The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2008-09-09f:ile, Prepared 8/29/08 Ill TOWN Of ESTES PARK The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to plan and provide reliable, high-value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community by being good stewards of public resources and natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, September 9,2008 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. f (Any person desiring to participatebolease join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance). PROCLAMATION "CONSTITUTION WEEK" September 17 - 23,2008 PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated August 26, 2008 and Town Board Pre-Budget Study Session M?nutes dated August 26,2008. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, August 21, 2008: 1. Resolution # 14-08 L.E.T.A. 2009 Telephone/Wireless Access Charges of $.45 per month. B. Public Works, August 28,2008: 1. 2009 Ford Ranger 4x4, Burt Arapahoe Ford - $17,479.90, Budgeted. 2. Street Overlay Paving, Connell Resources - $120,000, Budgeted. 3. Wiest & Virginia Parking Lot Overlay, Connell Resources - $52,000, Budgeted. 4. Virginia Dr. and Parking Lot Sidewalk Improvements, Bryson Concrete - $14,050, Budgeted. 4. Intent to Annex Resolution #15-08 - Fall River Additions 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Public Hearing scheduled December 9,2008. 5. Resolution #16-08 - Scheduling a Show Cause Liquor Hearing for Vega LLC., dba Vega, 205 Virginia Drive, Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License on October 14, 2008. . 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. APPOINTMENT OF EPURA COMMISSIONERS. Mayor Pinkham. â€¢ Sharry White, 5 yr. term expiring 9/30/13. â€¢ Jim Martinsen, 5 yr. term expiring 9/30/13. 2. 2nd QUARTER SALES TAX REPORT. Finance Officer McFarland. 3. ORDINANCE #14-08 LEASE AGREEMENT WITH ESTES PARK LLC FOR OUTDOOR SEATING AREA AT 210 E. ELKHORN AVENUE. Deputy Town Clerk Deats. 4. FALL RIVER TRAIL PHASE IV. Director Zurn. 5. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 6. ADJOURN. b A NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the Ar,pnrip u,Aq nrpr,Arprl , Jackie Williamson From: EP Administration [ir3045@estes.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 03,2008 4:29 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 0645 ST. TIME 09/03 16:20 PGS. 2 SEND DOCUMENT NAME TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 6672527 Greg White 5869561 KEPL 5869532 Trail Gazette 5861691 Channe18 6353677 Reporter Herald 2247899 Coloradoan 5771590 EP News ERROR ----- 1 , Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 26,2008 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 26th day of August, 2008. Meeting called to order by Mayor Pinkham. Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Levine Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer John Ericson Trustee Homeier jerry Miller Also Present: Greg White, Town Attorney Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT. David Habecker/Town Citizen stated the Planning Commission was correct in its application of the Development Code and approval of the Wapiti Crossing development. He encouraged the Board to further define the Development Code to prevent these types of debates in the future. He again requested the Board stop reciting the Pledge at the beginning of the Town Board meetings. Jim Tawney/Town Citizen and owner of Ponderosa Lodge suggested there are more effective methods that should be use to market Estes Park. He stated in 1993, 1994 and 1995 he had approximately 90%+ occupancy during the season. He would like the Town to reconsider how it is marketing the Town. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. Trustee Blackhurst reminded the public that the Public Works Committee would meet Thursday at 8:00 a.m. in the Town Board Room. He stated the growth rate in Estes Park from 1993 to 2007 was 2.3% and from 2000 to 2007 was 1.95%. This is a correction from an earlier statement he made with regard to growth rates. Mayor Pinkham thanked the Board and staff for the efforts put forth on the pre-budget process. He encouraged all to join in the Longs Peak Scottish-Irish Highland Festival the week of Sept. 4 - 7,2008. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated August 12, 2008 and Town Board Pre-Budget Study Session Minutes dated August 8,2008. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, August 7,2008: 1. Team Penning Contract, September 12 - 14, 2008. , Board of Trustees - August 26,2008 - Page 2 2. Conference Center Roof Repair, B&M Roofing - $6,492. B. Utilities, August 14,2008: 1. Substation Maintenance Intergovernmental Agreement with Platte River Power Authority. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, June 3,2008 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, July 15, 2008 (acknowledgement only). 6. Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority, July 16, 2008 (acknowledgement only). 7. Power Line Easements between Della Terra and H.W. Stewart and William Carie. Trustee Ericson stated the bills contain an additional document that provides an overview of the bills. He spoke in favor of EPURA's recent amendment to their budget to correct an administrative oversight. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS. 1. Noxious Weed Plan and Management. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson stated George Hockman/Town Citizen claimed the Town was not in compliance with the state laws governing weed management, more specifically C.R.S. 35- 5.5-106. The statue requires that each municipality adopt a noxious weed management plan, all municipalities provide for the administration of a noxious weed management plan, municipalities may cooperate with adjoining counties for the management of noxious weeds and municipalities that have adopted Ordinances to manage noxious weeds have in fact adopted a noxious weed management plan and meet the requirements of the state statue. The Town has Ordinances in place that address the abatement of noxious weeds. In addition, the Town does provide for spraying of noxious weeds on all Town owned properties. Mayor Pinkham stated the Ordinance addressing noxious weeds is an enforcement tool and not practical as many of the plants in th question do not bloom until after July 15 . He requested the Town develop a program with Mr. Hockman and the Master Gardeners to provide education to homeowners on identifying and treating noxious weeds. Administrator Halburnt suggested an article in the Town Bugle and a web page to educate the public during the spring. Discussion followed: Public Works should be involved in addressing these concerns as a contractor is currently used to abate noxious weeds on Town properties, a simple color flyer should be created to aid the public in addition to the website and information as to why a particular plant is noxious would be beneficial. George Hockman/Town Citizen stated he disagrees with earlier statements that the Town is in compliance with state law. 3. LIQUOR LICENSING 1. LIQUOR LICENSING: TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP - FROM MARY'S LAKE LODGE LLC, dba MARY'S LAKE LODGE TO RAM'S HORN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC dba MARY'S LAKE LODGE, DON DEBEY, 2625 MARY'S LAKE ROAD, TAVERN LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson reviewed the application stating all necessary paperwork had been received. The business was purchased in 2002 by Ram's Horn Development and at that time Don Debey was added to the establish liquor license. During the liquor license renewal process it came to the Town Board of Trustees - August 26,2008 - Page 3 Clerk's attention that the sales tax account for which the liquor license was issued had been closed. This necessitated a transfer of the liquor license to the new entity. Mayor ProTem Levine reminded the applicant that the Town requires liquor licensed establishments to check identification and the Town places the responsibility on the establishment to enforce all liquor laws. It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Ericson) the Transfer of Ownership Application filed by Ram's Horn Development Company, LLC dba MARY'S LAKE LODGE, be approved, and it passed unanimously. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA: 1. ACTION ITEM: a. ESTES PARK MEDICAL CENTER LAND USE ITEMS: 1. AMENDED PLAT, All Hospital Addition, and two Metes and Bounds parcels located in SE S25-T5N-R73W and shown on the Moccasin Saddle Addition Plat as Portions of Tract 9 and 11 and all of Tract 10, Estes Park Medical Center/Applicant. 2. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN / LOCATION AND EXTENT REVIEW - SPECIAL REVIEW #06-01 B, All Hospital Addition, and two Metes and Bounds parcels located in SE S25-T5N-R73W and shown on the Moccasin Saddle Addition Plat as Porlions of Tract 9 and 11 and all of Tract 10, Estes Park Medical Center/Applicant. 3. REZONING - ORDINANCE #11-08 - two Metes and Bounds parcels located in SE S25-T5N-R73W and shown on the Moccasin Saddle Addition Plat as Portions of Tract 9 and 11 and all of Tract 10, from E - Estate to RM - Residential Multi-Family, Estes Park Medical Center/Applicant. Jeff Chamberlain/RLH Engineering reviewed the proposed 4,600 s.f. addition to the emergency facilities at the Estes Park Medical Center (EPMC). The addition would also include site work improvements for drainage, patient drop-off, a new loop road way and additional parking. The project would break ground in September 2008 with the new facility fully operational by the summer of 2009 at a cost of $4 million. The new parking lot would address drainage; however, there are ongoing discussions with Public Works to determine the best solution for the retention pond. Cornerstone Engineering has been retained to determine the feasibility of pushing Mocassin Circle Drive to the north three to six feet in order to remove the radius curve and bank the road. Public Works has requested the hospital pay for these improvements at a cost estimate of $50,000. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. The amended plat would combine three parcels into one to allow the hospital redevelopment/expansion. In conjunction with the amended plat, the hospital is requesting the two smaller parcels zoned "E" Estate be rezoned to "RM" Residential Multi-Family to be consistent with the larger parcel containing the hospital and the Prospect Park Living Center. The rezoning of the property would be contingent on the construction of the road improvements required by Public Works, the recording of the amended plat and compliance with the special review application #06-01B. The Special Review would add 4,606 square feet to the Emergency Department along the southern side of the existing building, reconfigure and expand the upper parking area, improve drainage and extend the public sidewalk along Mocassin Circle Drive. The EPMC is requesting a 6 year vesting period. Board of Trustees - August 26,2008 - Page 4 It was moved and seconded (Homeier/Eisenlauer) the Amended Plat of the All Hospital Addition and two Metes and Bounds parcels, be approved with staff conditions of approval, and it passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Homeier) the Amended Development Plan/Location and Extent Review - Special Review #06-01 B of the All Hospital Addition, and two Metes and Bounds, be approved with staff conditions of approval, and it passed unanimously. Attorney White read the Ordinance. It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Miller) Ordinance 11-08 be approved for the Rezoning of two Metes and Bounds parcels as described above, be approved with staff conditions of approval, and it passed unanimously. b. REZONING - ORDINANCE #12-08 - a Metes and Bounds parcel located at 1665 W. Highway 66, from RM - Residential Multi-Family to A-Accommodations, Elk Meadow RV Essential Group, LLC/Applicant. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. The Elk Meadow RV Park was rezoned to "RM" Residential Multi-Family in 2000. RV Parks are an allowed use by right in the "A" Accommodations and the "RM" Residential Multi-Family zoning districts. The RV Park would like to offer an outdoor evening dinner and musical entertainment as a permanent activity for its guests and general public. This accessory use would be a permitted accessory use in the "A" zoning district; however, the "RM" does not allow this use. Discussion followed amongst the Board: why was the property not zoned "CO"; does the current or proposed zoning allow parking/storage of RVs; could the issue be addressed through a permit versus a rezoning; the uses in the two zoning districts are comparable; the accessory use should be addressed through a code change and not a change in zoning; the zoning should match the use of the property; a site plan delineating the uses of the property would be beneficial; due to the price of gas the property would likely be redeveloped in the future. Director Joseph stated the "CO" Commercial Outlying does not allow the RV Park as a use. The parking/storage of RVs is a grand- fathered use of the property. The rezoning would allow for a large hotel to be built in the future, which would not be permitted in the current "RM" zoning district. There are no provisions in the code to allow this accessory use; however, temporary permits have been used for the past two seasons and are good for 30 days. David Habecker/Town Citizen expressed concern with the special permitted uses. He stated the change is use would eliminate the grand-fathering on the property and require other regulations to be addressed such as building code requirements, parking, landscaping, etc. Director Joseph stated the principle use of the property has not been changed, and therefore, only site specific requirements for the accessory use would be reviewed. After further discussion, Attorney White read the Ordinance. It was moved and seconded (Miller/Blackhurst) Ordinance 12-08 be approved for the Rezoning of a Metes and Bounds parcel Board of Trustees - August 26,2008 - Page 5 located at 1665 W. Highway 66 as described above, and it passed unanimously. c. SPECIAL REVIEW #08-02, HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGE CONCESSION, Downtown Estes Park, Estes Park Carriage, John Jarros/Applicant. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. The Special Review proposal would allow a horse-drawn carriage operation within the Town of Estes Park. Services would include wedding transportation, special events and carriage rides along a fixed route already approved for another vendor. The normal hours of operation for the fixed route would be 1:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily. The Planning Commission did recommend approval at the July 15, 2008 meeting with conditions of approval. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (BlackhursULevine) Special Review #08-02 be approved for a horse-drawn carriage concession with staff conditions of approval, and it passed unanimously. d. ORDINANCE #13-08, Estes Valley Development Code Block 11 Amendments - Public Hearing: Revisions to the appeal process. Director Joseph stated the purpose of the revisions is to provide a specific time frame for the filing and hearing of appeals under the Estes Valley Development Code. An appeal would be held within sixty (60) days of filing the written notice of the appeal. Attorney White read the Ordinance. As there were no comments, the Mayor closed the public hearing and it was moved and seconded (BlackhursUEricson) to approve Ordinance 13-08, and it passed unanimously. 4. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ESTES PARK MEDICAL CENTER FEE WAIVER. Director Joseph stated the Community Development Committee waived the development plan review fees of $2,500 at the August 7,2008 meeting per the Fee Waiver Policy; however, the policy allows up to $3,000. The EPMC requests the Board waive the additional $14,500 in building plan review fees and inspection fees. Community Development staff did not forward a recommendation; however, staff recommends denial of the request. Rob Austin/EPMC CEO stated the letter dated August 18, 2008 list the reasons for the request including: reduced project costs would lower customer charges; emergency departments customarily have a higher percentage of uncollected expenses; as a taxing entity that continually goes to the public for donations to make up shortfalls; the hospital has received fee waivers in the past and is a special district. In addition the fee waiver would provide funding for the improvements that may be needed on Mocassin Circle Drive. Trustee Blackhurst stated the objective of development fees and plan review fees is to recover 50% of the cost and this fee waiver would be a direct impact to the overall department budget. Director Joseph stated the fee waiver would have a direct impact on revenue projections for 2008. He stated the department has been able to staff the Building Department to meet demand due to cost recovery. Development fees place the cost of development on the developer and not the municipality. The Board discussed the fee waiver: 71% of the fees waived in the past 5 years have been to the hospital; the Town should continue to be a community partner and waive the fees; waiving the hospital fees could set a precedent for other fee waivers such as the request from the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District; are fee waivers factored into revenue projections each year; the Board of Trustees - August 26,2008 - Page 6 Town's revenues are down for 2008 and may not meet year-end budget projections. Trustee Blackhurst stated the Town recently adopted the Fee Waiver Policy and expressed concern with not following the policy. He would suggest the Board consider waiving half of the remaining fees. Trustee Levine agreed. Director Joseph commented other governmental entities planning large projects should come forward during the budget process with fee waiver requests for the Board to consider and weigh at one time. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Ericson) to approve the remaining $14,500 in building permit and plan review fees, and it passed with Trustee Levine and Blackhurst voting 'No". 2. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. The Town and the County are accepting applications for the Local Marketing District Advisory Council. Applications are available and would be accepted through September 8,2008. Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 9:42 p.m. William C. Pinkham, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 26,2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD PRE-BUDGET 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 26th day of August, 2008. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Ericson, Homeier, Levine and Miller Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Dept. Heads Joseph, McFarland and Zurn, Mgr. Winslow and Town Clerk Williamson Absent None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. 2009 POLICY GUIDANCE. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Administrator Halburnt reviewed the CIP for 2009 and stated the multi-use barn facility continues to be the number one project. She reviewed the funding options for the facility which includes financing the entire project, a combination of cash and financing and a pay as you go scenario. She also stated there is approximately $1 million in the Catastrophic Loss Fund (CLF) that could be borrowed for this project. The Board discussed the option: if financing is used the Town should build the multi-use barn and redo the grandstands due to ongoing CIRSA concerns; the recent survey indicated the citizens of the valley want an ice arena and indoor recreation; how would the Town finance and would the Town need to receive voter approval; and the Town should consider alternative building materials or products that would met LED standards. Administrator Halburnt stated the grandstands are only used a couple of weeks per year and questioned if the Board wanted to finance the improvements to the grandstand. If financing is the mechanism used by the Board, Certificates of Participation (COPs) would be used with the Municipal Building as leverage. Trustee Blackhurst stated a combination of cash and financing would be acceptable. Trustee Levine voiced concern with the transfer of funds from the CLF. This fund should be used only for a catastrophe. Trustee Blackhurst questioned the need for a 30% reserve and a CLF. Trustee Levine stated the reserve funds are there for an emergency for outside forces whereas catastrophic fund is for a major loss to the Town, i.e. flood. Trustee Levine stated he would support no more than $800,000 being transferred from the CLF. Discussion followed as to the best method of financing. The Board agreed to move forward with the entire project including the multi-use barn with ice, parking lot, landscaping and grandstand improvements. Staff will present financing options to the Board during the upcoming budget hearings. The Board stated the improvements would be good for the community and the visitors and perhaps spur private investment in the area. Trustee Miller stated all issues related to maintenance and policies should be removed from the CIP. He also stated an RFP should be completed for the multi-use facility if funds are available this year. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - August 26,2008 - Page 2 Trustee Ericson would advocate for a rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code. He stated he would support the adoption of a Fire Code as well. Trustee Blackhurst and Miller would advocate for an update to the Development Code. Trustee Blackhurst stated a statistical update of the Comprehensive Plan was completed recently. Administrator Halburnt recommended addressing a couple of chapters of the Development Code per year. Administrator Halburnt questioned if upgrades to Bond Park could be delayed. Discussion followed amongst the Board: Bond Park should be a joint venture between the Town and EPURA; should not be a main focus; Public Works should move forward with a Master Plan; a Master Plan would provide a long range view and provide community input on the uses of the park in the future. Administrator Halburnt stated a Master Plan is estimated to cost $50,000 and only $20,000 was budgeted for 2008. Wildlife Habitat Assessment Director Joseph presented the completed Wildlife Habitat study, which is ready for adoption and included in the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code. This document provides the information needed to propose revisions to related sections of the Development Code that address wildlife habitat and related impact studies. The habitat map and ranking provided in the study could be used to identify lands that have significant habitat, and therefore, subject to Wildlife Conservation Plans. This would remove the Division of Wildlife from defining a development's significant negative impact to the wildlife. The completed study identifies the highest priority along stream and river corridors as the highest value habitat in the valley; therefore, staff would recommended river setbacks be increased to 50 feet. Other standards addressing the preservation of these riparian zones may also be considered. Code changes would be presented to the Planning Commission at the September 2008 meeting with possible adoption by the Town Board