENERAL FUND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31, 2007 VARIANCE ORIGINAL FINAL Positive BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Taxes Sales $ 6,879,014 $ 7,106,528 $ 7,239,214 $ 132,686 Property 309,337 309,337 293,138 (16,199) Franchise 419,596 419,916 414,286 (5,630) Use 199,095 199,095 209,103 10,008 Licenses and Permits 528,898 609,183 665,053 55,870 Intergovernmental 544,567 574,253 555,556 (18,697) Charges for Services - 45,434 60,472 15,038 Fines and Forfeitures 26,645 29,750 41,552 11,802 Rental Income 171,709 171,709 166,850 (4,859) Investment Income 75,000 200,000 233,627 33,627 Miscellaneous ' 432,879 512,103 509,760 (2,343) TOTALREVENUES 9,586,740 10,177,308 10,388,611 211,303 EXPENDITLIRES General Government Legislative 149,190 132,542 105,002 27,540 Judicial 39,628 38,979 38,756 223 Executive 368,694 381,709 379,855 1,854 Election 4,840 1,712 1,712 Administrative Â· 237,199 237,199 218,640 18,559 Community Development i 447,501 441,356 425,089 16,267 Buildings 385,337 3,600 489,560 499,101 457,483 41,618 Community Services 385,337 381,737 Other 279,390 304,990 457,656 (152,666) Total General Government 2,401,339 2,422,925 2,465,930 (43,005) Public Safety Police 2,324,614 2,594,830 2,597,254 (2,424) Fire 483,298 441,925 406,741 35,184 Protective Inspection 280,155 . 278,894 269,508 9,386 Total Public Safety 3,088,067 3,315,649 3,273,503 42,146 Public Works Engineering 133,897 137,695 82,727 54,968 Streets 1,433,944 1,481,628 1,192,683 288,945 Total Public Works 1,567,841 1,619,323 1,275,410 343,913 Culture and Recreation Parks and Recreation 991,319 868,540 787,029 81,511 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 8,048,566 8,226,437 7,801,872 424,565 (Continued) See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 33 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO GENERAL FUND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31, 2007 ORIGINAL FINAL Positive L VARIANCE ,~t-\ g'- BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) /t.J EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES 1,538,174 1,950,871 2,586,739 635,868 ' tr OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) in 1 . /./ Transfers In 1,003,776 20054796 ) 1,032,083 28,307 Wf Transfers Out (2,623,539) /(%623,539~/ (2,429,939) 193,600 TOTAL OlHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) (1,619,763) % /1,617,74Â§) (1,397,856) 221,907 1/ NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE (81,589) 93,128 1,188,883 855,755 FUND BALANCE, Beginning --~. y 3,059,866 2,849,037 2,849,039 2 FUND BALANCE, Ending ' $ 2,978,277 $ 3,182,165 $ 4,037,922 $ 855,757 /5 C% See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 34 I - n .. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO CONVENTION/VISITOR BUREAU FUND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31,2007 VARIANCE ORIGINAL FINAL Positive BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Charges For Services $ 638,851 $ 617,271 $ 647,602 $ 30,331 Investment Income 1,850 9,000 11,082 2,082 Miscellaneous 98,500 151,904 106,848 05,056) TOTAL REVENUES 739,201 778,175 765,532 (12,643) EXPENDITURES Current Culture and Recreation 1 2,787,622 2,809,400 2,736,950 72,450 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,787,622 2,809,400 2,736,950 72,450 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (2,048,421) (2,031,225) (1,971,418) 59,807 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Transfers In 1,850,000 1,850,000 1,850,000 - NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE (198,421) (181,225) (121,418) 59,807 FUND BALANCE, Beginning , 246,137 260,721 260,721 - FUND BALANCE, Ending $ 47,716 $ 79,496 $ 139,303 $ 59,807 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 35 .. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO REOUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION December 31, 2007 NOTE 1: STEWARDSHIP. COMPLIANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY Budgets and Budgetary Accounting The Town follows these procedures in establishing the budgetary data reflected in the financial statements: â€¢ In October, the Town Administration submits to the Board of Trustees a proposed operating budget forthe fiscal year commencingthe following January 1. The operating budget includes proposed expenditures and the means of financing them. â€¢ Public h##rings are conducted to obtain taxpayer comments. â€¢ Pri6r to December 31, the budget is legally enacted through passage of a resolution. â€¢ The Town Administration is authorized to transfer budgeted amounts between departments within any fund. However, any revisions that alter the total expenditures of any fund must be approved by the Board of Trustees. â€¢ Budgets are legally adopted for all funds of the Town. Fiduciary fund budgets are not required and have not been presented.. Budgets are not presented for the Vehicle Replacement and Catastrophic Loss Internal Service Funds because no expenditures were incurred during the year. Budgets for theG@neral, Special Revenue, Debt Service, and Capital Projects Funds are adopted on a basis tonsistent with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Budgetary comparisons presented for the Enterprise and Internal Service Funds are presented onanon-GAAP budgetary basis. Capitaloutlayisbudgeted asan expenditure and depreciation is not budgeted. â€¢ All budget appropriations lapse at year end. Colorado governments may not exceed budgeted appropriations at the fund level. Legal Compliance For the year ended December 31,2007, the Urban Renewal Authority Special Revenue Fund, the Urban Renewal Authority Capital Projects Fund, and the Urban Renewal Authority Debt Service Fund expenditures and transfers out exceeded the budgeted amounts by $1,541,796, $36,226, and $260,603, respectively. These may be violations of State statute. 36 . 1 kk -,-1- I. - 1 COMBINING AND INDIVIDUAL FUND STATEMENTS AND SCHEDULES TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO COMBINING BALANCE SHEET NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS , December 31, 2007 SPECIAL REVENUE COMMUNITY CONSERVATION OPEN REINVESTMENT MUSEUM TRUST SPACE ASSETS Cash and Investments $ 1,162,061 $ 85,518 $ 108,888 $ 413,622 Restricted Cash and Investments - - - - Accounts Receivable - 5,916 - 43,583 Prepaid Expenses - 107 TOTAL ASSETS $ 1,162,061 $ 91,541 $ 108,888 $ 457,205 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES,7 LIABILITIES Accounts Payable $ 15,885 $ 8,636 $ -$ 19,548 Accrued Liabilities - 5,970 Deferred Revenues , - 299 - - TOTAL LIABILITIES 15,885 14,905 - 19,548 FUND BALANCES Reserved for Prepaid Expenses - 107 - Unreserved, Reported in Special Revenue Funds 1,146,176 76,529 108,888 437,657 TOTAL FUND BALANCES 1,146,176 76,636 108,888 437,657 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES >$ 1,162,061 $ 91,541 $ 108,888 $ 457,205 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 37 CAM'[AL DEBT PROJECTS SERVICE URBAN SENIOR RENEWAL PARK. BUILDING CrnZENS AUTHORrrY ENIRANCE AUTHORITY TOTAL $ 16,507 $ 121,473 $ - $ - $ 1,908,069 I I . I 1,577 - - - 51,076 44 1,008 - - 1,159 $ 18,128 $ 122,481 $ - $ - $ 1,960,304 $ 1,513 $ 17,572 $ . $ $ 63,154 3,458 I2,770 - - 12,198 - - - 299 4,971 20,342 - - 75,651 44 1,008 - - 1,159 13,113 101,131 - - 1,883,494 13,157 102,139 - 1,884,653 $ 18,128 $ 122,481 $ - $ - $ 1,960,304 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES. EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES NONMAJOR GOVERN?vENTAL FUNDS Year Ended December 31, 2007 SPECIAL REVENUE COMMUNITY CONSERVATION OPEN REINVESTMENT MUSEUM TRUST SPACE REVENUES Intergovernmental $ -$ -$ 29,310 $ 270,323 Charges for Services - 1,888 - - Rental Income - - Investment Income 68,397 3,488 4,892 20,118 Miscellaneous 560 26,986 - - TOTAL REVENUES 68,957 32,362 34,202 290,441 EXPENDITURES Current General Government . . - Public Works 4,738 - - Culture and Recreation - 258,520 - - Capital Outlay 218,959 - 12,994 458,511 Debt Service Principal 205,161 - - - Interest and Fiscal Charges 9,605 - - - TOTAL EXPENDITURES . '438,463 258,520 12,994 458,511 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (369,506) (226,158) 21,208 (168,070) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Transfers In - 235,895 - Transfers Out - - - TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES - 235,895 - NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES 069,506) : 9,737 21,208 (168,070) FUND BALANCES, Beginning 1,515,682 66,899 87,680 605,727 FUND BALANCES, Ending $ 1,146,176 $ 76,636 $ 108,888 $ 437,657 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 38 .. . C .. CAPrrAL DEBT PROJECTS SERVICE URBAN SENIOR RENEWAL PARK BUILDING CITIZENS AUTHORITY ENTRANCE AUTHORITY TOTAL $ 2,475 $ . $ -$ -$ 302,108 9,706 - . 