The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2008-10-281 .Â·. 4 f LE Alt. 1 1 Prepared 10/20/08 I -I - 11@ TOWN Of {STES PARI< The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to plan and provide reliable, high-value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community by being good stewards of public resources and natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, October 28,2008 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance). PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated October 14, 2008, Town Board Budget Study Session dated October 3, 2008 and October 10, 2008 and Town Board Study Session dated October 14,2008. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Utilities, Public Safety and Public Works October meetings cancelled. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, August 5,2008 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, September 16, 2008 (acknowledgement only). 6. Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority, September 17, 2008 (acknowledgement only). 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. 3rd QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT. Finance Officer McFarland. 2 FIRE DISTRICT TASK FORCE PRESENTATION. Member Widrig. NOTE The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS - Items reviewed by Planning Commission for Town Board Final Action. , Mayor Pinkham: Open the Public Hearing for all Consent Agenda Items. If the Applicant, Public or Town Board wish to speak to any of these consent items, they will be moved to the "Action Item" Section. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: a. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. Wonderview Village Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #1, Longs Peak Development, LLC/Applicant. 2. Park River West Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map, Phase XXIV, Lot 2, Park River West Subdivision, Richard H. Wille TrusVApplicant. 2. ACTION ITEMS: Mayor Pinkham: Open the Public Hearing (a). The formal public hearing will be conducted as follows: â€¢ Mayor - Open Public Hearing â€¢ Staff Report â€¢ Applicant Presentation â€¢ Public Testimony â€¢ Mayor -Close Public Hearing â€¢ Board Discussion & Motion to Approve/Deny. a. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION 1. Solomon Resubdivision of Outlots A & B, Prospect Highlands Subdivision, Van Horn Engineering/Applicant. b. VESTING PERIOD EXTENSION 1. Strearhside on Fall River Development Plan 05-05, Lot 1 of Streamside Amended Plat, Curt Thompson/Applicant, Continued to the November 25,2008 meeting. 4. ACTION ITEMS: 1. BIG BEAR ESTATES ANNEXATION. CONTINUED - Jerry Zahourek/Applicant has requested the annexation of Big Bear Estates be continued to November 25,2008. 2. AIR CURTAIN BURNER FENCING CONTRACT. Director Zurn. 3. 2009 DOWNTOWN FLOWER CONTRACT. Director Zurn. 4. SIDEWALK TRENCH GRATE REPLACEMENT CONTRACT. Director Zurn. 5. ELKHORN AVENUE & RIVERSIDE DRIVE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT. Director Zurn. 6. ORIENTATION FILM. Director Kilsdonk. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the'agenda was ~ prepared. 7. TOWN PROPERTY INSURANCE. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson. 8. CONSERVATION EASEMENT LOTS 5,6 & 8, STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT. Town Administrator Halburnt. 9. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 10.ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. ' Cynthia Deats From: EP Administration [ir3045@estes.org] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:41 AM To: Cynthia Deats Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 0777 ST. TIME 10/23 08:30 PGS. 3 SEND DOCUMENT NAME TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 6672527 Greg White 5869561 KEPL 5869532 Trail Gazette 5861691 Channel 8 6353677 Reporter Herald 2247899 Coloradoan 5771590 EP News ERROR ----- 1 Prepared 10/20/08 m TOWN Of [SE PARK II 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, October 28,2008 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance). PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated October 14, 2008, Town Board Budget Study Session dated October 3,2008 and October 10, 2008 and Town Board Study Session dated October 14, 2008. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Utilities, Public Safety and Public Works October meetings cancelled. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, August 5,2008 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Planning Commission, September 16,2008 (acknowledgement only). 6. Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority, September 17, 2008 (acknowledgement only). 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. 3rd QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT. Finance Officer McFarland. 2. FIRE DISTRICT TASK FORCE PRESENTATION. Member Widrig. NOTE The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS - Items reviewed by Planning Commission for Town Board Final Action. Mayor Pinkham: Open the Public Hearing for all Consent Agenda Items. If the Applicant, Public or Town Board wish to speak to any of these consent items, they will be moved to the "Action Item" Section. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: a. SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAP 1. Wonderview Village Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map #1, Longs Peak Development, LLC/Applicant. 2. Park River West Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map, Phase XXIV, Lot 2, Park River West Subdivision, Richard H. Wille TrusUApplicant. 2. ACTION ITEMS: Mayor Pinkham: Open the Public Hearing (a). The formal public hearing will be conducted as follows: â€¢ Mayor - Open Public Hearing â€¢ Staff Report â€¢ Applicant Presentation â€¢ Public Testimony â€¢ Mayor - Close Public Hearing â€¢ Board Discussion & Motion to Approve/Deny. a. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION 1. Solomon Resubdivision of Outlots A & B, Prospect Highlands Subdivision, Van Horn Engineering/Applicant. b. VESTING PERIOD EXTENSION 1. Streamside on Fall River Development Plan 05-05, Lot 1 of Streamside Amended Plat, Curt Thompson/Applicant. 