and County Commissioners in November. Comments were heard: concern was raised regarding the terminology used on the map, i.e. highest versus high; questioned why the code would not address the high priority properties as well; some of the highest value properties identified are on steep slopes, along stream corridors or conservation easements; this is a useful planning tool and eliminates CDOW from the decision making process for development approval; and Table 4 Buffers should be included in code revisions. Director Joseph stated protecting the highest value properties would provide connectivity of the ecological network. These properties can not be lost. The high value properties would not destroy the fundamental connectivity of the wildlife habitat, and therefore, is not considered irreplaceable. He stated the map should be refined with ground truthing on a parcel-by-parcel basis. The development of an infill lot within the urban area (gray areas of the map) would not have a detrimental effect on the wildlife as suitable habitat is available nearby. Staff would propose to the Planning Commission that buffers outlined in Table 4 be adopted into the Development Code. Attorney White stated the Board should consider adoption of regulations that accompany the Wildlife Habitat Map. These regulations would limit staff from interrupting the code requirements in the future and provide clear guidelines to the general public and developers. Trustee Blackhurst pointed out an error in the population and growth rate statistics. Staff would review and make necessary changes. Trustee Miller questioned who reviews Conservation Plans developed to mitigate development. Director Joseph stated staff would review the plan and then Planning Commission. Trustee Miller stated the Town should engage a third party consultant to review the plan and determine whether it meets minimum standards. Attorney White stated procedures should be developed to address how the plan mitigates concerns and how to quantify the mitigation efforts proposed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - August 26,2008 - Page 3 Director Joseph recommended engaging EDAW to prepare an Open Space study. The purpose of the study would be to identify open spaces that have high value and characteristics that qualify them for protection. An RFP was not prepared for the study as staff contends the two studies go hand in hand. EDAW was hired initially because they have a wildlife biologist that can complete both studies. The Board requested staff complete an RFP for the Open Space study. Director Joseph stated staff requests the Board provide direction related to existing density and floor area standards. Members of the Board stated density in the valley was drastically reduced during the 2000 rezoning of the valley. Trustee Miller expressed concern with design guidelines. He stated expansion of the PUD could address density and FAR. MISCELLANEOUS Mayor Pinkham stated the RMNP has completed a wildlife study that would be presented to the Town Board at an upcoming meeting. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~ Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 21, 2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 21St day of August, 2008. Committee: Chair Eisenlauer, Trustees Ericson and Homeier Attending: Chair Eisenlauer and Trustee Ericson Also Attending: Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Chief Kufeld, Chief Dorman and Clerk Williamson Absent Trustee Homeier and Town Administrator Halburnt Chair Eisenlauer called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None. POLICE DEPARTMENT Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) Surcharge - Request Approval. The Larimer County Telephone Authority recommends the monthly 911 access facility charge for telephone/cellular phone communication at $.45 a month per phone for the year 2009. These fees fund all 911 related costs required to operate the Estes Park Communication Center's computers, software and training of 911 dispatchers. The service charge has not changed from the previous years. The Committee recommends approval of the $.45 surcharge for 911 services operated by LETA and the associated Resolution. Update Wireless Network Mobile Data Terminals - Request Approval. In 2003, the Town Board approved a wireless network to provide the police officers in the field with connectivity for records management, radio communication and police reporting. This digital communication system was funded by a Byrne grant. Laptop computers were purchased and antennas mounted to all patrol vehicles to provide Mobile Data Terminals (MDT) in each of the vehicles. This enabled the officers to cut contact time in half, allow dispatchers to concentrate on incoming calls, increase officer safety with "silent dispatching" (no scanners to exchange information), provide officers with a direct link to databases such as the Colorado Crime Information Center/National Crime Information Center, Triburon, and the country-wide records management system, and utilize the Mobile Citation devices for traffic summonses and parking citations. This technology has become antiquated, failed numerous times, replacement parts are unavailable and connectivity down to 30%. Therefore, the department has researched replacement options and applied for a second Bryne grant, which was denied. The department would like to recommend using the infrastructure already supported by local wireless companies such as AT&T or Verizon. This would include the purchase of monthly wireless cards, On-Board Mobile Gateway units (OMGs) to read the cards and a T-1 phone line to allow direct connectivity to the Town's network system (maintained by IT) at an upstart cost of $19,280. This cost includes the purchase of 8 OMGs with installation for $18,800 and 8 wireless cards for $480 for the month of December. The T-1 line would be requested at an upcoming Utilities Committee meeting. Future costs would include the monthly purchase of 8 wireless cards at $480/month. Upgrading the current system would cost over $100,000 and would require upgrades every 4 to 5 years. The proposed option would place the infrastructure costs on the larger provider. This system would provide approximately 70% coverage throughout the valley and would increase the visibility of the police officers in the community, a known crime deterrent. The T-1 line could also be utilized in the future by other Town departments such as Meter, Water, L&P and GIS. After further discussion, the Committee RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee - August 21, 2008 - Page 2 recommends approval to purchase the On-Board Mobile Gateways and wireless cards at a cost of $19,280 from account #101-2155-421-26-33. Seqwav Purchase - Request Approval. The Police Department purchased a Segway in 2005 to provide a presence in the downtown area and allow for greater accessibility to the downtown corridor during congested periods. The vehicle has also proven to be a valuable tool during parades and other events. The current vehicle has been used extensively and requires major repairs; therefore, the department would like to purchase a second vehicle with newer technology at a lower unit cost. In addition, the older model has been phased out and parts will no longer be available. The new unit would also be equipped with the Police package for a price of $6,459.58. The Committee recommends approval to purchase a X2 Personal Transporter (Segway) at a cost of $6,459.58. Report: 1. School Resource Officer (SRO) Report: Officer Polucha stated the SRO provides law enforcement, education and prevention to the student body and the faculty at all three schools. He reviewed statistics from the previous school year: 89 dispositions with 18 forwarded to the County Court, 26 to Municipal Court, 5 to Restorative Justice and 40 warnings. Charges ranged from disorderly conduct, theft, harassment, drug and alcohol possession and criminal mischief. Education and Prevention assemblies and courses were conducted at all three schools and included M.A.D.D., Teen Driving Course, D.U.I., N.O.T., Alive at 25, Teen Police Academy, 1<-9 Demonstration, Safety Fair, E.C.H.O., Bullying and Halloween Safety. Additional courses will be presented in the 2008-2009 school year and include Internet Safety, Emergency Preparedness and OLWEUS Bully Proofing. Officer Polucha stated he has formed relationships with the individual kids and developed a positive image for the Police Department. 2. Municipal Court Fines: Chief Kufeld informed the Committee that surcharges collected with parking tickets was an error. The Police and Finance Departments have worked together to refund the surcharge to those that could be identified. Many tourist use rental cars and could not be identified as tickets are issued by license plate and not individual names. 3. Golf Tournament Report: Chief Kufeld stated the 22nd annual Chiefs Golf Tournament was held on August 8th with 127 attendees. The $920.56 raised will be donated to local charities such as the Boys and Girls Golf Clubs at the Estes Park High School and Partners Mentoring Youth. FIRE DEPARTMENT Report: 1. Local Fire Conditions and Larimer County's Adoption of Fire Restrictions Report: Chief Dorman reported Larimer County placed fire restrictions in the unincorporated area of Estes Park on July 29th. The Town did not issue similar restrictions as the Municipal Code already contains restrictions in line with Larimer County's. Fire restrictions have been lifted by the County due to the rain received. 2. Fire District Task Force: The Task Force will present their recommendations to the public on September 11th and 18th at 7:00 p.m. in the Board room. There being no further business, Chair Eisenlauer adjourned the meeting at 8:55 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RESOLUTION NO. BEING A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A TELEPHONE EXCHANGE ACCESS FACILITY CHARGE AND A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS ACCESS CHARGE FOR THE LARIMER EMERGENCY TELEPHONE AUTHORITY EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2009. WHEREAS, the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority was created pursuant to Â§ 29-11- 101, et seq., C.R.S., by an Intergovernmental Agreement Concerning the Implementation of an "E911" Emergency Telephone Service, dated November 14, 1990, between certain governmental entities located iii Larimer County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the aforesaid statutory authority and by resolution of the Town of Estes Park on May 8,1990, and Ordinance No. 4-98 properly adopted by the Board of Trustees on February 10, 1998, the Board of Trustees is authorized to raise, lower, or reestablish a telephone exchange access facility charge and a wireless communications access charge to be assessed telephone (wireline and wireless) service users in the Town of Estes Park; and WHEREAS, the Board ofTrustees deems that reestablishing the telephone exchange access facility charge at the rate of forty-five cents ($.45) per month and the wireless communications access charge at the rate of forty-five cents ($.45) per month is necessary and appropriate to adequately fund emergency telephone services in the Town of Estes Park; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: 1. Commencing on January 1, 2009, the telephone exchange access facility charge and the wireless communications access charge shall each be reestablished at forty-five cents ($.45) per month per exchange access facility or per wireless communications access. 