0 11,594 - - - 92,805 92,805 29,349 - - 126,244 24,759 105 - - 52,410 36,940 29,454 - 92,805 585,161 - 269,361 . . 269,361 - - - 4,738 190,228 - - - 448,748 - - - - 690,464 - - 79,000 284,161 - - - 13,805 23,410 190,228 269,361 92,805 1,720,882 053,288) (239,907) - - (1,135,721) 144,044 200,000 - - 579,939 (1,537,395) (1,982) - 0,539,377) 144,044 (1,337,395) (1,982) - (959,438) (9,244) (1,577,302) (1,982) - 0,095,159) 22,401 1,679,441 1,982 - 3,979,812 $ 13,157 $ 102,139 $ . $ - $ 1,884,653 'l TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31, 2007 VARIANCE ORIGINAL FINAL Positive BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Intergovernmental $-$ $ -$ Investment Income 435,000 60,000 68,397 8,397 Miscellaneous . - 560 560 TOTAL REVENUES 435,000 60,000 68,957 8,957 EXPENDITURES Current , Public Works ~' ' 22,892 19,362 4,738 14,624 Capital Outlay 702,108 287,096 218,959 68,137 Debt Service Principal 205,161 205,161 205,161 - Interest and Fiscal Charges 9,605 9,605 9,605 - TOTAL EXPENDITURES 939,766 521,224 438,463 82,761 NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE (504,766) (461,224) (369,506) 91,718 FUND BALANCE, Beginning , 1,557,423 1,515,682 1,515,682 - FUND BALANCE, Ending '$ 1,052,657 $ 1,054,458 $ 1,146,176 $ 91,718 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 39 a . TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO MUSEUM FUND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31, 2007 VARIANCE ORIGINAL FINAL Positive BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Intergovernmental $ 999 $ 1,998 $ -$ 0,998) Charges for Services 1,200 1,402 1,888 486 Investment Income 2,400 3,000 3,488 488 Miscellaneous 29,784 29,725 26,986 (2,739) TOTAL REVENUES 34,383 36,125 32,362 O,763) EXPENDITURES Current Culture and Recreation . AN:Â·' 525: 285,130 279,202 258,520 20,682 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (250,747) (243,077) (226,158) 16,919 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Transfers In 235,895 235,895 235,895 - NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE (14,852) (7,182) 9,737 16,919 FUND BALANCE, Beginning 60,125 66,899 66,899 - FUND BALANCE, Ending $ , 45,273 $ 59,717 $ 76,636 $ 16,919 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 40 hi XI TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO CONSERVATION TRUST FUND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31, 2007 VARIANCE ORIGINAL FINAL Positive BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES, Intergovernmental $ 32000 $ 32,000 $ 29,310 $ (2,690) Investment Income 2,900 4,500 4,892 392 TOTAL REVENUES 34,900 36,500 34,202 (2,298) EXPENDITURES Capital Outlay 44,500 24,500 12,994 11,506 NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE 1 (9,600) 12,000 21,208 9,208 FUND BALANCE, Beginning < -i ' 76,129 87,680 87,680 - FUND BALANCE, Ending $ 66,529 $ 99,680 $ 108,888 $ 9,208 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 41 .. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO OPEN SPACE FUND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31, 2007 VARIANCE ORIGINAL FINAL Positive BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Intergovernmental $ 235,000 $ 235,043 $ 270,323 $ 35,280 Investment Income 19,000 18,000 20,118 2,118 TOTAL REVENUES 254,000 253,043 290,441 37,398 EXPENDWURES Capital Outlay 658,400 553,141 458,511 94,630 NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE. (404,400) (300,098) (168,070) (57,232) FUND BALANCE, Beginning: ; 531,589 605,727 605,727 - FUND BALANCE, Ending $ 127,189 $ 305,629 $ 437,657 $ (57,232) 04â€¢ See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 42 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO SENIOR CITIZENS FUND BIJDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31, 2007 VARIANCE I. 5.'...<21 ORIGINAL FINAL Positive BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Intergovernmental $ 2,475 $ 2,475 $ 2,475 $ - Charges for Services 13,595 13,995 9,706 (4,289) Miscellaneous 27,820 27,388 24,759 (2,629) TOTAL REVENUES 43,890 43,858 36,940 (6,918) EXPENDITURES Current Culture and Recreation 208,093 201,812 190,228 11,584 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER* (UNDER) EXPENDITURES' (164,203) (157,954) (153,288) 4,666 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Transfers In 144,044 144,044 144,044 - NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE (20,159) (13,910) (9,244) 4,666 FUND BALANCE, Beginning 29,319 22,401 22,401 - FUND BALANCE, Ending "$ , 9,160 $ 8,491 $ 13,157 $ 4,666 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 43 .. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY (SPECIAL REVENUE) BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31, 2007 VARIANCE ORIGINAL FINAL Positive BUDGET BUDGET ACIUAL (Negative) REVENUES Investment Income $ 31,929 $ 65,000 $ 29,349 $ (35,651) Miscellaneous . - 105 105 TOTAL REVENUES 31,929 65,000 29,454 (35,546) EXPENDITURES Current General Government 231,929 265,000 269,361 0,361) TOTAL EXPENDITURES'... 231,929 265,000 269,361 (4,361) EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (IJNDER) EXPENDITURES (200,000) (200,000) (239,907) (39,907) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Transfers In 200,000 200,000 200,000 - Transfers Out . . (1,537,395) (1,537,395) TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES - : 200,000 200,000 (1,337,395) (1,537,395) NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE , - - (1,577,302) (1,577,302) FUND BALANCE, Beginning - 1,679,441 1,679,441 FUND BALANCE, Ending $ . $ . $ 102,139 $ 102,139 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 44 0 . 1 1 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO BUILDING AUTHORITY BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31,2007 ORIGINAL AND VARIANCE FINAL Positive BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Rental Income $ 92,805 $ 92,805 $ - TOTALREVENUES 92,805 92,805 EXPENDITURES Debt Service Principal - 79,000 79,000 - Interest and Fiscal Charges 13,805 13,805 - TOTAL EXPENDITURES:.. 92,805 92,805 - NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE - - FUND BALANCE, Beginning - - FUND BALANCE, Ending $ - $ -$ See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 45 t. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO IJRBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY (CAPITAL PROJECTS) BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31,2007 ORIGINAL VARIANCE AND FINAL Positive BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Investment Income $ 15,000 $ 17,632 $ 2,632 TOTALREVENUES 15,000 17,632 2,632 EXPENDITURES Capital Outlay 2,300,000 2,336,226 (36,226) TOTAL EXPENDITURES ~ -r ~ 2,300,000 2,336,226 06,226) - .1- 2 / EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDAURES (2,285,000) (2,318,594) 03,594) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers In - 1,800,498 1,800,498 NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE (2,285,000) (518,096) 1,766,904 FUND BALANCE, Beginning - 649,195 649,195 FUND BALANCE, Ending $ (2,285,000) $ 131,099 $ 2,416,099 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 46 4 . TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY (DEBT SERVICE) BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31, 2007 ORIGINAL AND VARIANCE FINAL Positive BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Incremental Property Taxes $ 800,000 $ 841,662 $ 41,662 Rental Income 214,766 214,766 - Investment Inoome 20,000 63,313 43,313 TOTAL REVENUES 1,034,766 1,119,741 84,975 EXPENDITURES ~ DebtÂ·Service Principal 860,000 860,000 - Interest and Fiscal Charges -''JZ: 44,988 42,488 2,500 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 904,988 902,488 2,500 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES CUSES) Transfers Out - (263,103) (263,103) NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE 129,778 (45,850) 87,475 FUND BALANCE, Beginning - 1,414,822 1,414,822 FUND BALANCE, Ending $ 129,778 $ 1,368,972 $ 1239,194 :31. See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 47 .'