4. ACTION ITEMS: 1. BIG BEAR ESTATES ANNEXATION. CONTINUED - Jerry Zahourek/Applicant has requested the annexation of Big Bear Estates be continued to November 25,2008. 2. AIR CURTAIN BURNER FENCING CONTRACT. Director Zurn. 3. 2009 DOWNTOWN FLOWER CONTRACT. Director Zurn. 4. SIDEWALK TRENCH GATE REPLACEMENT CONTRACT. Director Zurn. 5. ELKHORN AVENUE & RIVERSIDE DRIVE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT. Director Zurn. 6. ORIENTATION FILM. Director Kilsdonk. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 7. TOWN PROPERTY INSURANCE. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson. 8. CONSERVATION EASEMENT LOTS 5,6 & 8, STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT. Town Administrator Halburnt. 9. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 10.ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. Cynthia Deats From: EP Administration [ir3045@estes.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 22,2008 4:56 PM To: Cynthia Deats Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 0774 ST. TIME 10/22 16:46 PGS. 3 SEND DOCUMENT NAME TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 6672527 Greg White 5869561 KEPL 5869532 Trail Gazette 5861691 Channel 8 6353677 Reporter Herald 2247899 Coloradoan 5771590 EP News ERROR ----- 1 Town Board Meeting, October 28, 2008 (#14) Good evening, There are three issues I will address tonight: First, several months ago you said you were planning a goal setting retreat, but as far as I can recall, there has been no mention ofthe results ofthat session. I haven't stayed to the end of every meeting, so I read all the posted minutes since April and found no mention of goals. While searching for information I did find mention of goal setting in the EPURA minutes. At the May 21 meeting of EPURA, Mayor Pinkham requested the formation of a committee to study future EPURA projects, establish priorities, and make recommendations. At the June 18 meeting it was reported that this committee had met on June 4, but listed no results. At the August 20 meeting, Mayor Pinkham told EPURA that the Town Board is responsible for establishing a vision for Estes Park and EPURA's role is to focus on project opportunities consistent with Town-wide goals. But no goals or priorities were listed. At the September 17 meeting, Commissioner Halburnt said that EPURA should use a prioritizing exercise similar to one used by the Town Board, but no mention of the results of that exercise. To date I can find nothing that refers to a prioritized set of goals from this board, which makes one wonder what you are using as a guide for setting next years budget. I also wonder what Trustee Blackhurst had in mind when he rejected my idea to link the Marketing District vote, with a vote for bonding projects at Stanley Park. There was a suggestion of a better way, but we haven't yet heard what the better way is. I could have called one of you to answer my questions, but the point is that every citizen should have access to this kind of basic information by clicking on the Town website. Maybe the information is there and I'm just too stupid to find it, or maybe you are just giving credibility to your critics. I thought that the Mayor's 'special presentation' to the ARD group on the future of Estes Park would be enlightening, but it was pretty much a rehash of old stuff. Which brings me to my second issue: When the Mayor acts in his or her official capacity to present a future vision of Estes Park, or to endorse a particular project or idea, it should be with the official approval of the Town Board. Otherwise, a disclaimer should be given stating that the views expressed are those of the individual serving as Mayor and are not necessarily those ofthe Town or Town Board. It is the Town Board's duty to set goals, policies and priorities in open meetings with proper documentation in the minutes. 1 W .1 Â· j A . 4 ./ , ?' . 4. I + 1 . 1 I . . 1. /, 2 1 .,11 â€¢ , I :3 , r i .11 1 1 ' t. 4 k i I 4, ' 4 J. ;; . i Â·t i I Â· â€¢ 11 1. r /5 7 , 5: 9 4 .!%: S I . , I J 1 .- , , .1 . . i ' 4, I. I Â· Â·flâ€¢. 4 . '1! 1 . , 4 14 0 4 8 4 1. .4 -. h. . Finally, as regards your bringing your non-existent God into our meetings, there have been plenty of stories in the media to make you question the wisdom of doing so. In Afghanistan a relief worker was killed for teaching Christianity, while Iraqi Christians are being killed and driven from their homes. The lesson learned is that when the followers of the dominant religion are taught that they are superior to all others, it becomes much easier to persecute and kill the infidels. In this country, the dominant religion has made the acknowledgement oftheir God in the Pledge of Allegiance, a precondition to patriotism and full citizenship. They then have the audacity to claim the United States is a free country that believes in religious tolerance. You can't say you tolerate religion when you spit in the face of every religion but your own! Colin Powell took exception to those who would suggest that Barak Obama was a Muslim. His conclusion was that in a religiously tolerant society, why would anyone care? But you do care, and why? Because as I have said.before, you don't believe in the same God; your God and the God in the Pledge is a Christian God, which makes the Pledge religion specific, which is unconstitutional. Now, if you find an error in my logic, feel free to jump in and tell why the inclusion of the Christian God in our meetings is a good thing; oops, that's right, you can't promote your religion at a Town Board meeting, which again proves the Pledge unconstitutional. There was one ray of hope in the news. The incidence of reported hate crimes in the United States is down to only 7,600 for the year 2007. Mostly there were fewer crimes based on race and religion while the number is up for crimes based on sexual orientation. Pity the Black, Gay, atheist! Are we who we say we are? Please, be on the right side of history and stop reciting the 'under God' Pledge. Thank you Â»47#L David Habecker ; . '4 . . .1 1 , 1 (l. , 1 1 4. r 1/1 I 1 ..It U 4 ),0 2 1 1 H 94 ; 1 I f 91 I ,/ i 1*.,t I. tâ€¢ I'l' '''./ .: 0 , / 1 1â€ž1 1 Z , t . 