2. Telephone service suppliers providing telephone service in the Town of Estes Park are authorized to collect the telephone exchange access facility charge in accordance with Â§ 29-11- 101, etseq., C.R.S. 3. Wireless telephone service suppliers providing wireless telephone service in the Town of Estes Park are authorized to collect the wireless communications access charge in accordance with Â§ 29-11-100.5, etseq., C.R.S. Upon motion duly made, seconded and carried, the foregoing Resolution was adopted this day of ,2008. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO BY Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 28,2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 28th day of August, 2008. Committee: Chairman Blackhurst, Mayor Pro Tem Levine and Trustee Miller Attending: Chairman Blackhurst and Mayor Pro Tem Levine Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Public Works Director Zurn, Supt. Mahany, Project Manager Sievers, Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent: Trustee Miller Chairman Blackhurst called the meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. George Hockman, Town of Estes Park resident, voiced his concerns about the spread of noxious weeds in Estes Park. He stated that he has researched Colorado State Statute, the Estes Park Municipal Code, and contacted Town Administration and Public Works Department personnel about this subject. It is his belief that shortcomings exist in the current management plan and that improvements are needed to adequately address the control of noxious weed growth. PARKS DEPARTMENT VEHICLE REPLACEMENT - REQUEST APPROVAL. The 2008 Vehicle Replacement Fund budget includes $25,000 for the replacement of the Parks Department pickup G45A which is a 1995 Ford Ranger 4x4 with 90,050 miles. Bids for a new vehicle were solicited with the following results: Burt Arapahoe Ford - Centennial, Colorado 2009 Ford Ranger 4x4 $20,779.90 Trade-in 1995 Ford Ranger 4x4 (G45A) $ 3,300.00 Bid Price $17,479.90 Phil Long Ford - Colorado Springs, Colorado 2009 Ford Ranger 4x4 $20,904.00 Trade-in 1995 Ford Ranger 4x4 (G45A) $ 3,000.00 Bid Price $17,904.00 Weld County Garage - Greelev, Colorado 2009 GMC Canyon 4x4 $21,127.99 Trade-in 1995 Ford Ranger 4x4 (G45A) $ 3,000.00 Bid Price $18,127.99 Transwest GMC - Henderson, Colorado 2009 GMC Canyon 4x4 $22,513.00 Trade-in 1995 Ford Ranger 4x4 (G45A) $ 1,500.00 Bid Price $21,013.00 Staff requests approval to trade in the 1995 Ford Ranger and purchase a new 2009 Ford Ranger 4x4 from Burt Arapahoe Ford at a cost of $17,479.90. The Committee asked whether consideration was given to purchasing a hybrid vehicle. Supt. Mahany stated that currently the hybrid alternative was available only in a full-size vehicle which would be too large for the intended use by Parks Department personnel. The Committee recommends approval of the purchase of a 2009 Ford Ranger 4x4 at a cost of $17,479.90 from the Vehicle Replacement Fund Account #635-7000-435-34- 42 budgeted, as outlined. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - August 28,2008 - Page 2 2008 STREET OVERLAY CONTRACT WITH CONNELL RESOURCES - REQUEST APPROVAL. Using MicroPaverâ„¢ asphalt maintenance software, the Public Works Department monitors the condition of road and parking lot surfaces and ranks them based on their level of surface distress or pavement condition index (PCI). Each year the most poorly ranked streets and parking lots are scheduled for resurfacing through the repaving program. By applying one-and-a-half inches of structural asphalt overlay to the surface, the integrity of the road is re-established and costly repairs are prevented. In 2008, 1400 feet of Stanley Avenue from Highway 36 to Prospect Avenue; and 2220 feet of Crags Drive from Moraine Avenue to Ridge View Drive have been identified as proposed projects, totaling approximately 1100 tons of asphalt. This fall the YMCA of the Rockies is doing a large paving project and received three bids for the work (Connell Resources, LaFarge West, and Hall-Irwin.) Town staff negotiated with their low-bid contractor, Connell Resources of Loveland, to piggyback on the YMCA's project at a cost of $82/ton with an October 2008 paving schedule. The Committee discussed the following: plans for a future project along Prospect Avenue; rolling over remaining budgeted monies to fund infrastructure needs; polymer modified asphalt is not available so a standard asphalt paving mix will be used; and the project will be completed during October. The Committee recommends approval of a contract with Connell Resources for repaving of a portion of Stanley Avenue and Crags Drive at a cost of $120,000 budgeted from account #101-3100431-35-51, as presented. WIEST PARKING LOT & VIRGINIA DRIVE PARKING LOT OVERLAY CONTRACT WITH CONNELL RESOURCES - REQUEST APPROVAL. During construction of Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) improvements at Wiest Plaza and riverwall repairs, contractors were allowed to stage from the Wiest Parking Lot. The parking lot was in poor condition when the projects started and, with heavy construction traffic, additional deterioration occurred resulting in a PCI of 31. EPURA has agreed to pay for 50% of the costs associated with overlaying the Wiest Parking Lot which is estimated to be $40,000. In addition, the Virginia Drive Parking Lot with a PCI of 47 is also in need of resurfacing. The 2008 budget contains $52,000 for repaving. Staff is requesting approval to resurface these two parking lots in conjunction with the paving of Stanley Avenue and Crags Drive by Connell Resources, which was previously approved, based on the contractor's negotiated unit price of $82/ton. The work will also include patching, milling, and striping. The Committee recommends approval of the contract with Connell Resources to overlay the Wiest and Virginia Drive Parking Lots at a cost not to exceed $52,000 budgeted from account #101-3100-431- 35-52, with EPURA responsible for one-half of the cost of the Wiest Parking Lot resurfacing. FALL RIVER TRAIL PHASE 4 BID PROCESS. Fall River Trail Phase 4 was scheduled to span the 2007 and 2008 budgets which contain $350,000 in account #220-4600-462-35-60 for the project. Engineering design, field surveying, and data collection have been completed. Fall River Trail Phase 4 lies completely within the CDOT right-of-way of Highway 34 and requires a License Contract with the State of Colorado. Final review by CDOT has been underway throughout the summer. Bid packages were sent to contractors on August 15, 2008 and bid opening is scheduled for September 4,2008. Staff is requesting to take the bid results directly to the September 9,2008 Town Board meeting and allow the contractor to break ground prior to the next regularly scheduled Public Works Committee meeting, in order to complete construction this year. The Committee recommends the bids for Fall River Trail Phase 4, which will be paid for with Larimer County Open Space funds, be taken to the September 9,2008 Town Board meeting with a presentation to the full board. VIRGINIA DRIVE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS - REQUEST APPROVAL. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - August 28,2008 - Page 3 The alley off of Virginia Drive is a Town-owned public right-of-way and, over the years, has been the site of storm water and pedestrian safety issues. Staff requested bids from local concrete specialty contractors to construct a small retaining wall, curb and gutter, and surface improvements to be made prior to repaving the Virginia Drive Parking Lot. Cornerstone Concrete - Bob Pavlish $25,287 Bryson Concrete - Jon Bryson $14,050 Mountain Concrete - Scott Miller $14,259 The work will improve pedestrian safety, connect the sidewalks in the area, provide handicap accessibility, and improve drainage. Staff recommends contracting with Bryson Concrete to complete this work prior to the planned parking lot repaving in October. The Committee recommends approval of the contract with Bryson Concrete at a cost of $14,050 from account #101-5200-452-26-22 budgeted for sidewalk improvements as outlined. MISCELLANEOUS. 1. Noxious Weeds: Town Administrator Halbumt stated that the Town is compliant with regulations related to weed control and that the Town Board sits as the requisite advisory board. Dir. Zurn reported that Estes Land Stewards Association (ELSA) is spearheading an educational effort to assist with identification and control of noxious weeds through fliers, newspaper articles, and a weed roundup event. The Town provided the Elm Road location for the weed roundup and for the disposal of the weeds. Weeds bagged in paper bags will be accepted for disposal through the end of the summer. Dir. Zum stated that the Town hires a private contractor to spray weeds on Town properties and budgets funds for that purpose. 2. Air Curtain Burner: The burner continues to be operated several times per week with no recent complaints from neighbors. 3. Elm Road Drainaqe: Dir. Zurn stated that a drainage master plan for the Elm Road area is being studied to provide a solution to area drainage issues. Owners in the area have reported that their properties are receiving more drainage water than is historic and experiencing erosion problems. 4. Forest Service Recycling Program: Dir. Zurn will follow up with information about this program at the next Public Works meeting. 5. Fish Creek Trail Phase 3A: Mgr. Sievers reported that A-1 Excavating will be breaking ground in mid-September to complete work on Fish Creek Trail Phase 3A, a 100-foot long portion along Scott Avenue. The work was previously postponed due to delays in receiving permits and drainage approvals. There being no further business, Chairman Blackhurst adjourned the meeting at 8:57 a.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk . RESOLUTION NO. 15-08 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, in accordance with Section 31-12-107, C.R.S., hereby states its intention to annex the area described herein. The Board of Trustees finds and determines that the Petition filed with the Town Clerk requesting annexation of the area described herein is in substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1)(g), C.R.S. The Board of Trustees further finds and determines that the Petition is signed by persons comprising one hundred percent (100%) of the landowners in the area proposed to be annexed and owning one hundred percent (100%) of the area, excluding public streets and alleys, and any land owned by the annexing municipality. Such area, if annexed, will be known as "FALL RIVER FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH, NINTH, TENTH AND ELEVENTH ADDITIONS" to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. Such area is described as follows: FALL RIVER ANNEXATION FIFTH ADDITION: A tract of land located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 16 as monumented by a 2 1/2" brass cap on a 1" pipe and with all bearings relative to the East line of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 16 considered as bearing N 01Â°19'00" E, the south end of said line being monumented by a 1" pipe and a 2 1/2" G.L.O. brass cap stamped 1925; thence S88Â°31'00'W 2609.69' to the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 16, being monumented by a 2 1/2" brass capped pipe stamped C 1/4 comer Section 16, T5N, R73W, U.S.G.L.O. 1926 Survey and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence S89Â°19'27'W 237.69' along the North 1/4 line of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 16; thence departing said North line S52Â°03'50"E 299.27' to a point on the southern right-of-way of Highway 34; thence departing said right-of-way N00Â°37'00"E 141.14 to a point on the northern right-of-way of Highway 34; thence along said right-of-way N00Â°09'21"E 45.66' more or less to TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; said tract contains *22,221 square feet (0.51 acres) more