. . 1. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO LIGHT AND POWER FUND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31, 2007 VARIANCE ORIGINAL FINAL Positive BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Utility Sales $ 10,303,317 $ 10,232,523 $ 10,446,230 $ 213,707 Miscellaneous 292,275 367,525 263,603 (103,922) Bond Issuance - 6,180,000 6,180,000 Investment Income 150,000 187,000 269,820 82,820 TOTAL REVENUES 10,745,592 16,967,048 17,159,653 192,605 EXPENDITURES Cuirent Source of Supply 4,785,000 4,791,428 4,657,040 134,388 Distribution 1,580,284 2,968,802 1,487,159 1,481,643 Customer Accounts 678,784 683,385 658,655 24,730 Administration and General 1,680,335 1,379,602 1,333,077 46,525 Capital Outlay 1,131,350 - 805,255 (805,255) Debt Service Principal - - 200,000 (200,000) Interest 300,940 340,721 111,855 228,866 Bond Issue Costs - 140,219 140,219 - Transfers Out . 974,662 976,682 932,840 43,842 TOTAL EXPENDITURES '11,131,355 11,280,839 10,326,100 954,739 CHANGE IN NET ASSETS, Budgetary Basis $ (385,763) $ 5,686,209 6,833,553 $ 1,147,344 ADJUSTMENTS TO GAAP BASIS Debt Principal Payments 200,000 Bond Issuance (6,180,000) Bond Issue Costs 140,219 Capital Outlay 805,255 Depreciation (574,398) CHANGE INNET ASSETS, GAAP Basis 1,224,629 NET ASSETS, Beginning 13,227,553 NET ASSETS, Ending $ 14,452,182 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 48 1 1 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO WATER FUND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31, 2007 VARIANCE ORIGINAL FINAL Positive BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Utility Sales $ 2,291,572 $ 2,255,960 $ 2,577,482 $ 321,522 Miscellaneous 11,676 84,696 59,567 (25,129) Investment Income 115,000 175,000 229,686 54,686 Tap Fees 525,000 629,079 688,403 59,324 TOTAL REVENUES 2,943,248 3,144,735 3,555,138 410,403 EXPENDITURES Current Source of Supply 146,531 146,531 123,362 23,169 Purification 541,648 550,764 489,999 60,765 Distribution 841,756 1,284,643 748,197 536,446 Customer Accounts 317,921 328,709 322,499 6,210 Administration and General 761,012 770,709 500,805 269,904 Capital Outlay 338,045 - 326,805 (326,805) Debt Service Principal 235,000 235,000 235,000 - Interest 71,410 71,410 68,381 3,029 Transfers Out 100,081 100,081 97,261 2,820 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 3,353,404 3,487,847 2,912,309 575,538 CHANGE IN NET ASSETS, Budgetary Basis ~ 20 $ (410,156) $ (343,112) 642,829 $ 985,941 ADJUSTMENTS TO GAAP BASIS Debt Principal Payments 235,000 Capital Outlay 326,805 Depreciation (473,394) CHANGE IN NET ASSETS, GAAP Basis 731,240 NET ASSETS, Beginning, as Restated 19,142,339 NET ASSETS, Ending $ 19,873,579 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report 49 .. 1 '1 . TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO COMBIN[NG STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS December 31, 2007 .. FLEET VEHICLE CATASTROPHIC MAN:rENANCE REPLACEMENT LOSS ASSETS Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 258,629 $ 1,194,932 $ 1,585,604 Accounts Receivable . . Interest Receivable - - 23,021 Inventories 24,371 Prepaid Expenses - - TOTAL CURRRENT ASSETS 283,000 1,194,932 1,608,625 Noncurrent Assets Notes Receivable - - - 724,800 Capital Assets, Net ofAccumulated Depreciation 23,107 - TOTAL NONCURRRENT ASSETS 23,107 - 724,800 TOTAL ASSETS 306,107 1,194,932 2,333,425 LIABILITIES Current Liabilities Accounts Payable 15,997 - Accrued Liabilities 6,403 - - Insurance Claims Payable Compensated Absences, Current Portion 13,832 - - TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES 36,232 - . NET ASSETS Invested in Capital Assets 23,107 - - Restricted for Emergencies - - 544,000 Unrestricted 246,768 1,194,932 1,789,425 TOTAL NET ASSETS $ 269,875 $ 1,194,932 $ 2,333,425 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 50 .4 . HEALTH I i INFORMATION INSURANCE Â·, TECHNOLOGY TOTAL $ 517,271 $ 33,855 $ 3,590,291 4,465 - 4,465 - - 23,021 - - 24,371 150 50,660 50,810 521,886 84,515 3,692,958 724,800 - 22,199 45,306 - 22,199 770,106 521,886 106,714 4,463,064 4,805 7,748 28,550 - 5,856 12,2591 122,308 - = 122,308 - 15,865 -' 29,697 127,113 29,469 192,814 - 22,199 45,306 - - 544,000 394,773 55,046 3,680,944 $ 394,773 $ 77,245 $ 4,270,250 .. 11 . TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES. EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Year Ended December 31,2007 FLEET VEHICLE CATASTROPHIC MAn4TENANCE REPLACEMENT LOSS OPERATING REVENUES Charges for Services $ 232,191 $ 269,367 $ - Miscellaneous 493 - TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 232,684 269,367 - OPERATING EXPENSES Salaries and Benefits 175,931 - - Supplies 6,993 - - Utilities 3,849 - Training 3,358 - - Insurance 5,425 - - Maintenance and Repairs 17,158 - - Professional Fees 8,218 - Depreciation 4,050 - - Health Benefits TOTAL OPERAT[NG EXPENSES 224,982 - OPERATING INCOME 7,702 269,367 - NONOPERATING REVENUES Investment Income '"' 11,696 59,514 121,442 TOTAL NONOPERATING REVENUES 11,696 59,514 121,442 CHANGE IN NET ASSETS 19,398 328,881 121,442 NETASSETS, Beginning 250,477 866,051 2,211,983 NET ASSETS, Ending $269,875 $ 1,194,932 $ 2,333,425 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 51 D . HEALTH -9 INFORMATION INSURANCE TECHNOLOGY TOTAL $ 390,278 $ 305,470 $ 1,197,306 6,225 - 6,718 396,503 305,470 1,204,024 - 157,107 333,038 - 19,628 26,621 - 1,929 5,778 665 4,023 - 1,214 6,639 76,349 93,507 - - 8,218 - 6,343 10,393 379,492 - 379,492 379,492 263,235 867,709 17,011 42,235 336,315 27,375 3,278 223,305 27,375 3,278 223,305 44,386 45,513 559,620 350,387 31,732 3,710,630 . $ 394,773 $ 77,245 $ 4,270,250 1 . TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents Year Ended December 31, 2007 FLEET VEH[CLE CATASTROPHIC MAINTENANCE REPLACEMENT LOSS CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Cash Received from Customers $ 232,191 $ 269,367 $ - Cash Received from Other Sources 493 - Cash Paid to Suppliers (43,452) - - Cash Paid to Employees (167,939) - . Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities 21,293 269,367 - CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES Loan Payments Received - - 25,200 Net Cash Provided by Noncapital Financing Activities - - 25,200 CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Interest Received 11,696 59,514 100,708 NET INCREASE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS 32,989 328,881 125,908 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, Beginning 225,640 866,031 1,459,696 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, Ending $ 258,629 $ 1,194,932 $ 1,585,604 RECONCILIATION OF OPERATING INCOME TONET CASH PROVIDED BY OPERATING ACTIVmES Operating Income $ 7,702 269,367 $ - Adjustments to Reconcile Operating Income to Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities Depreciation 4,050 - - Changes in Assets and Liabilities Accounts Receivable . Inventories (3,825) Prepaid Expenses - - - Accounts Payable '... 5,374 Accrued Liabilities 1,183 Insurance Claims Payable - 1 Compensated Absences 6,809 - - Total Adjustments 13,591 - - Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities $ 21,293 $ 269,367 $ - See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 52 . / -2 HEALTH. .' INFORMATION INSURANCE t TECHNOLOGY TOTAL $ 390,113 $ 305,470 $ 1,197,141 6,225 - 6,718 068,347) (138,125) (549,924) (157,853) (325,792) 27,991 . 9,492 328,143 25,200 25,200 '- 11-Â£: .- 1.- a 5 -A.J. 27,375 3,278 202,571 55,366 12,770 555,914 461,905 21,085 3,034,377 $ 517,271 $ 33,855 $ 3,590,291 $ 17,011 $ 42,235 $ 336,315 - 6,343 10,393 (165) - (165) - - (3,825) (150) (2,880) (3,030) 4,670 (35,460) (25,416) - 1,078 2,261 6,625 - 6,625 - (1,824) 4,985 10,980 (32,743) (8,172) $ 27,991 $ 9,492 $ 328,143 1. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO FLEET MAINTENANCE FUND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31, 2007 VARIANCE ORIGINAL FINAL Positive BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Charges for Services $ 265,000 269,219 $ 232,191 $ (37,028) Miscellaneous - 470 493 23 Investment Income 6,500 9,000 11,696 2,696 TOTALREVENUES 271,500 278,689 244,380 (34,309) EXPENDITURES Salaries and Benefits 185,278 180,290 175,931 4,359 Supplies 9,500 9,500 6,993 2,507 Utilities 8,450 8,450 3,849 4,601 Training 3,580 3,580 3,358 222 Insurance 6,277 5,615 5,425 190 Maintenance and Repairs 26,700 25,703 17,158 8,545 Professional Fees 7,575 9,232 8,218 1,014 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 247,360 242,370 220,932 21,438 CHANGE IN NET ASSETS, Budgetary Basis $ 24,140 $ 36,319 23,448 $ (12,871) ADJUSTMENTS TO GAAP BASIS Depreciation (4,050) CHANGE INNET ASSETS, GAAP Basis 19,398 NET ASSErS, Beginning 250,477 NET ASSETS, Ending $ 269,875 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 53 " TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO HEALTH INSURANCE FUND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31, 2007 VARIANCE ORIGINAL FINAL Positive BUDGET BUDGET ACI'UAL (Negative) REVENUES Charges for Services $ 388,190 $ 381,037 $ 390,278 $ 9,241 Miscellaneous 2,500 5,988 6,225 237 Investment Income 15,600 22,000 27,375 5,375 TOTAL REVENUES 406,290 409,025 423,878 14,853 EXPENDITURES Health Beneffts ..: ..0.4 400,455 401,504 379,492 22,012 TOTAL EXPENDITURES , - 400,455 401,504 379,492 22,012 CHANGE IN NET ASSETS $ 5,835 $ 7,521 44,386 $ 36,865 NET ASSETS, Beginning 350,387 NET ASSETS, Ending $ 394,773 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 54 '. .. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31, 2007 VARIANCE ORIGINAL FINAL Positive BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Charges for Services $ 305,470 $ 341,686 $ 305,470 $ (36,216) Investment Income 2,500 3,278 778 305,470 344,186 308,748 (35,438) EXPENDITURES Salaries and Benefits 160,650 159,070 157,107 1,963 Supplies 42,420 45,351 19,628 25,723 Utilities 1,640 1,415 1,929 (514) Training 2,500 2,500 665 1,835 Insurance - 1,227 1,214 13 Maintenance and Repairs 98,260 97,448 76,349 21,099 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 305,470 307,011 256,892 50,119 CHANGE TO NET ASSETS, Budgetary Basis $ - $ 37,175 51,856 $ 14,681 ADJUSTMENTS TO NON-GAAP BASIS Depreciation (6,343) CHANGE INNETASSETS, GAAP Basis 45,513 NET ASSETS, Beginning Â«0' 31,732 NET ASSETS, Ending $ 77,245 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 55 I .1 1 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO COMBINING STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AGENCY FUNDS Year Ended December 31, 2007 BALANCE BALANCE 12/31/06 ADDITIONS DEDUCTIONS 12/31/07 Park Edtrance Est*tes ASSETS U, Cash and Investments $ 18,357 $ . $ 18,357 $ - LIABILITIES Special Assessments Payable $ 18,357 $ - $ 18,357 $ - Friends of Stanley Hall ASSETS Cash and Investments $ 439,514 $ 23,449 $ 20,381 $ 442,582 LIABn,ITIES Y Dueto FriendsofStanley HallÂ» $ 439,514 $ 23,449 $ 20,381 $ 442,582 Total ASSETS Cash and Investments $ 457,871 $ 23,449 $ 38,738 $ 442,582 LIABILITIES Special Assessments Payable $ 18,357 $ . $ 18,357 $ - Due to Friends ofStanley Hall ..- t. 439,514 23,449 20,381 442,582 TOTAL LIABILmES $ 457,871 $ 23,449 $ 38,738 $ 442,582 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 56 STATISTICAL SECTION .. COMPLIANCE SECTION ht 1 - Â£:4% k' . D '1 e Financial Planning 02/01 The public report burden for this information collection is estimated to average 380 hours annually. Form # 350-050-36 City or County: Larimer County LOCAL HIGHWAY FINANCE REPORT YEAR ENDING: December 2007 lis Information From The Records Of (example - City of_ or County of 2 Prepared By: Sammi Coleson, Accountant |Town of Estes Park, Colorado Phone: (970) 577-3569 L DISPOSITION OF HIGHWAY-USER REVENUES AVAILABLE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE A. Local B. Local C. Receipts from D. Receipts from IlEM Motor-Fuel Motor-Vehicle Sta*e Highway- Federal Highway Taxes Taxes User Taxes Administration 1. Total receipts available 2. Minus amount used for collection expenses 3. Minus amount used for nonhighway purposes 4. Minus amount used for mass transit 5. Remainder used Br highway purposes II. RECEIPTS FOR ROAD AND STREET PURPOSES III. DISBURSEMENTS FOR ROAD AND STREET PURPOSES ITEM N '. 1 AMOUNT ITEM AMOUNT A. Receipts from local sources: A. Local highway disbursements: ~ 1. Local highway-user taxes i .., 1. Capital outlay (from page 2) .50,565 a. Motor Fuel (from Item I.Ar.5,) 2. Maintenance: 373 160 b. Motor Vehicle (from Item I.B.5.) 3. Road and street services: c. Total (a.+b.) a. Traffic control operations 28,042 2. General fund appropriations 1,198,217 b. Snow and ice removal 90,416 3. Other local impsts (from page 2) 150,124 c. Other 61,061 4. Miscellaneous local receipts (from page 2) 8,313 d. Total (a. through c.) 179,519 5. Transfers from toll facilities 4. General administration & miscellaneous 266,055 6. Proceeds of sale of bonds and notes: - 5. Highway law enforcement and safety 751,232 a. Bonds - Original Issues 6. Total (1 through 5) 1,620,531 b. Bonds - Refunding Issues B. Debt service on local obligations: c. Notes 1. Bonds: i Total (a. + b. + c.) 0 1 Interest 7. Total (1 through 6) 1,356,654 b. Redemption B. Private Contributions c. Total (a. + b.) 0 C. Receipts from State government 2. Notes: .......... (ftom page 2) . 254,914 a. Interest D. Receipts from Federal Government ~ b. Redemption (from page 2) 8,963 c. Total (a. + b.) 0 E. Total receipts (A.7 +B+C+D) 1,620,531 3. Total (1.c + 2.c) 0 C. Payments to State for highways D. Payments to toll facilities E. Total disbursements (A.6 + B.3 +C+D) 1,620,531 IV. LOCAL HIGHWAY DEBT STATUS (Show all entries at par) - Opening Debt Amount Issued Redemptions Closing Debt A. Bonds (Total) 1. Bonds (Refunding Portion) .--1 B. Notes (Total) V. LOCAL ROAD AND STREET FUND BALANCE A. Beginning Balance B. Total Receipts C. Total Disbursementsl D. Ending Balance E. Reconciliation 1,620,531 1,620,531| 1 0 Notes and Comments: FORM FHWA-536 (Rev. 1-05) PREVIOUS EDITIONS OBSOLETE (Next Page) 1 536-CY07 Estes Park . STATE: Colorado LOCAL HIGHWAY FINANCE REPORT YEAR ENDING (mm/yy): December 2007 n. RECEIPTS FOR ROAD AND STREET PURPOSES - DETAIL ITEM AMOUNT ITEM AMOUNT A.3. Other local imposts: A.4. Miscellaneous local receipts: ~ a. Property Taxes and Assessments a. Interest on investments b. Otherlocalimposts: ~ b. Trafne Fines & Penalities 1.. Sales.Takes c. Parking Garage Fees 2.1~frastructure & Impact Fees d. Parking Meter Fees 3.<Liens e. Sale of Surplus Property 4. Licenses f. Charges for Services 6,985 5. Specific Ownership &/or Other 150,124 g. Other Misc. Receipts 6. Total (1. through 5.) 150,124 h. Other 1,328 -9.-Total.0Â· + b.) 150,124 i.Total(a. through h.) 8,313 ---(Carry forward topage 1) ~(Carryforwardtopage l) ITEM L_ AMOUNT I ITEM 1 AMOUNT C. Receipts from State Government ~D. Receipts from Federal Government 1. Highway-user taxes .4. 1 1 228,392 1. FHWA (from Item I.D.5.) 2. ~.apt~~~teM*~ds 49 -3 ~ 2. Other Federal agencies: 3. Other State funds: a. Forest Service a. State bond proceeds ~ b. FEMA 8,963 c. HUD c. Motor Vehicle Registrations 26,522 d. Federal Transit Admin d. Other (Specify) e. U.S. Corps ofEngineers e. Other (Specify) Â£ Other Federal Â£ Total (a. through e.) 26,522 g. Total (a. through Â£) 8 963 4. Total (1. + 2.+ 3.D 254,914 3. Total '1. + 2.-) (Carly forward to page 1) In. DISBURSEMENTS FOR ROAD AND STREET PURPOSES - DETAIL ON NATIONAL OFF NATIONAL HIGHWAY HIGHWAY TOTAL SYSTEM SYSTEM A.1. Capital outIay: a. Right-Of-Way Costs 0 b. Engineering Costs 0 c. Constrziction: Â· (1). New Facilities O (2). Capacity Improvements . 0 (3). System Preservation 50,565 50,565 (4). System Enhancement & Operation 0 (5). Total Construction (1) + (2) + (3) + (4) 0 50,565 50,565 d. Total Capital Outlay (Lines 1.a. + 1.b. + 1.c.5) 0 50 565 50,565 ~(Cany forwardtopage 1) Notes and Comments: FORM FIIWA-536 (Rev.1-05) PREVIOUS EDITIONS OBSOLETE 2 . Statistical Section This section o f the Town.of Estes Park Comprehensive Annual Financial Report presents detailed data as a context for understanding the information in the financial statements, note disclosures, and required supplementary information. Contents Schedules Pages financial_Imnds These schedules contain trend information to help the reader understand how the Town's financial condition has changed over time. 1-4 Revenue Capacity These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the Town's largest revenue source, sales and use taxes. 