1/ .f | 17, I h , + '., f. 1 f. I ,/ I) 'Di , r.â€¢ 1 1 $. .. 1 fl ' 314' ; f -., r , B' 1 'f . . 1,1 1 J 1 2 . 11 f . Â£ .1 ; I '* 6, 9 .9 t. ,-, .'. , . 1 J p . . 1. ''? 4 , . . , .,( , 9. , . , 1 I '1/' Il ! J. . 4 B i ' . 1 1 , ' . . r , . .1. $ 1 . 1 - 4, I '.4 # .,! , 1 7 , 4 : 1 ' ' 6 k. L , Z < 2 i ' y. . 41 . t. , 1. ri 1. t ' 7, j . 1 /1 'f .. 1 '4 7 f . 1 , 4/1 10-28-2008 / UL 1 4, 2. r Town Board t - 5 Estes Park, CO 80517 cy--I a.1:t--1-~-*i. Dear Town Board Members, You may or may not know, but the Estes Valley Contractors Association has been reactivated. We have had numerous meetings, elected officers, adopted Bylaws, and Articles of Organization. As it states in our Articles, "The Association will be devoted to the improvement of business conditions in the home building industry in the Estes Valley area'. We are writing to you regarding our concerns with the recent economic trend, and the impact that may have on the housing industry and related contractor work in this valley. We are concerned about recent Subdivision Proposals that have been denied. We, as an organization, have formed three sub-committees to study and address this topic and Building Permit issues, and have our concerns heard as a group. Our goal is aid in the development process stating our thoughts and providing our input prior to project denial - or acceptance. While we are still getting organized, we recognize the need to provide input to Town Planning Staff, the Planning Commission, the Building Department, and the Town Board. Thank you for your consideration of the items on the Agenda tonight, and thank you for your service to the Estes Valley. Sincerely, F ~~1~llakl L. 1Vlklial U, President, Estes Valley Contractors Association Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 14, 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 14th day of October, 2008. Meeting called to order by Mayor William C. Pinkham. Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor Chuck Levine, Mayor Pro Tem Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer John Ericson Richard 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 invited any person desiring to participate to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT David Habecker/Town Citizen stated he questioned the appropriateness of bringing religion into the Town Board meetings, and again requested the Pledge be removed from Town meetings. Cathy Homeier/Town Citizen requested the Town's vision care benefits be changed to allow Town employees the opportunity to receive eye care locally. The current VSP plan encourages retail leakage. A plan that allows fairness and sustainability in our community would benefit everyone. John Tucker/Town Citizen commended the Town on the recent purchase of a hybrid vehicle by the Utilities Department. He requested the Town publish the benefits and performance of the vehicle in the mountain environment. Mr. Tucker stated the Planning Commission should be encouraged to move toward greener practices. LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD Cory Blackman/LMD Advisory Board member provided an update on the activities of the Board since appointed earlier this month. The Board has established a website at www. marketestes.org, provided numerous presentations to local groups and conducted interviews with local papers. The Board has been invited to speak on the Barroom Politics radio show on October 2401. The Board members are excited and looking forward to the passage of the LMD. The Trustees commended the Board for their efforts to date. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Homeier introduced Dr. Michael Prochoda. He stated the Estes Park Community is fortunate to have a full-time Ophthalmologist in a community the size of Estes Park. Mayor Pinkham encouraged the electorate to get out and vote on November 4,2008. He stated the Town Board continues to review the proposed 2009 budget to identify Board of Trustees - October 14, 2008 - Page 2 options to reduce spending and save money. He invited those intdrested to attend the budget study sessions held on Fridays in October at 8:00 a.m. in the Board Room. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated September 23, 2008 and Town Board Special Meeting dated October 3,2008. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, September 18, 2008: 1. Halloween Road Closure - Elkhorn Ave. from Spruce to E. Elkhorn. B. Community Development, October 2,2008: a. Catch the Glow Parade Letters of Understanding. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. LIQUOR ITEMS: 1. LIQUOR LICENSING: TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP - FROM CLAIRE RAY dba CLAIRE'S ON THE PARK TO CLAIRE'S INC. dba CLAIRE'S ON THE PARK. CLAIRE RAY, 225 PARK LANE, HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson reviewed the application stating all necessary paperwork had been received. The owner of Claire's on the Park reorganized the business from a sole proprietor to a Corporation in July 2008. This change in structure requires a transfer of the liquor license. Mayor ProTem Levine reminded the applicant the Town requires liquor licensed establishments to check identification, and enforcement of the liquor laws start with the owner of the liquor license establishment. It was moved and seconded (Miller/Homeier) the Transfer of Ownership Application filed by Claire's Inc. dba CLAIRE'S ON THE PARK, be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. LIQUOR STIPULATION AGREEMENT FOR VEGA LLC DBA VEGA. Police Chief Kufeld reviewed the charges and stated that following a meeting with the Licensee, staff prepared and executed a Stipulation Agreement. In the Agreement, staff is recommending a 21-day suspension of the Hotel and Restaurant License, with the actual time served of 14 days from 12:01 a.m. Saturday, November 1, 2008 through 11:59 p.m. Friday, November 14, 2008. The remaining seven days will be held in abeyance for one year from the date of the "Findings and Order of Suspension". The licensee was proactive in dealing with the underage serving, including the firing of the bartender the following day and closing the business for a full day to send all staff to T. I.P.S training. Mayor ProTem Levine thanked the owners for their efforts in mitigating the situation. He stated enforcement of the liquor laws begins with the licensee. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) the following be approved: (1) Stipulation Agreement, and (2) the Findings and Order of Suspension, and it passed unanimously. 3. ACTION ITEMS: i 1. 2009 EVENTS AND FACILITIES RATES. Manager Winslow stated a review of the fee schedules for the Stanley Park Fairground and the Special Event Department confirmed the fee schedule has been charging too little or not at all for services. The last fee increase was five 1 Board of Trustees - October 14, 2008 - Page 3 years ago. The recommended fees reflect an evaluation of all areas to determine a fair fee structure for the services delivered. The fees would be used to offset maintenance costs that arise from event usage. The new fee schedule would affect any new agreement and not those already executed by the Special Event Department. Discussion followed regarding the inclusion of fees for barns that do not exist and have not been approved. The Board requested staff meet with the nonprofits to discuss the new fee schedule for Bond Park prior to approval of associated fees. Additional fees for the usage of Town owned parks would discourage additional entertainment. Manager Winslow stated Town sponsored events would not be charged the new fees. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (BlackhursVEricson) to approve the 2009 Fairground and Special Event Fee Schedule for inclusion in the Special Event Policy Manual, excluding the fee schedule for Parks, Parking Lots, New 28,000 foot Barn and New 22,000 foot Barn, and it passed unanimously. Staff would bring the additional fee schedules forward after discussions with the nonprofits and/or approval of the two new barns. 2. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. â€¢ The next budget study session would be held on Friday, October 17*,and the following accounts are scheduled for review: Community Development, Museum, Senior Center, Buildings, Engineering, Parks, Streets, Fleet, Conservation Trust and Open Space. Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m. William C. Pinkham, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 3,2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD BUDGET STUDY SESSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 3rd day of October, 2008. Committee: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Ericson, Homeier, Levine and Miller Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Ericson, Levine and Miller Also Attending: Town Administrator Halblirnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Finance Officer McFarland, Town Clerk Williamson Absent Trustee Homeier Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 8:20 a.m. 2009 BUDGET PRESENTATION Administrator Halburnt reviewed the budget process that includes four budget stud~ sessions the first four Friday mornings in October, a public hearing on November 11 and potential adoption of the 2009 budget on November 25th. Staff has proposed an annual budget with a five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and flat revenues and expenditures for 2009. The budget was prepared with the next phase of the Stanley Fairgrounds Revitalization plan to be completed in 2009 including the barns, ice rink, parking lot, landscaping and grandstands at a cost of $6.6 million while maintaining a 30% fund balance. The improvements would be funded with $1.6 million from Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF), $1 million from Catastrophic Loss Fund (CLF), the approved purchase of the fire truck from the Vehicle Replacement Fund (VRF) and financing of $4 million over 20 years with payments of $330,000 annually. Staff recommends transferring a consistent $500,000 to the CRF in the future; however, $217,000 would be set aside for the operation of the Performing Arts Theater as agreed during an earlier pre-budget study session. Theses funds could be used to prepare the building site in the event the Supporters of the Performing Arts (SOPA) raise the necessary funds to build the theater and Lot 4, Stanley Historic District does not sell. Administrator Halburnt stated the budget contains the addition of a full-time Public Information Officer, part-time Water Technician moving to full-time and a Digitizing Technician for the Museum contingent on grant funding. Employee salaries must remain competitive and a benefit package that would attract a highly-qualified employee pool must be maintained. Staff is proposing a 3% salary increase for merit with no Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA). Health insurance premiums are estimated to increase 10%, dental insurance decreasing slightly and no change to the vision insurance premiums. Trustees Blackhurst, Levine and Miller expressed concern with moving the purchase of the fire truck to the VRF. The truck was approved with funding from the Fire Department. Administrator Halburnt stated the VRF has an adequate balance to absorb this purchase, which would allow the Fire Department fund balance to increase and decrease the transfer from the General Fund in 2009. Trustee Miller expressed concern with placing the Town in debt for the next 20 years for the Stanley Fairground improvements in 2009. He stated the projected cost estimates are low and do not appear to contain funds for contingencies. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Budget Study Session - October 3,2008 - Page 2 Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the 2009 fund balance by percentage with a balance of $15 million, the General Fund balance related to personnel and O&M, General Fund balance related to total expenditures, General Fund income of $11.1 million, General Fund expenditures of $11.7 million and total expenditures of $38.8 million. Total expenditure for 2009 includes two large capital improvements in L&P and Water Departments. VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND. This internal service fund was developed to fund the depreciation of vehicles and fund future vehicle purchases. The fund has adequate balance to begin funding the purchase of replacement vehicles with an ending fund balance in 2008 of $1.2 million. The 2008 VRF budget was approved to expend $208,500 for vehicle purchases. Staff recommends revising the 2008 budget to include the purchase of the new fire truck, for a total expenditure in 2008 of $566,418. If approved, a supplemental budget appropriation would be completed to reflect the change. In 2009, the fund would be used to purchase $391,000 in vehicles with a bucket truck as the largest purchase. The 2009 fund balance would be $1.4 million. Mayor Pinkham called a break at 9:20 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:30 a.m. INFORMATION SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY FUND. The internal service fund was formed in 2007 to manage Town wide information systems including technical support, maintenance, security, phone support, audio-visual support and GIS services Town-wide. Each department pays a fee based on the equipment the department utilizes (185 laptops and computers, 24 servers, 221 audio and video components, 4,191 instances of software and 1,321 telephone components). The phone maintenance fee pays for the maintenance contract ($38,000) of the current phone system and the future purchase of a reblacement system ($30,000). Trustee Blackhurst commented on the need to replace the document camera in the Board Room. LIGHT AND POWER FUND. Director Goehring reviewed the proposed 2009 budget containing $12 million in projected revenue, $14 million in expenses and an ending fund balance of $3 million. Fund balance would decrease from $5 million in 2008 to complete ongoing projects, i.e. improvements to distribution system. Charges for services are increasing in 2009 by 3.8% for the Platte River Power Authority Power Rider, 2.5% for a rate increase and 3% growth. Staff plans on conducting a new rate study in 2010 to evaluate future rate increases. 0&M expenses include the source of supply, distribution, administration and customer accounts. The 2009 budget contains funds for the energy efficiency programs including solar and small wind turbine rebates, "Lighten Up" program to relamp Town Hall and research/education for wind and solar sites. The Moraine and Peak View distribution circuits would be upgraded and placed underground when possible during the next two years. Staff will create a separate line showing the totals for personnel costs and 0&M for the summary page. WATER FUND. Director Goehring reviewed the proposed 2009 budget containing $3.5 million in projected revenue, $4 million in expenses and an ending fund balance of $2.4 million. The department plans to maintain a $2 million fund balance to maintain an appropriate debit service ratio for a possible second phase of improvements at the Mary's Lake water treatment plant. The projected revenue includes a 5.6% rate increase and 3% growth. Staff plans on conducting a new rate study in 2010 to evaluate future rates. Projected expenses include source of supply, purification, distribution, customer accounts, administration and general, transfers, debt service and capital. The Water Department plans to increase the current part-time lab technician to full-time because of new state and federal regulations. Electric and sanitation costs are increasing in 2009 as all Water facilities transition to wind energy and the new treatment process increases 5. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Budget Study Session - October 3,2008 - Page 3 discharge. Debit service increases in 2009 with the first year of payments on the loan for the improvements to the water treatment plant and a corresponding decrease in capital with the completion of the improvements. Mayor Pinkham called a break at 10:44 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:58 a.m. GENERAL FUND. Each fund was reviewed and requests for additional information is noted below: Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the overall revenues, expenditure and fund balance for the General Fund. He stated the ending fund balance for 2008 was estimated at 29% and has been increased to 34% because of 2007 rollovers and the repayment of the Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) loan of $918,500. A note will be added to reflect the loans from the CLF and Utilities have not been repaid by EPHA for the purchase of the Pines Apartment complex. He commented the recent trend shows the Town spending more than the Town has received in revenues with current sales tax down 1.9% from the previous year. Staff will provided further detail on the "Sales-Local" sale tax revenue collected. â€¢ Legislative - The budget increased 8% because of the approved salary increases for the newly elected Board in 2008 and additional studies requested by the Board. â€¢ Judicial - The 2009 budget remains flat. Salary increases for court personnel are completed every other year. â€¢ Executive - The proposed 2009 budget increases by 19% with the addition of a PIO position. The PIO salary would be allocated to the Executive, L&P and Water funds. Trustee Eisenlauer questioned the need for a PIO, and stated the job should remain with the DTA as it is outlined in the job description. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson stated the DTA's workload has been modified and does not allow for adequate time to perform the PIO function. â€¢ Elections - Two elections have been budgeted for in 2009 with an Initiated Ordinance still pending for the abolishment of EPURA. The Fire District Task Force has planned a November election in 2009 for the formation of a valley- wide fire district. â€¢ Finance - Finance personnel costs are increasing as part of a six year plan to reallocate the expense with Finance and Utilities splitting the cost 50/50. 2009 would be the fourth of six phases. 