or less, and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way of record, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Containing 0.51 acres. FALL RIVER ANNEXATION SIXTH ADDITION: A tract of land located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 16 as monumented by a 2 1/2" brass cap on a 1" pipe and with all bearings relative to the West line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 16 considered as bearing N 01Â°19'00" E, the south end of said line being monumented by a 1" pipe and a 2 1/2" G.L.O. brass cap stamped 1925; thence S88Â°31'00'W 2609.69' to the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 16, being monumented by a 2 1/2" brass capped pipe stamped C 1/4 comer Section 16, T5N, R73W, U.S.G.L.O. 1926 Survey; thence S89Â°19'27'W 237.69' along the North 1/4 Section line and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence departing said 1/4 Section line S52Â°03'50"E 299.27' to a point on the southern right-of-way of Highway 34; thence continuing along said southern right-of-way N76Â°21'36'W 755.21'; thence departing said southern right-of-way N89Â°19'18"E 497.91 more or less to TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; said tract contains +46,496 square feet (1.07 acres) more or less, and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way of record, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Containing 1.07 acres. FALL RIVER ANNEXATION SEVENTH ADDITION: A tract of land located in the West 1/2 of Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 16 as monumented by a 2 1/2" brass cap on a 1" pipe and with all bearings relative to the East line of the SouthEast 1 /4 of said Section 16 considered as bearing N 01Â°19'00" E, the south end of said line being monumented by a 1" pipe and a 2 1/2" G.L.O. brass cap stamped 1925; thence S88Â°31'00'W 2609.69' to the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 16, being monumented by a 2 1/2" brass capped pipe stamped C 1/4 corner Section 16, T5N, R73W, U.S.G.L.O. 1926 Survey; thence SOOÂ°09'21'W 45.66'; thence SOOÂ°37'00'VV 141.14' to a point on the south right-of-way of Highway 34 and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence deaprting said southern right-of-way S01Â°14'24'W 767.87' to a point on the northern right-of-way by use of Fish Hatchery Road; thence along said northern right-of-way by use the following 37 bearings and distances; N83Â°13'13'W 23.52; N79Â°38'01'W 61.40'; N77Â°22'32'W 98.97'; N77Â°49'31'9 95.27'; N82Â°11'35'W 80.16'; N75Â°11'23'W 153.99'; N75Â°42'29'W 113.46'; N70Â°58'37'W 67.73'; N59Â°03'31'W 73.22'; N60Â°00'12'W 57.28'; N58Â°14'15'W 45.79'; N51Â°23'32'W 34.75'; N27Â°44'01'W 43.57'; N31Â°22'58'W 27.73'; N29Â°13'02'W 68.62'; N46Â°26'22'W 51.50'; N57Â°16'56'W 39.13'; N46Â°44'28'W 15.92'; N49Â°24'09'W 70.40'; N47Â°03'38'W 51.26'; N48Â°39'14'W 128.93'; N47Â°12'20'W 81.00'; N49Â°27'50'W 125.24'; N48Â°30'04'W 51.91'; N53Â°50'38'W 75.39'; N15Â°26'24"E 1 5.11'; N50Â°14'45"E 54.55'; N62Â°48'58"E 14.09'; N53Â°58'22"E 29.86'; S89Â°54'47"E 36.70'; N73Â°20'43"E 107.01'; thence N82Â°43'47"E 108.71'; thence N88Â°01'18"E 108.48'; thence S85Â°50'10"E 95.76'; thence S86Â°25'12"E 75.77'; thence S76Â°19'45"E 37.62'; N89Â°20'59"E 83.23'; N89Â°19'18"E 66.09' to a point on the southern right-of-way of Highway 34; thence along the southern right-of-way S76Â°21'36"E 755.21' more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; said tract contains +872,221 square feet (20.02 acres) more or less, and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way of record, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Containing 20.02 acres. FALL RIVER ANNEXATION EIGHTH ADDITION: A tract of land located in the West 1/2 of Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 16 as monumented by a 2 1/2" brass cap on a 1" pipe and with all bearings relative to the East line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 16 considered as bearing N 01Â°19'00" E, the south end of said line being monumented by a 1" pipe and a 2 1/2" G.L.O. brass cap stamped 1925; thence S88Â°31'00'W 2609.69' to the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 16, being monumented by a 2 1/2" brass capped pipe stamped C 1/4 corner Section 16, T5N, R73W, U.S.G.L.O. 1926 Survey; thence SOOÂ°09'21'W 45.66'; thence SOOÂ°37'00'W 141.14' to a point on the south right-of-way; thence S01'14'24"E 767.87' and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along the Fish Hatchery Road right-of-way by use the following 37 bearings and distances; N83Â°13'13'W 23.52; N79Â°38'01'W 61.40'; N77Â°22'32'W 98.97'; N77Â°49'31'W 95.27'; N82Â°11'35"W 80.16'; N75Â°11'23'W 153.99'; N75Â°42'29'W 113.46'; N70Â°58'37'W 67.73'; N59Â°03'31'W 73.22'; N60Â°00'12'W 57.28'; N58Â°14'15'W 45.79'; N51Â°23'32'W 34.75'; N27Â°44'01'W 43.57'; N31Â°22'58'W 27.73'; N29Â°13'02'W 68.62'; N46Â°26'22'W 51.50'; N57Â°16'56'W 39.13'; N46Â°44'28'W 15.92'; N49Â°24'09'W 70.40'; N47Â°03'38'W 51.26'; N48Â°39'14'W 128.93'; N47Â°12'20'W 81.00'; N49Â°27'50'W 125.24'; N48Â°30'04'W 51.91'; N53Â°50'38'W 75.39'; N15Â°26'24"E 15.11'; N50Â°14'45"E 54.55'; N62Â°48'58"E 14.09'; N53Â°58'22"E 29.86'; S89Â°54'47"E 36.70'; N73Â°20'43"E 107.01'; N82Â°43'47"E 108.71'; N88Â°01'18"E 108.48'; S85Â°50'10"E 95.76'; S86Â°25'12"E 75.77'; S76Â°19'45"E 37.62'; N89Â°20'59"E 82.23'; thence N89Â°19'18"E 66.09' to a point on the southern right-of-way of Highway 34; thence along the southern right-of-way along a curve concave to the north radius 11560', length 248.20', delta 1 Â°13'49"; thence departing said southern right- of-way line and along the right-of-way by use of Fish Hatchery Road the following 27 bearings and distances: N85Â°58'14'W 99.10'; S89Â°14'18'W 86.73'; S83Â°33'04'W 96.51'; S76Â°52'10'W 113.72'; S70Â°00'57'W 90.66'; S61Â°31'32'W 54.34'; S56Â°07'30'W 60.48'; S52Â°58'09'W 64.01'; S02Â°04'06'W 13.33'; S38Â°59'31"E 28.14'; S80Â°29'21"E 21.31'; S58Â°18'50"E 83.45'; S52Â°18'06"E 50.96'; S47Â°56'32"E 142.82'; S48Â°07'11"E 53.53'; S48Â°29'58"E 128.32'; S38Â°20'04"E 54.15'; S49Â°11'03"E 72.86'; S73Â°22'14"E 19.36'; S39Â°46'49"E 45.92'; S52Â°38'59"E 39.77'; S31Â°10'28"E 50.69'; Sl 5Â°24'27"E 90.87'; S63Â°37'54"E 32.78'; S37Â°38'23"E 73.12'; S70Â°37'41"E 57.66'; S83Â°41'33"E 18.28' to the end of said right-of-way by use boundary; thence along the following 6 courses along deeded properties along a curve concave to the north radius 551.70', length 114.42', delta of 11Â°52'57", thence along a curve concave to the north radius 551.70', length 124.61', delta of 12Â°56'26"; thence S78Â°46'27"E 115.64'; thence S78Â°46'19"E 132.23'; Thence S78Â°47'42"E 144.40'; Thence S78Â°48'01"E 160.91', thence N01Â°14'24"E 67.90' more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; said tract contains +136,763 square feet (3.14 acres) more or less, and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way of record, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Containing 3.14 acres. FALL RIVER ANNEXATION NINTH ADDITION: A tract of land located in the West 1/2 of Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 16 as monumented by a 2 1/2" brass cap on a 1" pipe and with all bearings relative to the East line of the Southeast 1 /4 of said Section 16 considered as bearing N 01Â°19'00" E, the south end of said line being monumented by a 1" pipe and a 2 1/2" G.L.O. brass cap stamped 1925; thence S88Â°31'00'W 2609.69' to the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 16, being monumented by a 2 1/2" brass capped pipe stamped C 1/4 corner Section 16, T5N, R73W, U.S.G.L.O. 1926 Survey; thence S89Â°19'27'W 237.69' to a right-of-way brass cap; thence departing said right-of-way S89Â°19'32'W 1167.46' to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along the Fish Hatchery Road right-of-way by use the following 22 bearings and distances: S61Â°31'32'W 34.21'; S56Â°07'30'W 60.48'; S52Â°58'09'W 64.01'; S02Â°04'06'W 13.33'; S38Â°59'31"E 28.14'; S80Â°29'21"E 21.31'; S58Â°18'50"E 83.45'; S52Â°18'06"E 50.96'; S47Â°56'32"E 142.82'; S48Â°07'11"E 53.53'; S48Â°29'58"E 128.32'; S38Â°20'04"E 54.15'; S49Â°11'03"E 72.86'; S73Â°22'14"E 19.36'; S39Â°46'49"E 45.92'; S52Â°38'59"E 39.77'; S31Â°10'28"E 50.69'; S15Â°24'27"E 90.87'; S63Â°37'54"E 32.78'; S37Â°38'23"E 73.12'; S70Â°37'41"E 57.66'; S83Â°41'33"E 18.28' to the end of said right-of-way by use boundary; thence S01Â°07'56'W 467.37' to a point on the South line of the N 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of Section 16; thence along said line S89Â°38'48'W 1829.39' to the south 1/16 corner of Section 16; thence along the west line of of the N 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of Section 16 N00Â°38'26"E 1262.87' to the west 1/4 corner of Section 16; thence along the north line of the N 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of Section 16 N89Â°19'31"E 1199.11', more or less, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; said tract contains :El,997,425 square feet (45.85 acres) more or less, and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way of record, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Containing 45.85 acres. FALL RIVER ANNEXATION TENTH ADDITION: A tract of land located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 16 as monumented by a 2 1/2" brass cap on al" pipe and with all bearings relative to the East line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 16 considered as bearing N 01Â°19'00" E, the south end of said line being monumented by a 1" pipe and a 2 1/2" G.L.O. brass cap stamped 1925; thence S88Â°31'00'W 2609.69' to the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 16, being monumented by a 2 1/2" brass capped pipe stamped C 1/4 comer Section 16, T5N, R73W, U.S.G.L.O. 1926 Survey; thence S89Â°19'27"W 237.69' to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence S89Â°19'18'W 431.82' to a point on the southern right-of-way of Highway 34; thence along said southern right-of way along a curve concave to the north radius 11560.00', length 325.59', delta of 1 Â°36'50"; the continuing along a curve concave to the north radius 11560.00', length 803.89', delta of 3Â°59'04"; thence departing said southern right-of-way S77Â°48'24"E 1545.81' more or less to TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; said tract contains +85,326 square feet (1.96 acres) more or less, and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way of record, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Containing 1.96 acres. FALL RIVER ANNEXATION ELEVENTH ADDITION: A tract of land located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 16 as monumented by a 2 1/2" brass cap on al" pipe and with all bearings relative to the West line of the Southeast lM of said Section 16 considered as bearing N 01Â°19'00" E, the south end of said line being monumented by al" pipe and a2 1/2" G.L.O. brass cap stamped 1925; thence S88Â°31'00'W 2609.69' to the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 16, being monumented by a 2 1/2" brass capped pipe stamped C 1/4 comer Section 16, T5N, R73W, U.S.G.L.O. 1926 Survey; thence S89Â°19'27'W 237.69' to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along the northern right-of-way of Highway 36 and a curve concave to the north, radius 11460.00', length of 1888.07', delta 9Â°26'23"; thence departing said northern right-of-way N37Â°44'29"E 112.23'; thence S75Â°19'52"E 388.99'; thence N16Â°18'13'W 762.33'; thence S88Â°38'04'W 783.78'; thence SOOÂ°21'22'W 468.16' to a point on the northern right-of-way of Highway 36; thence departing said northern right-of- way SOOÂ°21'22'W 109.36' to a point on the southern right-of-way of Highway 36; thence along said right-of-way along a curve concave to the north radius 11560.00', length 917.78', delta 4Â°32'56"; thence departing said south right-of-way line S77Â°48'24"E 1545.81' more of less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; said tract contains 1697,419 square feet (16.01 acres) more or less, and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way of record, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Containing 16.01 acres. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with Section 31-12-108, C.R.S., the Town Board Public Hearing shall be held Tuesday, December 9,2008 at 7:00 p.m., at Town Hall, located at 170 MacGregor Ave., Estes Park, Colorado, for the purpose of determining if the proposed annexation complies with the applicable provisions of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk shall give the notice of the hearing as provided in Section 31-12-108(2), C.R.S. DATED this day of ,2008. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk Town Clerk's Office Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt Police Chief Kufeld From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: September 3,2008 Subject: Resolution 16-08 - Setting a Show Cause Hearing for Vega Background. The Estes Park Police Dept. has issued a Summons and Complaint to the Larimer County Justice Center for the underage serving of a minor on August 11, 2008, which is a violation of the Colorado Liquor and Beer Code. All substantial liquor license violations, as determined by staff, will be scheduled for a Show Cause Hearing. The proposed Resolution sets the Show Cause hearing for October 14, 2008 Town Board meeting. Once the hearing is set an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing will be issued to the Licensee. Budget: N/A Action: Staff recommends approval of Resolution 16-08. RESOLUTION NO. 16-08 WHEREAS, a complaint by the Estes Park Police Department was presented to the Trustees of the Town of Estes Park on September 9,2008 charging VEGA LLC dba VEGA, a HOTEL & RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE, LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 42-60264-0000 with certain violations of the statutes of the State of Colorado and Rules and Regulations of the Colorado Department of Revenue, Liquor Enforcement Division; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees hereby determines that there is probable cause to believe that the aforementioned Licensee has violated one or more of the statutes and/or rules and regulations governing the operations of the license as more fully set forth in the complaint; and WHEREAS, the Board believes it is necessary to hold a hearing and issue an Order to Show Cause why the aforementioned license should not be suspended or revoked due to the violations presented to the Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. That a show cause hearing shall be held pursuant to Section 12-47-601, C.R.S., and a Notice of Hearing be issued to the Licensee to appear and show cause why the license should not be suspended or revoked. Said hearing shall take place at the Town Board meeting scheduled Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Estes Park Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado. Section 2. That the Town Clerk shall cause an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing on the aforementioned complaint to be mailed to the following: VEGA LLC D/B/A VEGA 205 VIRGINIA DRIVE P.O. BOX 4485 ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED THIS DAY OF , 2008. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk BEFORE THE LOCAL LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOTICE OF HEARING IN THE MATTER OF: e..46 7 + ' *' *t Â·4*410 MR. RONALD KILGORE T *4~: I. ':./6 MR. ANDREI URSU VEGA LLC dba Vega Â·,10* ~ ~~* - 0Â¢ Ph..... 44 205 VIRGINIA DRIVE 1 *.-' '4 2 %-g, P. 0. BOX 4485 46.. _i Â¢k 9% ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 ..6:.. y 3/. b.. .Â·44*7' 64 4.2 LICENSE NO: 42-60264-0000 .1.~9*- 91:â‚¬ M. W Â« 540 . I 0"4 WHEREAS, it has been made to appearld,the Local Licensing Authority, Town ofEstes Park, State of Colorado, that vpGRLIC, d/b/a Ve#a, 205 Virginia Drive, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 *:. 9 ("Licensee"), has violited the stkiutes or theales and regulations o f the Department o f Revenue governing its taveril liÂ®W- licensein the follo@ing particilbirs: *.4.'& 4 43:,). 4 :/'~<'5 .ti :li..,53. I) Pursuint to Section '12*47f901'(1)(a.5)(I),â‚¬:R. S., except as provided in Section 18-13-122, .GAS., it is unlawful fohny person to sell, serve, give away, dispose of, exchange, or deliver Ar krmit the sale, Aerving, kiving, or procuring ofany alcohol beverage to or for any person dk under the age oftwenty-one years.0 4 29* 1,\4 A) It Walleged that?on August 11, 2008, the Licensee, through its employee/agent, Michael.McCaitlik permitted the sale, serving, giving, or procuring of an alcohol beverage to & jOVenile under age o f 18 years. NOW THEREFORE, you are hereby ordered to appear before the local licensing authority to show cause why your said license should not be suspended or revoked as by law provided. A Show Cause Hearing is set for October 14, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. and will beheld inthe Town Board Room at 170 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado. You are entitled to have an attorney represent you at the hearing. I f you should retain an attorney, you should do so well in advance of the hearing. Once a hearing date has been set, a postponement will not be granted except for good cause shown. Ifyou should fail to appear at the Order to Show Cause and Notice ofHearing Vega Page 2 of2 scheduled time and place for the hearing, testimony will be taken in reference to the allegations, upon which evidence your license to operate under the terms ofthe Colorado Liquor or Beer Code maybe suspended or revoked. Please be further advised that ifthe Local Licensing Authority does find you in violation of any o fthe above-cited section(s) ofthe Colorado Liquor or Beer Code, the Local Licensing Authority may consider, in selecting the sanction to be imposed against,/ybv, any mitigating or aggravating factors, any prior violations o fthe Colorado Liquor or Beer CddZ, ahwpll as any sanctions previously imposed against you. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a coptof thi*.OrderÂ©knd Notice shall be mailed or '42:' 4* *44 delivered to the above-mentioned Licensee, Â£42' 1% 44 %*, ~4:4~r <$97 f,4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have A*unto settmy handand seal ofnivoflice this day of ,2008. 123.9... 9/ te:-I 7/ ty *4~ 1..... ,/0 />%[own CleAC p .4,4. 'W, Â¥9 V 1& 4 I * .<:> FÂ».07,=%4. *A 0 â€ž:' -Râ€¢Â·4*Â·i :4*46 PA~P . 4% Ny 4~44, ~i, *rk 44 4 0 9,* 4/ 1 t. &.. f Mayor's Office Memo To: Board of Trustees From: Mayor Pinkham Date: September 9,2008 Subject: EPURA Commissioner Appointments I am pleased to announce the appointments of Sharry White and Jim Martinsen to 5-year terms as EPURA Commissioners. Both Sharry and Jim come highly recommended by the selection committee following their participation in structured interviews in June. Since White moved to Estes Park from Tulsa in 2004, she has attended the Citizens' Information Academy, and is currently a member of the Friends of the Library Board of Directors. She also is a member of the League of Women Voters. Prior to Estes Park, she served on the Tulsa Metropolitan Transit Authority, the Tulsa Historic Preservation Commission, the City of Tulsa Board of Adjustment, the Mayor's Infill Development Study Task Force, facilitated the Mayor's Conference on Smart Growth and was also involved in Comprehensive Plan Area Studies. Martinsen moved to Estes Park two years ago. Prior to Estes Park, he lived in Niwot for 32 years, where he saw extensive service on the Boulder County Planning Commission, the Saint Vrain Board of Education, the Niwot Youth Sports Board and the Niwot Sanitation Board. Jim is currently on the Boards of the Uplands HOA, the Otters and the Learning Place. He is also a member of Rotary, Restorative Justice, Circle of Friends, League of Women Voters, the Estes Valley Land Trust and the Association for Responsible Development; and he is Treasurer of the Bond Committee for the Estes Valley Recreation & Park District. Sharry and Jim bring strong and diverse backgrounds to the EPURA Board as EPURA addresses the future needs of the community. They replace Commissioners Gerry Swank and Paula Steige, whose terms expire September 14, 2008. Gerry Swank has been on the EPURA Board for 17 years, and served as Chairman, and more recently as Vice-Chairman. Paula Steige has served on the EPURA Board for 12 years. We thank them for their service and accomplishments and will have an appropriate celebration at a later date. The Second Quarter comparisons (2004-08) are a little difficult to analyze due to the reclassifications in 2008. Note that Food has increased to 35% of the total. What is interesting about this is that the increase is coming not from restaurants, but from the grocery subcategory. Construction is also up, after a moderate decline over the last several years. The "other" category has dropped - most of which has been re-categorized into "retail". The last pair of graphs (Sales Tax Trends) shows our growth patterns after the 1* and 2nd quarters (cumulative). The maroon line on the 1* Q graph shows a growth rate (over prior 12 months) of 8.16%. That growth rate has shrunk to 2.08% after the 2nd quarter. The trend line has clearly been broken and is moving quickly towards the yellow light (needed to make budget) and red light (no growth or negative growth) territory. The blue line is a measure of an average month. It is still above the trendline, but has declined from $607khno to $592khno. This particular forecasting method projected revenues of $7.29m after the first quarter, and has declined to $7.10m after the second quarter. Budget is $7.40m. The presented data calls for a conservative philosophy/strategy for budget revisions for 2008 and projections for 2009, and by almost all accounts, we are fiscally in "yellow light" territory. Action steps requested None from the Board. Staff will make adjustments and present further details during the budget process in October. â€¢ Page 2 Finance Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board ofTrustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Steve MeFarland, Finance Officer Date: September 9th, 2008 Subject: Second quarter 2008 sales tax Background Attached please find the report on sales tax progress through the second quarter of2008. Documentation 2nd O 08 REPORT. 2nd quarter sales tax for 2008 was 9.9% worse than 2007. For the year, we are 4.7% behind 2007, and 4.8% behind budget. As every % ofbudgeted sales tax is $74,000, we would be facing a $370,000 shortfall if we maintain this pace. Despite this, we are still not technically in a recession. The 2nd quarter is the first time since the 1* quarter of 2007 that a quarter was worse than the previous comparable quarter. Two graphs ( 1* and 2nd quarters) are provided for sales tax performance vs budgets (using either 3yr or 5 yr monthly projections). One would like for the actual data to fall to the LEFT of the budget lines (ahead of budget). For the 1St quarter, the data was in the middle. For the second quarter (cumulative), the data is now to the right of both graphs, which would signal a "yellow light". The Standard Deviation graph shows that 2008 sales tax are actually right around average for 2005-07. When this information is combined with the growth trend that can be seen on the long- term Sales Tax by Category graph, one can see why a budget of $7.4 million was projected. An average year for 2005-07 (which is fairly impressive, given the national economy) is probably going to land the total sales tax for the year around the $7.1-7.2m range. It will still be a healthy long-term graph, but a $370,000 shortfall from budget is going to require significant retooling of expenditure plans. Â·lorÂ· * 1 AU y.