5-7 Debt Capacity These schedules present information to help the reader assess the affordability ofthe Town's current levels of outstanding debt and the Town's ability to issue debt in the future. 8-11 Demographic and Economic Information These schedules offer demographic and economic indicators to help the reader understand the environment within which the Town's financial activities take place. 12-13 Operating Information These schedules contain service data to help the reader understand how information in the financial report relates to the services the Town provides and the activities it performs. 14-16 ... Schedule 1 Town of Estes Park, Colorado Net Assets (accrual basis of accounting) 2003 28 2005 2006 2991 Governmental Activities' Invested in capital assets, net ofrelated debt $ 8,471,444 $ 12,306,359 $ 41,002,600 $ 42,728,991 $ 44,604,637 Restricted 4,229,097 3,980,074 2,948,358 2,609,999 2,044,071 Unrestricted 10,885,558 11,027,831 11,616,226 10,781,187 10,078,682 Total governmental activities net assets $ 23,586,099 $ 27,314,264 $ 55,567,184 $ 56,120,177 $ 56,727,390 Business-type Activities Invested in capital assets, net of related debt $ 22,411,147 $ 22,657,616 $ 23,103,614 $ 23,256,846 $ 23,789,534 Restricted $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,124,904 Unrestricted 6,098,727 6,053,814 7,313,258 10,044,962 5,511,125 Total business-type activities net assets $ 28,509,874 $ 28,711,430 $ 30,416,872 $ 33,301,808 $ 35,425,563 Primary Government Invested in capital assets, net of related debt $ 30,882,591 $ 34,963,975 $ 64,106,214 $ 65,985,837 $ 68,394,171 Restricted 4,229,097 3,980,074 2,948,358 2,609,999 8,168,975 Unrestricted 16,984,285 17,081,645 18,929,484 20,826,149 15,589,807 Total primary governmental net assets $ 52,095,973 $ 56,025,694 $ 85,984,056 $ 89,421,985 $ 92,152,953 Infrastructure not listed until 2005 CAFR Source: Current and prior years' financial statements GASB 34 implemented in 2003 .. Schedule 2 . Town of Estes Park, Colorado Changes in Net Assets (accrual basis of accounting) 2003 2004 20!15 2(106 2Q[EZ Expenses Governmental Activities: General Government $ 3,468,726 $ 3,146,405 $ 2,541,570 $ 3,822,578 $ 3,420,170 Public Safety 2,521,498 2,808,104 3,235,388 3,090,570 5,747,569 Public Works 758,002 838,784 2,549,336 1,905,687 2,197,576 Culture and Recreation 1,788,706 1,808,416 3,262,341 3,918,854 2,101,810 Interest on Long-Term Debt 351,678 333,453 129,699 96,732 65,619 Total governmental activities expenses 8,888,610 8,935,162 11,718,334 12,834,421 13,532,744 Business-type Activities: Light & Power 7,858,400 8,297,223 8,416,543 8,383,238 8,693,935 Water 2,325,411 2,457,021 2,380,179 2,627,297 2,687,000 Total business-type activities expenses 10,183,811 10,754,244 10,796,722 11,010,535 11,380,935 Total primaiy governmental expenses $ 19,072,421 $ 19,689,406 $ 22,515,056 $ 23,844,956 $ 24,913,679 Program Revenues Governmental activities: Charges for services: General Government $ 481,750 $ 510,825 $ 582,716 $ 844,652 $ 892,589 Public Safety 435,823 403,367 524,523 452,406 594,475 Public Works 24,103 8,547 10,937 20,918 8,655 Culture and Recreation 423,317 403,071 599,783 848,685 882,392 Operating grants and contributions 642,534 668,780 1,049,090 895,340 735,916 Capital grants and contributions 371,831 247,794 36,390 32,729 76,153 Total governmental activities program revenues 2,379,358 2,242,384 2,803,439 3,094,730 3,190,180 iness-type Activities: Light & Power 7,944,245 8,688,408 9,384,819 10,097,231 10,446,230 Water 2,071,220 2,137,906 2,253,491 2,476,467 2,577,482 Capital grants and contributions 691,708 560,837 848,319 609,468 688,403 Total business-type activities program revenues 10,707,173 11,387,151 12,486,629 13,183,166 13,712,115 Total primary government program revenues $ 13,086,531 $ 13,629,535 $ 15,290,068 $ 16,277,896 $ 16,902,295 Net (Expense)/Revenue Governmental activities $ (6,509,252) $ (6,692,778) $ (8,914,895) $ (9,739,691) $ (10,342,564) Business-type activities 523,362 632,907 1,689,907 2,172,631 2,331,180 Total primary government net expenses $ (5,985,890) $ (6,059,871) $ (7,224,988) $ (7,567,060) $ (8,011,384) I lt) I 1 Schedule 2 (continued) Town of Estes Park, Colorado Changes in Net Assets (accrual basis of accounting) 23 2/811 2815 2006 2%Yl Taxes Sales taxes $ 6,173,628 $ 6,308,376 $ 6,427,942 $ 6,77I,295 $ 7,239,214 Property taxes 1,039,831 1,099,499 936,564 1,028,896 1,134,800 Franchise taxes 420,592 376,816 387,100 401,432 414,286 Use taxes 54,837 - 202,182 202,666 209,103 Unrestricted grants and contributions 448,938 334,059 321,844 - Investment income 143,596 137,775 355,351 649,528 657,571 Miscellaneous 304,512 362,940 255,554 249,079 264,702 Gain (Loss) on sale ofcapital assets (23,439) Transfers 780,827 931,982 930,151 989,788 1,030,101 Total governmental activities 9,343,322 9,551,447 9,816,688 10,292,684 10,949,777 Business-type activities: Unrestricted grants and contributions $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Investment income 105,840 66,999 170,570 211,513 499,506 Miscellaneous 746,714 433,632 775,116 635,958 323,170 Transfers (780,827) (931,982) (930,151) (989,788) (1,030,101) Total business-type activities 71,727 (431,351) 15,535 (142,317) (207,425) Total primary government $ 9,415,049 $ 9,120,096 $ 9,832,223 $ 10,150,367 $ 10,742,352 Changes in Net Assets Governmental activities $ 2,834,070 $ 2,858,669 $ 901,793 $ 552,993 $ 607,213 Business-type activities 595,089 201,556 1,705,442 2,030,314 2,123,755 Total primary government $ 3,429,159 $ 3,060,225 $ 2,607,235 $ 2,583,307 $ 2,730,968 Source: Current and prior year's financial statements GASB 34 implemented in 2003 ... 1 . Schedule 3 Town of Estes Park, Colorado Fund Balances, Governmental Funds (modified accrual basis of accounting) 2003 2Q{M 2(105 2(106 2QQZ General Fund Reserved $ .S -$ -$ -$ 13,419 Unreserved 7,481,951 5,626,907 4,109,230 2,849,039 4,024,503 Total general fund $ 7,481,951 $ 5,626,907 $ 4,109,230 $ 2,849,039 $ 4,037,922 All other Governmental Funds Reserved $ 1,035,446 $ 1,028,706 $ 1,050,540 $ 876,719 $ 15,682 Unreserved, reports in: Special revenue funds 1,187,594 2,918,993 3,599,856 3,361,832 2,008,274 Capital projects funds 2,503,317 2,205,961 1,157,848 651,177 131,099 Debt service funds 1,347,191 1,289,113 1,305,510 1,414,822 1,368,972 Total all other governmental funds $ 6,073,548 $ 7,442,773 $ 7,113,754 $ 6,304,550 $ 3,524,027 Total general fund + all other govt funds $ 13,555,499 $ 13,069,680 $ 11,222,984 $ 9,153,589 $ 7,561,949 Source: Current and prior year's financial statements GASB 34 implemented in 2003 4.1 . Schedule 4 2. Town of Estes Park, Colorado Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental Funds (modified accrual basis of accounting) 2QQ3 2{MM 2095 21*ki 20{11 Revenues Taxes $ 7,634,051 $ 7,784,691 $ 7,953,788 $ 8,404,289 $ 8,997,403 Licenses, fees and permits 608,469 580,387 729,317 644,996 665,053 Intergovernmental 860,718 974,238 793,473 1,317,362 857,664 Charges for services 442,043 414,855 555,438 667,190 737,300 Fines and forfeitures 21,613 25,144 29,258 28,062 41,552 Rental Income 604,722 469,656 475,195 473,442 474,421 Investment Income 111,317 114,589 295,700 525,148 434,266 Miscellaneous 503,143 465,175 437,273 535,414 669,018 Total revenues 10,786,076 10,828,735 11,269,442 12,595,903 12,876,677 Expenditures General Government 2,845,799 3,209,193 2,216,441 3,569,747 2,735,291 Public Safety 2,997,822 2,953,998 3,043,678 3,090,882 3,273,503 Public Works 788,047 789,616 866,269 1,170,863 1,280,148 Culture and Recreation 1,696,450 1,736,317 3,165,121 3,652,670 3,972,727 Capital outlay 2,376,537 2,053,785 3,529,856 2,960,697 3,026,690 Debt Service Principal 502,328 1,357,523 1,106,158 1,109,300 1,144,161 Interest and Fiscal Charges 445,741 146,104 118,766 100,927 65,898 Total expenditures 11,652,724 12,246,536 14,046,289 15,655,086 15,498,418 Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures (866,648) (1,417,801) (2,776,847) (3,059,183) (2,621,741) Other Financing Sources (Uses) Transfers in 2,850,965 5,472,433 6,146,172 4,711,914 5,2 Transfers out (2,070,138) (4,540,451) (5,216,021) (3,722,126) (4,232,419) Bond Proceeds/premiums/Escrow activity 1,780,295 - Total other financing sources (uses) 2,561,122 931,982 930,151 989,788 1,030,101 Net change in fund balances $ 1,694,474 $ (485,819) $ (1,846,696) $ (2,069,395) $ (1,591,640) Debt service as a percentage of noncapital expenditures 10.2% 14.8% 11.6% 9.5% 9.7% Capital asset additions from Notes to Financial Statements 2,733,988 2,340,375 3,854,904 4,953,612 4,018,944 Debt service as a percentage of noncapital expenditures 10.6% 15.2% 12.0% 11.3% 10.5% (using capital asset additions from Notes to Financial Statements) Source: Current and prior year's financial statements GASB 34 implemented in 2003 - ... -~0 gug .. 