0&M has increase with the increased cost of IT services. The Scope of Services will be updated to include the preparation of the budget and the CAFR. MISCELLANEOUS Trustee Blackhurst questioned the digitizing and archiving of Town-wide records. Town Clerk Williamson stated the Clerk's department continues to evaluate software that could be used Town-wide to manage documents. The Board expressed their appreciation for the new budget format and congratulated the staff on the improvements. The next Budget Study Session is scheduled October 10, 8:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 11:47 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 10, 2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD BUDGET STUDY SESSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 10th day of October, 2008. Committee: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Ericson, Homeier, Levine and Miller Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Finance Officer McFarland, Town Clerk Williamson Absent None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 8:17 a.m. 2009 BUDGET PRESENTATION Mayor Pinkham stated the current changes to the U.S. economy and the global economy have changed the Town's budget process. The economic recovery is estimated to start in 2009 and take several years. FIRE Chief Dorman reviewed the department's scope of services. Revenue for 2009 includes a fund balance of $482,396, $175,000 in subscription fees, $75,000 General Fund transfer, grant funding and interest for a total of $750,896. The General Fund transfer would be significantly less in 2009 if the new fire truck is purchased from the Vehicle Replacement Fund (VRF). In 2009, O&M costs are down, capital increases to purchase equipment for the new fire truck and personnel costs increase with the addition of a full- time training officer. Trustee Blackhurst questioned the need to replace an air conditioning unit in 2009. Trustee Homeier stated the 2009 proposed General Fund transfer to the Fire Department does not accurately reflect the actual cost of the Fire Department. The $70,000 capital purchase will be redefined from the purchase of a Mack G-80 to equipment purchase for the new fire truck. CVB Director Pickering stated the CVB has budgeted $1.9 million in expenditures for 2009, $1.1 million in proposed revenue and 17 FTEs. The department continues to increase revenues at events, visitor center, visitor guide, group sales and conference center. â€¢ Communications - O&M remains flat for 2009 with digital advertising increasing and national magazine ads down slightly. â€¢ Visitor Center - O&M increases in 2009 because of additional IT costs. The capital line item would account for unforeseen improvements to the building. The Board discussed the furniture and fixture detail, capital line item, phone, data processing and IT cost. The Visitor Center operates on a separate phone system with its own maintenance and replacement costs; however, Special Events uses the Town's phone system. Discussion was heard regarding the possible formation of a computer replacement fund for the entire Town. IT charges for the center include software licensing, door security, premise security, alarm system, computers, copiers, printers, phone system, etc. Computers purchased by the Town include a five-year warranty and the software through a government contract, and therefore, cost more than an off the shelve computer. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Town Board Budget Studi, Session - October 10, 2008 - Page 2 â€¢ Visitor Guide -In the past the guide was produced by Second Wind, Ltd. This year the production was brought in house. All costs of production are offset by the revenue generated from advertisement. This change requires a supplemental budget appropriation for this account in 2008. The guide continues to grow, and therefore, staff would like to discuss increasing advertising fees in the future. â€¢ Group Sales - O&M decreases slightly from 2008 with personnel up by $4,000. Staff continues to work on increasing group sales in the off-season. â€¢ Special Events - O&M increases to $608,304 in 2009. The department has ' reviewed attendance at Riverside Plaza, Bond Park and Performance Park, and recommends discontinuing the afternoon performances at Riverside Plaza. Discussion was heard on the sales tax impact of special events. Staff stated the impact methods used to evaluate events on the local economy are somewhat subjective. â€¢ Conference Center - O&M remains unchanged from 2008. In 2009, the past bond payment would be paid; however, the 50 year cooperative agreement with the Holiday Inn would continue for an additional 30 years. Through the agreement the Holiday Inn maintains the daily maintenance of the facility and the Town maintains the larger infrastructure maintenance. The description under capital would be updated from carpeUupholstery to banquet chair replacement. Mayor Pinkham thanked the CVB staff for their efforts during the past year and stated the comments received from visitors has been complimentary. The Board reiterated the comments. Mayor Pinkham called a break at 10:10 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:22 a.m. TRANSPORTATION Deputy Town Administrator Richardson reviewed the history of the shuttle system that began as a three year test pilot in 2006. In 2008, the system was modified to include two shopper shuttles, one camper shuttle with a small gasoline bus to address a noise complaint, shopper shuttle included an additional stop at the Stanley Hotel, the camper shuttle added a stop at the YMCA and hours of operation were decreased by six hours per day. Ridership on"the shopper shuttle was down 14%, while the camper shuttle was up 44%. The overall ridership in 2008 was up 1 % from the previous year and a 73.7% increase in ridership over the three year period. The cost per rider increased in 2008 because of increased fuel costs, the use of bio-diesel and the cost to lease a gasoline bus. Future considerations include the leasing versus purchasing of buses. Leasing buses would cost $4,000 per bus per month and would decrease to $3,000 per bus per month with a three year contract. Purchase of a standard bus would cost approximately $75,000 and increase 10% to 20% with altumative fuel options. The Town has applied for grant funding to perform a Comprehensive Transportation study. The