Â· ,Â·'i~Â·/' .0/Â·~ Z.&9 .4 Sales Tax Report: 2nd Q 2008 Jeo!#0 eoueui:I - puepe:pIN 8Aels 0 r. U C ce 00 ER O pij C.4 pl4 ce 00 i Ogu 4 41 C â‚¬ U 50 4 Z ce .l t 00 ,-4 11 40 04 b .... complete. 50% of calendar; JO %5Â£ '%5031 'UIE9 3$ A .5% of fiscal year. is I t[Bnoiqi puli[Oq %Â£ 9) loSpnq pu!40q 9/6 000'SLS- = % Pozltenuue uv LS) 10 LO 00 O> O 6 C\1 -/ 75 5 -r \\ -55= a < 00 00 2008 SALES TAX VS BUDGETING OPTIONS AON 100 des Biv inf unr Xew * le'Al (183 uer $8,000,000 -- $7,000,000 $6,000,000 000'000'9$ 000'000'4 $ 000'000'Â£$ 000'0002 $ 000'0007$ ' 0$ CD 0 0 8 Z <mo 031 W - CD m Ch Ch WI 00 0 (JA 9) 8001 le W 0 186 000'000'Â£$ AON 100 des Gly inf unr XEIN Jolv Jew qe uer $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $ 6,000,000 $5,000,000 000'000'f $ 000'0002$ 000'0007$ ' 0$ C/) 14 U) #4 0 Â«/\ Z 0 \\\ C co UJ :E ge, 51. 1,1- E-- CA a- Â« CO Z C CIo $7,977,353 $6,807,903 Est' 8 Â£9' 9 $ as /+ - lenjov- 000'000'VE BAV ZO-90 -- i as E-- LEO'139'ZE ' 000'0004$ OeD AON PO des 6nv Inr $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 000'000'9$ 000'000'Â£$ 000'000'Z$ 0$ .. .. 1. .. rl I LF. -92%27 Â¤OTHER dROE!9 13hlÂ¥ddÂ¥l dnOND 3AllOIAIO1nVO dnoble DNIalin8 9 2338IAIn-I I dnOND 3SIaNVH0Z:I3IN 1Vhl3N39Â¤ dn02:ID ONISC]010 dnO}39 Aillilni dnOB9 000=10 ZOOZ 900Z 9001 4001 Â£001 1001 LOOZ 0001 666L 866L Sales Tax Revenues by Category .......... - 000'000'Z$ $8,000,000 - $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 - 000'000'*$ - 000'000'ES - 000'0004$ - 0$ - $ 32 10 0 0003-0- ONI9001-li- i 1313 hl 9311111ln -* %0Z NOILOrELSNOO-*- 2 h13 Hl O --0- 6 oinv 1 - gooz zooz 9003 9001 fOOZ 14'Â· 2nd Quarter comparisons 40% 35% 30% 25% 10% A.H OAV Jo 340 96 OPM 24 f= -9 2 6 4 2*s CPb 802 g CPÂ®ji' -4 521 (%,trj. Ch v. 4Â» 00 h - 45 Ci-1 & 69 -6 I -9Â®Â« - 4,9 9 %45 9/ - 6, 347 '9 â‚¬3> f - 43 1,4 - 600426-- E...4 - v 020 9 6, Cli 04 OG d> 2.41 - 202-21% Col 3 0 00 0 Cd 487 / 2 4% 3 UIO,UI $700,000 - 2007 =$7.23M - 20% - 15% %5I- - 000'OOIS %0/- '08 B = $7.40M 29 3 92<49>43 (ok OUI ZI) moull- COAY 01& EI) IUOU~I-% OUI ZI- @Av 0* ZI -~ $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 000'00Â£$ 000'ooz$ lili A.H OAV Jo BID % OW ZI 42 2 4 0 2 - 45 0 1 1 1 1 1 g CP I i:*a- 09 a M - EN -:,2-2-2 - 6> U /03 - 09/ - 9%029% - ptiti. ~ d.<ifeij. amOJUI $700,000 - - 20% - 15% %0I- - %5I- - 000'00I$ %02 0$ June-08 12 Mo Rev. 2007 = $7.23M SALES TAX TREND S 2.08% = 3021 ow 0 80-ounf Cok OUI z I) leami - @Av ow ZI) JEOU[T- % OUI ZI - @AY 01'\[ 31 - ~ $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 000'00Â£$ 000'ooz$ 111 lilli 11 I 1 64$11 99444 Coiss&<ifi# Town Clerk's Office Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Jackie Williamson Date: September 3,2008 Subject: Outdoor Seating Area Lease for the El Centro Complex Background: It has recently come to the attention of the Clerk's office that the El Centro Complex, 210 E. Elkhorn Avenue, was sold. The Town had a lease agreement with the previous owner for the outdoor seating area adjacent to the property and currently used by Casa Grande Restaurant. The attached lease agreement between Estes Park, LLC, the new owner, and the Town would provide continued use of the area. Town Attorney White has reviewed the lease and the Ordinance. Budget None. Action: Approval of the lease and Ordinance. 1 ORDINANCE NO. 14-08 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A LEASE AGREEMENT FOR THE OUTDOOR SEATING AREA AT EL CENTRO COMPLEX - 210 E. ELKHORN AVENUE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado has determined that it is appropriate to enter into a lease agreement with the Estes Park LLC for consecutive one year terms beginning October 1, 2008 for the outdoor seating area adjacent to the El Centro Complex, 210 E. Elkhorn Avenue, pursuant to the terms of the Lease Agreement set forth on Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. The Lease Agreement is approved. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF 2008. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2008, and published in a newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on the day of ,2008. Town Clerk LEASE THIS LEASE, made and entered into this 194 day of AU.9*'~ , 2008, by and between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as ("Landlord") and Estes Park, LLC., hereinafter referred to as ("Tenant"), and is upon the following terms and conditions, to wit: Landlord in consideration of the covenants, hereinafter set forth to be paid and performed by Tenant, does hereby lease unto Tenant property located in Larimer County, Colorado, legally described as follow: A tract of land located in the NE 14 of Section 25, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, being more particularly described as commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 6, Block 4 according to the 2nd Amended Plat of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado and with all bearings contained herein being relative to the East line of said Lot 6 considered as bearing S 17Â° 14' 39" E; thence S 17' 14' 39" E a distance of 148.20 feet along said East line to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence S27' 45' 21" W a distance of 16.20 feet; thence S62Â° 14" 39" E a distance of 16.20 feet; thence N17Â° 14' 39" W a distance of 22.91 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. To have and to hold the above described premises for consecutive one (1) year terms commencing on October 1,2008 and continuing thereon until September 30,2009. Tenant agrees to pay as rental there fore the sum o f One Dollar ($1.00) per year, said sum shall be due and payable at the commencement of this Lease. Tenant promises that the premises are also leased upon the further covenant of tenant, to wit: 1. To maintain liability insurance upon the premises in the amount of $150,000 per incident and $600,000 per occurrence during the term of this Lease. Landlord shall be named as an additional insured on said policy and Tenant shall provide to Landlord a Certificate of Insurance on or before October 1st of each year showing said insurance for the upcoming yearly period. 2. To pay rent for premises as hereinafter provided promptly when due and payable and pay all utility services to the premises. 3. To maintain said premises and keep same in good repair and at the expiration of this Lease, to surrender up said premises in as good order and condition as when the same are entered upon, less ordinary wear and tear expected. 4. To keep the premises clean and orderly and to obey all ordinances, regulations and statutes. 5. To keep the premises free and clear o f ice, snow, and debris. 6. To be responsible for and to pay for the reme*ring of any and all damage done to the premise of whatsoever nature. In the event the premises are not left in a clean and orderly condition or damage has occurred, the expense of cleaning and/or repair or damage shall be that o f Tenant. 7. To use the premises only for the service of food and beverage including any liquor, beer, wine, or any other alcoholic beverage so long as said premises have been duly licensed for the service of said alcoholic beverages. 8. In the event that alcoholic beverages are served on the premises, to operate the premises in accordance with all the provisions of the Colorado Liquor Code and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. 9. To the fullest extend permitted by law, the Tenant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless, the Town, its officers, agents, self-insurance pool and employees, from and against all liability, claims, and demands, on the account of any injury, loss, or damage, which arises out of or is connected with the leasing of the premises by Tenant, if such injury, loss, or damage, or any portion thereof, is caused by, or climed to be caused by, the act, omission, or other fault of the Tenant, or any officer, employee, customer or guest of the Tenant, or any other person for whom the Tenant is responsible. This indemnity shall include, but is not limited to all costs and expenses including court costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred by Landlord in the investigation and/or defense of any injury, loss, or damage subject to the terms and conditions of this paragraph. IT IS MUTUALLY COVENANTED AND AGREED: 1. No assent, expressed or implied, to any breach of any one or more of the covenant herein shall be deemed to be taken as a waiver of any proceeding or other breach. 2. It is further mutually understood and agreed that should Tenant fail or refuse to pay the rental when the same becomes due or fail to perform any covenant herein agreed upon, then Landlord may, without being obligated to do so, terminate this Lease upon giving ten (10) days written notice to Tenant specifying said default, and if at the end of said ten (10) day period, Tenant is still in default, the Lease shall terminate and Landlord shall be entitled to immediate possession of the premises and to being an action as may otherwise be authonzed by law to collect any amounts due from Tenant. 3. In the event Tenant abandons or vacates the premises before the expiration of the term of this Lease, Landlord may without obligation to do so, declare this Lease forfeited forthwith and may remove from the premises any and all personal property left behind by Tenant. 4. In the event of default by either party, the non-defaulting party shall be entitled to all reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred by reason of sid default, including all reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred in regaining possession of the premises. 5. This Lease shall automatically renew for additional one (1) year periods unless either party should give the other party written notice on or before September 1St of any year that said party intends to terminate the Lease at the end of said Lease term. In event of said notice, this Lease shall terminate on September 308 in the year of said notice. Any renewal of this Lease shall be on the same terms and conditions of this Lease. 6. This Lease contains the entire agreement between the parties and may not be amended unless said amendment is in writing and executed by both parties hereto. 7. All notices, demands or other documents required or desired to be given, made or sent to either party, under this Agreement shall be in writing, shall be deemed effective upon mailing or personal delivery. I f mailed, sid notice shall be mailed, postage prepaid as follows: Town of Estes Park Estes Park, LLC. Attn.: Town Administrator 7.0. 8 * 911- P.O. Box 1200 -anc>*,AL ~LL, 4 93 066, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 1-2.6 -9,7392)- Z.<39 -h IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Lease has been signed the day and year first above written. ESTES PARK, LLC U/--7\ 2-( L- L-14oJ By: TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: ATTEST: Town Clerk Town of Estes Park ~ Public Works Engineering Room 100, Town Hall P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-3586, gsievers@estes.org Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham, Board of Trustees, & Administrator Halburnt From: Scott Zum & Greg Sievers Date: September 9,2008 Re: Fall River Trail Phase 4 - request to accept bid. Background: This project was budgeted to span a two-year budget, 2007 & 2008. The Engineering design RFP was competed in the spring 2007. Van Horn Engineering has been doing the field surveying & data collection during the summer, and design followed over the winter. All of this project is within the CDOT Right-of-Way of Highway 34 (Elkhom Avenue & Fall River Road) and required a 'License Contract' with the State. Final review by CDOT ran through the summer of 2008. To achieve a Fall 2008 construction schedule we requested PWC to bring the bid results directly to the September gth, 2008 Town Board meeting. Bid packages were mailed out to about twelve northern Colorado contractors on August 15~h. Staff has been very diligent to keep this project on schedule, and would like to 'break ground' in mid September. The bid opening was on September 4~h at 4pm, results are shown below. 