0Â£ Â§Â§3Â§ - M O h - I -.. I I ---- 0-2 - B b 4& *0 <3 00 00 - ic Â» ule 5 - Apparel Arts & Crafts Automotive Food Furniture Lodging Services Utilities Total Sales Tax 1998 209 295,058 100,472 146 0 3 , 54,404 52,792 1,019,672 1,025,127 416,711 77,9 7 349,927 5,3 3,382 0,015 302,843 107,340 136253 1,904 1,132,670 ,097,540 418,6 88 860 352, 42 5,629,044 2000 44,166 309,570 130,667 177,719 1,953,72 66,85~ 1,155,903 1,168,160 439,22~ 92,885 382,300 5,921,155 2001 1 45,951 322,076 135 946 184,898 2,032,64 69,555 1,202,598 1215 35 456,972 96,637 397,718 6,160,350 2002 31,933 211,706 84,106 232,354 2 041 83,568 1,232,569 1,223,524 385,519 99 6,038,513 2003 34,075 237,158 83 539 205 9 0 2,109 71,519 1,220,200 ~'~~00 ~ ~,8;; ~ 2007 47,801 250,389 125 692 141 660 2,449,330 1,214,542 1~813,978 ~ 98~62 . 47:3 '42 '88 2006 45,809 266,138 137 832 131,746 2,290,810 1,120,550 1607,270 89382 545,494 6,767, 0 76,347 645,000 7,233,707 Personal/ Lumber & Professional Sales Tax Revenue by Type of Industry 2005 39,368 275,631 103 945 1176 8 2,187, 1,052,n 9 423,542 Town of Estes Park, Colorado 2004 42,658 297,819 87 699 175 44 2,0 9~ ' Source: Town of Estes Park Sales and Use Tax Reports Sales tax rate: 4.00% fOOE u! Poluouzoidut! 4Â£ EISVE) 1 individual categories not available for 2001. Data extrapolated from surrounding years. 2001 total revenue is accurate. . .44 Schedule 6 , 1 Town of Estes Park, Colorado Direct and Overlapping Sales Tax Rates City Direct Rate Overlapping Rates Total Total Direct Overlapping Fiscal Town of Sales Tax State of Larimer Sales Tax Year Estes Park Rate Colorado County Rate 1998 4.00% 4.00% 2.90% 0.00% 6.90% 1999 4.00% 4.00% 2.90% 0.00% 6.90% 2000 4.00% 4.00% 2.90% 0.00% 6.90% 2001 4.00% 4.00% 2.90% 0.00% 6.90% 2002 4.00% 4.00% 2.90% 0.80% 7.70% 2003 4.00% 4.00% 2.90% 0.80% 7.70% 2004 4.00% 4.00% 2.90% 0.80% 7.70% 2005 4.00% 4.00% 2.90% 0.80% 7.70% 2006 4.00% 4.00% 2.90% 0.80% 7.70% 2007 4.00% 4.00% 2.90% 0.80% 7.70% GASB 34 implemented in 2003 . A . Â· Schedule 7 Town of Estes Park, Colorado Principal Sales Tax categories Current and nine years ago 1998 2/1 Top three categories (alphabetical) Food $ 1,854,404 $ 2,449,330 Lodging 1,025,127 1,813,978 Retail 1,019,672 1,214,542 Total: 3,899,203 5,477,851 Aggregate all other categories 1,484,179 1,755,856 Total sales and use tax $ 5,383,382 $ 7,233,706 Top three categories as a percentage of total sales tax 72.43% 75.73% GASB 34 implemented in 2003 1, . J. 4 g G 61 9-60000000 .El .S g 00 00 o U 0.0. A. O en- Ct N g & m ~8 m Ch 0\ 2, Cho 00 0 -- -/9. Participation2 Leases Loans5 Government Income6 Capita6 $754,000 $1,850,258 $2,460,000 incl. incl. $10,449,258 $1,998 3,665 754,000 1,421,306 5,280,000 incl. 11,120,306 ' 29.60% 2,127 2000 3,513,000 754,000 1,402,299 4,960,000 incl. 10,629,299 19.09% 1,964 2001 2,750,000 590,000 3,144,492 2,820,000 850,00 1,320,000 11,474,492 20.61% 2,120 2002 2,590,000 529,000 2,719,741 2,660,000 725,00 1,210,000 10,433,741 18.74% 1,928 2003 4,165,000 465,000 2,447,800 2,490,000 665,00 1,095,000 11,327,800 20.35% 2,093 15.31% 1,575 2005 2,590,000 326,000 618,136 0,000 530,00 835,000 7,029, 12.63% 1,299 251,000 418,836 455,00 690,000 5,504,836 9.89% 1,017 L98'IS %9 I 8 I FL9'50I'OI $ 000'SESS 00'FLES L$ SL9'EIE$ 000'ELIS Â§68$ LOOZ Tax Increment Certificates Light and Percentage Revenue Refunding Capital Water Water Primary of Personal Per 2004 3,405,000 397,000 838,294 315,000 600,00 970,000 8,525,~~ %93 Â£-00 Â£ ue@mjeq sole.I w soruooe }sa~oluI 'spuoE[ Â£66I sopos @ougug@1 01 Kluotonv Iumou@H ueq.In 1.IEd solsEI Kq ponssI 9009910 @WI le Son.IOOE }S@.IMUI 'uonedp!Ued Jo soluoupuoo O66I joul?uy@.I 01 Kluoqlny Zu!PI!.na ved SO'63 041 4 ponSSI Ratio of Outstanding Debt, by Type Governmental Activities Business-Type Activities Town of Estes Park, Colorado Schedule 8 '%f#$-O0~t uo@Mioq sowl W Son.IOOB lS@.ImUI .sompoup@mod pue 148!I s,U/~01, OAO.IdUIT pue 0113OOIm m ponss! spuoE[ onuo/~O1I ,Ioaod pUB 149!7 666 I 6010}UI . UIMSKS 19 lum 01 Sluotu@Aoldtu! @ouguy 01 pouju Jqo (VC[d~H/AO) Kiuoqlny luatudopkaG Jamod pue soomosoli Jolum Opelopo @111 UIOIJ UBO'I 1012& HL66I 90009 puu AOLE II@Omloq sole.I 18 6011.IOOE }Sal@lul UI@lsks 1@lem 01 SluguI@AolduI! 00ueuy 01 VC[dHAAO 341 UIOJJ pourelqo O.I@ki Sueol JOWAA V066 I PUB VÂ£66 I Â·.reoK lepuop?O loud 041 103 uo!}BIndod pue @moou! INuosiod Sulsn poleInoIBO O.Ie SOBBI 06@41 E lep uoyleIndod puu emoou! IBuos,I@d 104 Z I OInpoIps OOS $5,385,~ 2006 ,755~000 SluOUIO}Els Iumuguy s,m@K loud puu juauno :oo.Inos EOOZ Il! PoluotuoIdrul VE EISVD . A . 1 1 1 1 1. â‚¬A ,# 99 â‚¬/) tA 1 , % Â£/4 66 2& W 2 2 5 M iA 66 1 1 0 1 ~09 â‚¬A 'A Ratio of General Bonded Debt Outstanding and Legal Debt Margin Legal debt margin2 $ 14,962,675 $ 20,281,383 $ 20,558,062 $ 26,694,207 $ 27,933,032 $ 33,497,671 $ 34,731,367 $38,079,377 $38,016,966 $ 43,475,237 Colorado pop!Aold se onleA Kupdoid [unlog peleums, tuo.g pojeinoivo S! 11 '4Â·1041ne Su!/Aoiloq 31(1131!BAE s, 410 041 s! u!81Uu, 1~Fp ieSOI alli , LEE'GLD'Â£4$ = %Â£ x 995'.L I '6*t' I $ s! uouulnduloo 041 '9003 Joil 'X)UnOD JOUILIB~I Xq General bonded debt outstanding Less: Amounts set aside to repay general debt Total net debt applicable to debit limit the prior calendar year. EOOZ U! poluouloidut! DE EISVE) Per capital -'01 uojiBIndod pue pwoou! luuosiod Bu,!Sn polulnoleo OJE Sonal 06041 'Blep uourindod pue jiuoou! [Buosiod 103 Z I ainpoES Oos I Schedule 10 , 1, 1 Town of Estes Park, Colorado Direct and Overlapping Governmental Activities Debt As of December 31, 2007 General Percentage Estimated Obligation Applicable Share of Bonded Debt To Overlapping Jurisdiction Outstanding Government Debt Direct: Town of Estes Park $ - $ - Overlapping: Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District 4,064,830 2.86% 116,060 Park Hospital District 22,900,000 0.00% 0 Estes Valley Library District 830,000 100.00% 830,000 Park R-3 School District 25,360,000 52.00% 13,187,200 Total $ 53,154,830 $ 14,133,260 '. Schedule 11 li ' Town of Estes Parks Colorado Pledged-Revenue Coverage Water Revenue Bonds Less: . Net Â· Fiscal Water Operating Available Debt Service 1 Year Revenues Expenses Revenue Principal Interest Coverage 2003 2,180,341 1,748,457 431,884 175,000 126,857 1.43 2004 2,180,318 1,880,082 300,236 190,000 106,489 1.01 2005 2,293,172 1,831,533 461,639 205,000 100,589 1.51 2006 2,561,731 2,104,707 457,024 220,000 80,785 1.52 2007 2,637,049 2,184,862 452,187 235,000 71,410 1.48 Light & Power Revenue Bond Light & Less: Net Power Operating Available Debt Service Revenues Expenses Revenue Principal Interest Coverage 2003 8,397,192 7,299,675 1,097,517 170,000 133,420 3.62 2004 9,031,761 7,776,845 1,254,916 175,000 125,704 4.17 2005 10,303,444 8,066,753 2,236,691 185,000 117,532 7.39 2006 10,647,925 7,837,303 2,810,622 195,000 107,290 9.30 2007 10,709,833 8,135,931 2,573,902 200,000 100,940 8.55 Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority EPURA Debt Service Fund incremental Fund Balance in Debt Service sales tax Revenue Debt Service revenues Allocation Fund Principal Interest Coverage 2003 2,685,637 936,475 1,347,191 210,000 193,362 3.34 2004 2,763,072 822,451 1,289,113 760,000 120,529 1.46 2005 2,850,658 905,419 1,305,510 815,000 74,022 1.47 2006 3,032,718 1,011,725 1,414,822 835,000 67,413 1.57 2007 3,814,241 1,119,741 1,368,972 860,000 42,488 1.52 1 Operating expenses are net of depreciation expense Source: Current and prior year's financial statements I /1 : .j*' Schedule 12 Town of Estes Park, Colorado Demographic and Economic Statistics Total Median Per Capita Fiscal Personal Household Personal Median School Unemployment Year Population' Income4 Incorne Income Age Enrollmenti Rate3 1998 5,229 N/A 37,565 N/A 45 1,344 3.5% 1999 5,229 N/A 37,565 N/A 45 1,316 3.2% 2000 5,413 165,091,087 55,667 30,499 45 1,354 2.4% 2001 5,413 165,091,087 55,667 30,499 45 1,393 3.1% 2002 5,413 165,091,087 55,667 30,499 45 1,411 4.5% 2003 5,413 165,091,087 55,667 30,499 45 1,363 5.3% 2004 5,413 165,091,087 55,667 30,499 45 1,260 4.6% 2005 5,413 165,091,087 55,667 30,499 45 1,265 4.4% 2006 5,413 165,091,087 55,667 30,499 45 1,219 4.3% 2007 5,413 165,091,087 55,667 30,499 45 1,206 3.8% 12000 Census 2Park R-3 School district JData obtained from www. larimer. org/compass 4*Total Personal Income derived from Per Capita Personal Income x Population Note: The Town of Estes Park implemented GASB 34 as of December 31, 2003 . j . 