Town would pursue other grant funding opportunities as they become available. Alternative fuels are available and should be reviewed. Unleaded gasoline continues to the cheapest fuel with diesel the next least expensive and bio-diesel would double fuel costs. CNG and propane cost less; however, there would be special leasing requirements and fuel sites are not available locally. The 2009 budget contains a leasing cost of $28,000 - $32,000 for buses. McDonald Transit has recommended a three year lease with a smaller gasoline bus for the shopper shuttle and a larger gasoline bus for the camper route. Discussion was heard on the possibility of starting the system earlier in June on the weekends, including Memorial Day weekend. POLICE Chief Kufeld reviewed current projects and programs including zone policing, School Resource Officer program, mitigation to 800 Mhz digital radio system, police auxiliary, Restorative Justice, Community Emergency Response Team, emergency operations plan update, Citizens Police Academy, 3N - Notification System, wireless project, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Budget Study Session - October 10, 2008 - Page 3 Master Police Officer downtown, safety fair and Blue Santa program. Mayor Pinkham requested a presentation of the emergency operations plan at an upcoming Board meeting. Personnel costs for 2009 decreases for the Police Operations (2100), increases for Support Services (2155) and remains at 2008 level for Community Services (2175). O&M increases by $45,000 in 2009 for Police Operations because of equipment replacement. The department received a Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant for $64,904 for the purchase of 800 Mhz handheld radios, mobile radios, dispatch console upgrades and consoletes. A Homeland Security grant was received for communication interoperability for $54,400 and personal protective gear for emergency response team for $32,000. The grants require a total of $9,000 in matching funds. Each department's grants would be footnoted at the bottom of each summary page. Discussion was heard on the replacement of four laptops when new laptops were purchased two years prior. An accurate list of computers in each division of the department would be compiled. Cell phone hardware versus service charges would be clarified. The next Budget Study Session is scheduled October 17th, 8:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 11:45 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk .. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 14, 2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in Room 130 in said Town of Estes Park on the 14th day of October, 2008. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Levine, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Ericson, Homeier, and Miller Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Levine, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Ericson, and Miller Also Attending: Task Force Members Don Widng, Chief Dorman, Will Finch, Sue Doylen, Bob Dekker, Bill Van Horn, Bruce Johnston, Jim Austin, and Frank Theis; Town Administrator Halbumt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Town Attorney White, Town Clerk Williamson, and Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent: Trustee Homeier Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. SPECIAL EVENT VENDOR FEES FOR THE COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN ZONING DISTRICT - DISCUSSION. Subsequent to public comment at the October Community Development Committee meeting, the question was raised whether the topic of Special Event Vendor Fees, which were established with the adoption of Ordinance #19-07, warranted further discussion. Several special event coordinators addressed the Community Development Committee protesting the vendor fees and related requirements calling them inequitable and discriminatory. The Trustees agreed to revisit the topic and include it as a discussion item at an upcoming Town Board meeting. The agenda will be posted and publicized, with notification provided to the organizations that were in attendance at the October Community Development Committee meeting. FIRE DISTRICT TASK FORCE PRESENTATION. In early 2008, the Town Board requested the formation of a Fire Services Task Force. The Task Force was charged with researching the feasibility of a Fire District and the development of a plan for a comprehensive fire and emergency services system that would serve the Estes Valley and include funding proposals that would be considered fair and equitable by Town and County residents alike. Ultimately, the result of the Task Force's efforts is to bring the creation of a Fire District to a vote in November 2009. Applications were accepted for participation on the Task Force and 11 members were selected. The Task Force; comprised of Town residents, County residents, the Fire Chief, a volunteer firefighter, a senior member of Town Staff, and a Town Trustee; met 13 times over the past months to develop the plan and held three public presentations thus far to receive input. Don Widrig, co-chair of the Task Force, gave a general overview of the process the Task Force followed in developing the plan which would establish an independent fire protection district covering the Estes Valley. The boundaries of the District would adjoin existing fire protection districts, such as the national forest, Rocky Mountain National Park, Glen Haven and Allenspark; and would be managed by a five-member board elected from the District at large. He stated that by reviewing actual expenses for emergency services provided by the Fire Department and making financial projections RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS '' Town Board Study Session - October 14, 2008 - Page 2 for future years, a concept for a funding proposal was defined whereby monies for the protection of life would come from sales tax revenue and monies for the protection of property would come from property tax revenue, although an actual separation of these funds would not occur. It is proposed that the Town of Estes Park would contribute 7% of sales tax revenue annually with