1 Cornerstone Concrete Co. Estes Park $303,202.00 2 L&M Enterprises Berthoud $310,923.03 3 Mountain Constructors Platteville $319,036.00 4 DeFalco Construction Longmont $328,382.86 5 Cornerstone Construction Concepts Estes Park $337,948.30 6 Northstar Concrete, Inc. Loveland $338,088.00 7 Naranjo Civil Constructors Greeley $346,465.00 8 Connell Resources Fort Collins $355,106.40 9 Mountain Concrete Estes Park $408,731.00 10 Noraa Concrete Keenesburg $437,104.65 Budget / Cost: The 2007 & 2008 budgets contain $350,000 for this work (page 217, Larimer County Open Space Fund - Acct. # 220-4600-462-35-60) Recommendation: Staff is requesting to accept the low bid from Cornerstone Concrete Company (Bob Pavlish) of Estes Park, in the amount of $303,202.00. This project will begin on West Elkhom Ave. at Valley Road, and end at approximately the Castle Mountain Lodge covered bridge area. With this approval, groundbreaking will take place this month and this phase of the trail should be substantially complete by mid December. M d.-1 -- 111/6. ,/7 .4 110 : ... $ 44 . - ;46.41 I 40 -I' j. r -2 2 4 I r--,7-i....6 3 1. * X*>4. ' 4 2.,1-,b Xd < ./0,91 I. I . > â‚¬1'' /,Vil 4 I ' * 42*10 , . ' 4 /41-' I * 4+7 1 '30 . 94 i. . 4, I. , 1 ' . *. i 'b I t 't 34. '' N* : -/1 . I :. . -.. , g , 0 / 17. . I. ' y A re V ,.. I " , 11 ' 64,=621 .4 OL Â¥4 I a .9 , Tigi::PI~ilb I'llir.il- 0 9 3/1 Z 00 * W 1 . . 94 00 I 2 + * . '74Â¥ -OJE f . 42 - % 11 1 5' L " 1.-:'.9 16+4 '- ov CC Â¢N, 0 4, 0 1- r 4.24 - 0 Â®C 3.94 1- C U) b '*2 1 A X *i 1 V.'MA 4 . -t U) 3 LU f. 9 . .1*2004 2/ . 9 2 . 1 19 Z /:I. I... I ' o a,0 a . 1 4 7.1 -4 . m ?lf f Â£ . . 3 C) U) U.1 . ' r gl 1 -' , 4,4!~4,/u,~5 - 237(I~ UJ Stâ€¢r . ft ./: 5 0. d 00 if 4 :. , .t,P: * I /.4 3 K ... ..ap 1 . 1 % 9, 4.,f . In j q-*. 2. 0 *. 1 , Â¢ 4 -/-4.'' V . ..15 I A 1, 9 .0 + 55 ei /0 0 0Â»-I . OC A n .4, ~1, . t. 6 - - I i , '.. 1.t I. '*'- i~' i#+~' ~t r ~~t,~,~~~ r .*52 ' ff 4-~I, - : r~t . 941* 2 4 1 .4 /t r + LTA + 0 1, .s . I '. -l. -. I I k ' 2214# 0/: I. 4%2 4% I . .4 4 ?44"+ . * . 3 1 le.. - 46.-4* .. Er 3**#*90~16 I ' + . .U f 7 '91+j,b / , /3-..,- Â·.1%3tt > *Alt*?i + 2, 4 1?/ 44 * 6 Â¥ 00 1- 1~ 114'. 1'2 Acl dew eol.leJeleJ DMd 'SAGAe!S 5019 pedestrian and bicycle trail 2008 1N3I/\I3NllV oaVE!0103 30 NAAO1 FALL RIVER .. Sept.-9-2008 Comments to Town Board At your meeting on August 26, Deputy town Administrator Richardson gave a report presenting the opinion that town ordinance 8.04.030 (noxious weed ordinance) and ordinance 8.04.040 (abatement ofnuisances, including noxious weeds) meet the requirements ofColo. Statute 35-5.5 (the Colo. Noxious Weed Act). Town ordinance 8.04.030 reads as follows: Noxious weeds. It is unlawful for the owner of any lot, block or parcel of land within theTown, or any agent in charge of such property, to allow or permit noxious weeds to grow or remain when grown upon the propeny or on or along any alleys behind or sidewalk area in front ofthe same. All such noxious weeds shall be cut and removed on or before July 15 of each and every year. (Ord. 15-97) Colorado State Statute Title 35, Article 5.5, known as the Colorado Noxious Weed Act, requires each municipality to have a Weed Management Plan utilizing "a variety of methods for managing noxious weeds" (integrated management) on both public and private property within municipal limits. Each municipality is also required to have a local advisory board which has (among other duties) the power and duty to: A) develop a recommended management plan for the integrated management of designated noxious weeds and B) Review the management plan at least every three years. It seems to me that our town ordinance is lacking in that it : 1) Does not identify which noxious weeds are to be controlled, and how much control is required for each one. Of 73 weeds on the state noxious weed list, perhaps 10 should be on the list for control in Estes Park 2) Does not provide for integrated management of noxious weeds. 3) Does not provide for a local advisory board with their attendant responsibilities. It is also impractical to require all weed removal before July 15, because not all noxious weeds grow at the same time. For example, Yellow Toadflax is hardly identifiable on July 15, and it doesn't bloom here until late August. The town's method ofweed control on public property (hiring a company to spray weeds several times per summer) does not even correspond with the control method specified in the town ordinance. The town's abatement ordinance 8.04.040 also contains some impractical requirements without even explaining how the process is to be initiated. I think the town ordinances relating to noxious weeds need to be rewritten to fit our situation, and appropriately implemented Probably nobody would be concerned about such technicalities if the present actions were controlling the spread of noxious weeds. It is not a matter of how much money the town is spending on the problem, but, rather, what is being accomplished. I talked with officer Hart, who I understand has been the code enforcement officer for a little more than a year. He indicated that he has spoken with some property owners to educate them about noxious weeds on their property, and has generally found them willing to try to control the weeds. He was not aware of the town sending written notice, or any follow-up action being taken. I agree that education is a preferred tool, but we cannot expect officer Hart to educate every property owner in town, so some additional measures plus follow-up are needed. Also, I'm not sure how reasonable it is to expect private property owners to control their weeds when the town is not adequately controlling weeds on public property. This afternoon, I spoke with deputy town administrator Richardson, who agrees that the Town ordinance needs to be revised to fit our situation. He was also unaware ofthe town ever sending notices about noxious weeds, although the county weed district did this a few years ago. He agreed that the town does not have a comprehensive weed management plan, and some changes are desirable ifwe are to meet the intent ofthe Colorado State Statute. However, Mr. Richardson pointed out that his opinion about town compliance rested upon the last paragraph of Colorado Statute 35-5.5-106, which in effect, says that the adoption of a municipal weed ordinance may be deemed to satisfy the state requirement. He is technically correct, and since you, as the local governing body, have not appointed a local weed advisory board, you are, by default, the local weed advisory board. I don't know if you feel comfortable in that role or not. You have many responsibilities, and it might be better to have people more interested in weed management assume that role. The town's mission statement refers to taking great pride in being good stewards of public resources and natural setting. I don't recognize allowing monoculture stands of diffuse knapweed or other noxious weeds along public right-of-ways as being good stewards of the natural setting. The spread of yellow toadflax on the knoll is also not very natural. I don't plan to continue bugging you about this issue, since you are not technically in violation of state law. However, if you wish to conform to the intent of the law, and the town's mission statement, I would be glad to volunteer some time to help. Thank you George Hockman 1625 Prospect Estates Drive Estes Park, CO .'' Town Board Meeting, September 9, 2008 (#11) Good evening, You have maybe heard of Pascal's wager which suggests that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because a person living accordingly has potentially everything to gain and certainly nothing to loose, while a person wagering against God has potentially everything to loose and nothing to gain. This sounds logical and harmless until religion and the clergy enter into the equation. Some may think they have nothing to loose by wagering on the unbelievable, but giving credibility to a non-existent God gives credibility to those who would use religion to manipulate the minds of men, and even worse, corrupt the minds of children. Only in the name of religion would a nation of intelligent people teach their children the nonsense of creationism with absolutely no scientific proof. Giving credibility to a non-existent God gives credibility to a host of incredible religious beliefs including, but certainly not limited to; suicide bombers being blessed with virgins, praying will turn away a hurricane, Joseph Smith transcribed the Book of Mormon from disappearing gold plates, immaculate conception, and Mohamed riding a flying horse. Christians believe that atheists are evil blasphemers who will burn for eternity and should be driven from our midst. Nice try! Giving credibility to a non-existent God gives credibility to Sarah Palin whose proximity to the Oval Office and belief in the 'end times' should make us all tremble. She isn't just hedging the wager like McCain, Obama, and Biden, no; she believes the evil world will end in flames and she's dutifully carrying the matches. From the first Stone Age shaman to the latest evangelical superstar, God is conjured out of thin air to give them power. Political leaders in turn will embrace religion, the clergy, and their inherent power as their own. We are used to seeing it in this country, but have you seen the latest pictures showing the leaders of Russia with Orthodox Priests behind them? Have they found Jesus or have they rediscovered an effective means of crowd control? Our forefathers knew the power of religion in the hands of our leaders, both good and bad, and for that reason they kept God out of our Constitution and proclaimed a separation of church and state should exist. Having God in our Pledge has broken their trust and gives credibility to those seeking to impose religious beliefs on our country. You have the opportunity and obligation to be on the right side of history by discontinuing the practice of reciting the 'under God' Pledge; or you can wager the contrary. Thank you, David Habecker 9.- ,hÂ·r, E+m 1-L - 4.jl--Â£ 'UL.j -- 1 HI ST OR YeÂ£Ze. STEPHEN H. HART LIBRARY August 22,2008 To Whom It May Concern This is to affum that I have examined the Colorado Historical Society's holdings for the (Rocky Mountain) Mountaineer, published in Estes Park in the suminer of 1908 and find that the microfilm copy is missing all issues for the month ofJuly, 1908. The Colorado Historical Society owns one microfilm copy and one negative of this paper; both are missing the July issues. The Colorado Historical Society appreciates all efforts to locate, preserve, and make Colorado newspapers accessible to the public. Although we must work within our microfilining budget to carry out our responsibilities to film over 150 current papers, we do our best to work with organizations and individuals to facilitate the filming of older papers for which no preservation microfilm exists. For more information you are welcome to contact the Stephen H. Hart Library of the Colorado Historical Society: Rebecca Lintz Director, Stephen H. Hart Library Museums and Public Programs of the 1300 BROADWAY DENVER CO 80203 TEL 303/866-2305 FAx 303/866-4204 www.coloradohistory.org