4 , Schedule 13 Town of Estes Park, Colorado Principal employers # of # of 1998 employees 2007 employees 1 Estes Park Medical Center N/A Estes Park Medical Center N/A 2 Estes Valley Recreation District N/A Estes Valley Recreation District N/A 3 Harmony Foundation N/A Harmony Foundation N/A 4 Holiday Inn N/A Holiday Inn N/A 5 Park School District R-3 N/A Park School District R-3 N/A 6 Rocky Mountain National Park N/A Rocky Mountain National Park N/A 7 Safeway N/A Safeway N/A 8 Town of Estes Park 95 Town of Estes Park 117 9 YMCA of the Rockies N/A YMCA of the Rockies N/A Note: The Town of Estes Park implemented GASB 34 as of December 31, 2003 Source: Town of Estes Park'sCommunity Profile ./. Schedule 14 11 0* I Town of Estes Parks Colorado Full-time City Government Employees by Function/Program 281999 2220~ 2002 2001 2004 2005 2&116 2001 Eundiontemgram General government Administration 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 Finance 8.00 8.00 8.00 Â· 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Â· 9.00 9.00 9.00 Community Development 7.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Police 26.50 26.50 26.50 27.50 27.50 28.50 29.50 29.50 29.50 30.75 Public Works 1 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 3.00 3.00 Streets 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 Parks 1 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 Fire 0.00 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 2.00 Special Revenue Museum 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 Senior Citizens Center 2 3.10 2.90 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 Convention Visitor Bureau 3 Advertising 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 Marketing 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 Visitor Bureau 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 6.00 3.00 5.00 Special Events 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Utilities Light & Power 4 18.50 18.50 19.00 20.00 20.00 20.50 20.50 20.50 18.25 19.30 Water 7.50 7.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 9.50 9.50 9.50 10.75 9.80 Other Divisions IT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 Fleet I 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 EPURA 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Totals: 95.90 97.65 100.25 103.00 104.25 107.25 110.50 111.50 111.50 117.10 1 Reorganization in the Streets and Parks departments. 2 Senior Center meals contracted to a catering company. 3 Convention and Visitor Bureau formed. 4 IT department split to its own division. Note: The Town of Estes Park implemented GASB 34 as of December 31, 2003 Source: Town o f Estes Park Budget Summary, Human Resources Department - . I m 1 , Â°Â°Â°Â° m ~ A"Rgs!@ 224 522% Ch W hoovt--u Q W - M - 0% N .- =11 <D --. en _ - I .- 04-0-rn-ho,O-- ARIA RE@ 5; rrorn rn-t-rn =11 <D 1\00-he h 0<irn _ 52 na - re 0 - Â©2-*RE!Â°Â©422* Ag!1 ER - her; 00 M r- S O M - 00 N â‚¬9 5 trelâ€¢r,rÂ·--tÂ·-Â· OWÂ©,1 4- m MeN MeN en *2 2 g o O .9 0 locort--GODOr - - 0,1.- 1- O ONOMMMWN--M *gg- 8 0 5 rl & C re,04*-rr,Â©C,â€¢A H M 2 - - - C v 0 t- h re, C-- 0 m 00 00 '71 \ V, .- EER 8 heng - 00-01- 7 In S Riz * 2 rn 01 01 rn O-0 0, 0 Ot-OS:;22OO~Dood C\<00 e M E R 00 - g re,-01 A - A R 83 z Z â€¢rh ~ 2Zo6R X /0 - 0 M Â°MÂ°*RE=REE# mirl 0, g 2 000~ t- B QÂ©000 C,rna 5 n M EN .erâ€¢ 1 4:- Ment 28882 z 2425.gre,5 Â«888 g g CL .1 ./I 0 .r 02-W=EMERM# " 1 - '- I - O ~ oW re, en O 000000 Rzn S.RR8 8g88E r-Mgx% CO er, 1.r, 00 4882 AR 0-ran 5 0 - ~ 00101 M â‚¬9 -entxOD!- ~dUE 00Â®OC\ OW ..0000 t- m Z d - M#E OW#z Z"Z re-4 G 1. R B. 28882 00 .9 * - M 000 ann W-6 1 50 M 2 3.g T g E - e -4 1 -3 C = E -00 Â§4 0 i 2 2 K ga# E K K 2.0 0 0 :M~ aÂ·- tÂ·~,N#32-% S i Â§ 2 1 i i f H 2 2 2- mf g:ES 0 ID 01 h en w .r, < )1Â·- - Z 3 5 N Z U -3 E . 0. C 2 E EE 6 = 21381*89:dE, f & f 4%.~.Ev 5 w &16 2 0000.=a=526; 2%82 ,%71,11 2 2%9 ~ 2/ .2 & 1 # 4 z . C < m a < o E- < 2 Ezzm@iZ 9fNE<<6 9ZI<<a E- Eu < u. 4 1998 1999 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 06Â£'DE 001'81Â£ 1Â£6'ZEE 0*6'LIE 6L8'+ 908'4 909'4 6Lg't EES't Â£EE'D 0Â£3'4 slunoooe J 000'000.5 000'005't 000'005'f 000'005'f 000'000'9 000'000'9 000'000'9 6Lt'ZEI'I *59'8EI'I 18*'660'I 480'190' I I 18'ZtO'I 000'00Â£'I 000'00Â£' I * ssel 0 OSI 17 sse!0 OSI f sse[0 OSI 6/9/9 SU! 0 80Â¢LEE'Â§21 846'41~'tâ‚¬I ~'~'OZI 4 1*'99L'61 I ESL'698'LIt LE6206'91 1 6Â£1'00*I I *Ly'â‚¬95'170I '0 I 286'6 ESL'6 EIL'6 Â£5â‚¬6 ~'I 921'1 5ZI'I 980'I ELON 3148!1 102.IlS 10 JOqUInN fL-89 Â§L'89 8Wtâ‚¬Â£'Elt Â£59'809'GID 58Â£'OICIOD Ltâ‚¬'099'LBE 616'116'Â£6Â£ 000'005'*Ll, 000'005'*Lf uoildiun V/N ~N[ sookoiding leuoseos Operati ng Indicators y Func tion/Program Schedule 1 Town of Estes a rk, Colorado of volunteers Et'Â£ Et'E JUatUU.IDAOp 11140 . $ --- ONâ‚¬Nâ€¢AN-Are 8 8 Y - - 1- rn --- 06101=rel-Brn O- - - --- EN <9 7__t-rn 5â‚¬90 - --0 RN WN--grn b 00 < - --0 ~ 61 N 01 - - * en t-wo - --0 R N rq N -- *en h rn - - --0 0001(NN--Cert - /0 0,1 -- 0 00 N 01 01 N - O rn - /0 01 -- O rel-NeNâ‚¬N-Orr - 'D 01 --0 %0-1 /1 N-Ors $ In Orn 91- rn 00 N 91- rr, er, â€¢rb 04Â·01 en en O -re,0 91- rn O C\ N , 50 E E E R 2 8 9 /9 2 2 2 8 9 AA Â§.@ 122%2 a % 8 1 9 E f Â£ S 2 1 4 & a & 6 3 5 Â£ a j w 8 8 8 M A 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Building Permits 251 255 273 263 300 326 375 409 466 562 602't *81'4 ESE't L9E'17 L9E'* V/N 829,4 839't 9LS't 601'f SloloA Polo lEt Lit t,1 4 9It, 5If 100435 4 !H )[led sols Operating Indicators by Function/Program Schedule 15 Town of Estes Park, Colorado ZEE 60Â£ 80Â£ FEE lootios MP 64 /5 29 tr9 f09 165 909 1004OS Kimuoul@13 3118 Culture and Recreation :41}Ua NUIN 1 041 U! Papnpu! iou sao!A.las PUB Sap! Convention & Visitor Bureau (9Â£ PUB kE 'L SKEMI0!H) ske/. C allogua) E-H 13!4Â§ !a 100'PS )118 Eli louls!(1 10040S Mled 'adMAH 'ECAO :Sulpniou! Solluoqine 19001 :00-InoS Other Miscellaneous Data ls and other ompanies .OLITS,a Ved pue uo! 18010071 KO[IEA solsa Center Nza snoaut,iia,VW Uo,48313 aN PUB Â§,Iled . j . *er; -5 C-N - 1 E3 -2 -4. M * 4 01 N eN W O 0% 2 W -3 ag eN N -- M Mentr,01 - C.- -0 â‚¬9 N - 2 N E E 01 N - 2 N @~ g - 0. (9 - 2 010001 - 00 (922 is N 0 - 00 615;t 0 i#$"* N 2 tr) en ZE 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Â°9 Â£51'01 ' Â£526 Â£'8 slunoooy om,AJOS 0!110@13 991'I S~ 19['[ 7I1 t:51 31 ~ ~ 0~ 950' I 6148!11O04SJoloquin Fire Rating 6/ 6/6/9 ISO 4 IS I Water Service Accounts 4,0~ 4,146 4,2~0 4 ,533 4,579 4,606 4 Fire Hydrants 491 551 4590 615 16 Area in Square Miles 6.2 6.4 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 Town of Estes Par Colorado Capital Asset Statistics by nction/Program Schedule 16 Function/Program Water Hydrants Water mains (miles) slueld JUOUUBOJL IMBAA ectric Substations mep Imugulped@p ped solsa Jo u/Aol :00.noS Stations Fire Protection Police Patrol Units Public Works Utilities ... I. REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 4 .1 4 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO REOUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SCHEDULE OF FUNDING PROGRESS VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER'S PENSION PLAN Year Ended December 31, 2007 UAAL as a Actuarial Percentage of Actuarial Actuarial Accrued Unfunded AAL Covered Valuation Value of Liability (AAL) (UAAL) Funded Ratio Covered Payroll Date Assets (a) Entry Age (b) (b-a) Cam) Payroll (c) ((b-a)/c) 1/1/97 $ 656,734 $ 821,522 $ 164,788 79.9% NA NA 1/1/99 758,599 845,446 86,847 89.7% NA NA 1/1/01 832,559 1,139,599 307,040 73.1% NA NA 1/1/03 933,823 ~ ~ 1,588,888 655,065 58.8% NA NA 1/1/05 996,027 1,617,178 621,151 61.6% NA NA 1/1/07 1,112,086 1,496,221 384,135 74.3% NA NA See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 32 ... 14 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO GENERAL FUND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31,2007 VARIANCE ORIGINAL FINAL Positive BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Taxes Sales $ 6,879,014 $ 7,106,528 $ 7,239,214 $ 132,686 Property 309,337 309,337 293,138 (16,199) Franchise 419,596 419,916 414,286 (5,630) Use 199,095 199,095 209,103 10,008 Licenses and Permits 528,898 609,183 665,053 55,870 Intergovernmental 544,567 574,253 555,556 (18,69D Charges for Services 45,434 60,472 15,038 Fines and Forfeitures 26,645 29,750 41,552 11,802 Rental Income 171,709 171,709 166,850 (4,859) Investment Income - 75,000 200,000 233,627 33,627 Miscellaneous ' 432,879 512,103 509,760 (2,343) TOTALREVENUES 9,586,740 10,177,308 10,388,611 211,303 EXPENDITURES General Government Legislative 149,190 132,542 105,002 27,540 Judicial 39,628 38,979 38,756 223 Executive 368,694 381,709 379,855 1,854 Election 4,840 1,712 1,712 Administrative 237,199 237,199 218,640 18,559 Community Development 447,501 441,356 425,089 16,267 Buildings 489,560 499,101 457,483 41,618 Community Services 385,337 385,337 381,737 3,600 Other 279,390 304,990 457,656 (152,666) Total General Government 2,401,339 2,422,925 2,465,930 (43,005) Public Safety Police 2,324,614 2,594,830 2,597,254 (2,424) Fire 483,298 . 441,925 406,741 35,184 Protective Inspection 280,155 278,894 269,508 9,386 Total Public Safety 3,088,067 3,315,649 3,273,503 42,146 Public Works Engineering 133,897 137,695 82,727 54,968 Streets 1,433,944 1,481,628 1,192,683 288,945 Total Public Works 1,567,841 1,619,323 1,275,410 343,913 Culture and Recreation Parks and Recreation 991,319 868,540 787,029 81,511 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 8,048,566 8,226,437 7,801,872 424,565 (Continued) See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 33 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO GENERAL FUND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31, 2007 4../.9 r 4 Â·40 VARIÂ£ICE ~*A ORIGINAL FINAL Positive L BUDGET BUDGET ACIUAL (Negative) 6 *6 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER EXPENDnURES 1,538,174 1,950,871 2,586,739 635,868 i .2 , Ik'. OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) ~ 1 - Transfers In 1,003,776 '0051796 J 1,032,083 28,307 a' Uf Transfers Out (2,623,539) (2,623,539) / (2,429,939) 193,600 11 / TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) (1,619,763) k Â¢1,617,7,43) (1,397,856) 221,907 NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE (81,589) h.33,128 1,188,883 855,755 FUND BALANCE, Beginning .21'Â·. f 3,059,866 2,849,037 2,849,039 2 FUND BALANCE, Ending ' $ 2,978,277 $ 3,182,165 $ 4,037,922 $ 855,757 C\1 Ah See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 34 f TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO CONVENTION/VISITOR BUREAU FUND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE Year Ended December 31, 2007 VARIANCE ORIGINAL FINAL Positive BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL (Negative) REVENUES Charges For Senices $ 638,851 $ 617,271 $ 647,602 $ 30,331 Investment Income 1,850 9,000 11,082 2,082 Miscellaneous 98,500 151,904 106,848 (45,056) TOTAL REVENUES 739,201 778,175 765,532 (12,643) EXPENDITURES Current Culture and Recreation ~ 2,787,622 2,809,400 2,736,950 72,450 TOTAL EXPENDrrURES 2,787,622 2,809,400 2,736,950 72,450 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (2,048,421) (2,031,225) 0,971,418) 59,807 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES Transfers In 1,850,000 1,850,000 1,850,000 NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE (198,421) (181,225) (121,418) 59,807 FUND BALANCE, Beginning - ~ 246,137 260,721 260,721 - FUND BALANCE, Ending $ 47,716 $ 79,496 $ 139,303 $ 59,807 See the accompanying Independent Auditors' Report. 35 .h. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO NOTES TO REOUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION j December 31, 2007 NOTE 1: STEWARDSHIP. COMPLIANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY Budgets and Budgetary Accounting The Town follows these procedures in establishing the budgetary data reflected in the financial statements: â€¢ In October, the Town Administration submits to the Board of Trustees a proposed operating budget for the fiscal year commencingthe following January 1. The operating budget includes proposed expenditures and the means of financing them. â€¢ Public hAings are conducted to obtain taxpayer comments. â€¢ Prior to December 31, the budget is legally enacted through passage of a resolution. â€¢ The Town Administration is authorized to transfer budgeted amounts between departments within any fund. However, any revisions that alter the total expenditures of any fund must be approved by the Board of Trustees. â€¢ Budgets are legally adopted forall funds ofthe Town. Fiduciary fund budgets arenotrequired and have not been presented.. Budgets are not presented for the Vehicle Replacement and Catastrophic Loss Internal Service Funds because no expenditures were incurred during the year. Budgets for thEGeheral, Special Revenue, Debt Service, and Capital Projects Funds are adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Budgetary comparisons presented for the Enterprise and Internal Service Funds are presented onanon-GAAP budgetarybasis. Capital outlay isbudgeted asanexpendilure anddepreciation is not budgeted. â€¢ All budget appropriations lapse at year end. Colorado governments may not exceed budgeted appropriations at the fund level. Legal Compliance For the year ended December 31,2007, the Urban Renewal Authority Special Revenue Fund, the Urban Renewal Authority Capital Projects Fund, and the Urban Renewal Authority Debt Service Fund expenditures and transfers out exceeded the budgeted amounts by $1,541,796, $36,226, and $260,603, respectively. These may be violations of State statute. 36 11 ' Association for Responsible Development Remarks to Estes Park Board of Trustees Ron Norris: June 24,2008 (Please include as part of the public record) Good evening. Our Association would like to thank Bob Joseph for giving us the opportunity to review and comment on the additional data recently added to the Comprehensive Plan. We shared this information with our Board of Directors, and found two items of particular interest. â€¢ The first item is a cause for real concern: 42% of the residences in Estes Park are occupied only part-time. This low level of occupancy makes it much more difficult for us to achieve a sense of community, to build understanding of issues, and to get alignment on future direction for the Town. It poses special challenges for the Trustees and Town Staff when you plan for the future. We believe this issue should receive a high level of attention as you consider the Town's priorities for the coming year. â€¢ The second item is an opportunity: it comes from the 2006 data on reasons people come to Estes Park: 75% rated seeing wildlife as an important reason to visit. Only 8% listed a conference or meeting as an important reason. Estes Park's "value proposition" involves a unique combination of opportunities for outdoor recreation, wildlife viewing, and photography. We understand that the majority of the CVB's advertising is focused on Estes Park as a meeting location. But people who simply want a place to meet will meet in Fort Collins, Boulder, or Denver. We believe the Town will get more benefit from its advertising dollars if a larger portion of its advertising budget is allocated to emphasize outdoor recreation, wildlife, and scenic views. We believe this will differentiate Estes Park from most other locations, increase bookings for meetings, and attract more tourists as well. Thank you.