terms specified through an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the District and the Town, with all Estes Valley property owners being assessed a new mill levy of 1.95 mills beginning in 2010. In addition, the District would require a loan from the Town of Estes Park for start-up expenses that would be repaid once the District is fully-funded and operational. Co-Chair Widrig reviewed steps required to get the issue on the ballot and a timeline as to when these steps must be accomplished, and stated that a campaign to educate the community will be critical to the success of the ballot issue. Discussion followed the presentation and is summarized: the plan sounds reasonable and logical; must define benefits of the Fire District to Town residents and the protection it would provide to the viability of the Estes Valley; provides an opportunity to enhance our ability to protect the economic base of our community; strongly support the proposed Fire District and agree educating the voters is a necessity; and, when formed, the initiative committee should be representative of the whole community. The Task Force's next presentation will be at the October 28, 2008, Town Board meeting. The slideshow presentation and the complete plan document are available for review on the Fire Services Task Force website http://EVFireServices.org Mayor Pinkham and the Trustees thanked the rhembers of the Task Force for the time and effort they invested in developing their proposal. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:42 p.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment August 5,2008,9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair John Lynch, Members Chuck Levine, Bob McCreery, Wayne Newsom, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant Attending: Chair Lynch; Members Levine, McCreery, and Newsom Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Member Sager, Planner Chilcott Chair Lynch called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of the minutes of the June 3,2008 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine) to approve the minutes as presented, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL, A PORTION OF STANLEY ADDITION, located at 561 Big Thompson Avenue, Owner/Applicant: Schrader Land Co., LLLP - Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.4, Table 4-5, to allow the location of a 10-foot-by-10-foot storage shed within one foot of the northern and eastern property lines in lieu of the 15-foot setbacks required in the CO- Commercia/ Out/ying zoning district Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This is a request to allow a small storage shed to be located near the northeast corner of the "Schrader's Country Store" property. As part of an overall store and site remodel, the Board approved a variance in 2006 to allow a new canopy to be located within the front setback. The remodel also included replacing the auto repair bays with interior retail space. The applicant's need for storage space has increased as a result of the additional retail space, and the applicant proposes to use a 10- foot-by-10-foot shed for storage. The shed will be on skids. The applicant's submitted plan shows the shed located two feet from the property lines, but staff suggests the Board consider granting a variance to allow placement of the shed within one foot of the property lines, which will give the applicant some leeway when placing the shed "in the field." In considering whether special circumstances or conditions exist, Planner Shirk stated the lot is oddly shaped. The shape of the lot and the existing building and circulation pattern combine to create special circumstances. Locating the shed such that it would conform with the required setbacks would impact the circulation patterns of the site. Circulation is restricted by the location of storage tanks, pumps, a narrow drive aisle at the back of the building, and a new ADA-compliant parking space on the west side of the building, leaving the northeast corner of the property as the only viable location for the shed. This location would also result in the least impact on the neighborhood. The variance request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Public Works Department, which requested additional sidewalk be installed to complete the sidewalk poured near the southeast property corner. The Light and Power Department requested a short delay to allow removal of an overhead transformer prior to adding the shed, and the Building Department had several comments regarding building . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I . Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 August 5,2008 code requirements. These affected agencies' comments are included as recommended conditions of approval. No comments in support or opposition to the variance request were received from neighboring property owners. Planning staff's findings appear in the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance with two conditions of approval. Public Comment: John Howe of Schrader Oil/Applicant stated his agreement with the recommended conditions of approval. He noted the storage shed will be used for paper products only-no food will be stored in the shed. Members Newsom and Levine commended Mr. Howe on how nice the remodel looks. Member Newsom noted what an improvement the recessed lighting has made, and Member Levine noted the Town had a real interest in the remodel because the business is a gateway property and expressed his opinion that the remodel looks wonderful. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine) to approve the variance request for the Metes and Bounds Parcel, a Portion of Stanley Addition, located at 561 Big Thompson Avenue, to allow the location of a 10-foot-by-10-foot storage shed within one foot of the northern and easterh property lines, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. CONDITIONS: 1. A surveyor's certificate shall be presented to the building department within one week of placement of the structure on the site. This certificate shall verify the structure is located as delineated on the approved site plan. 2. Compliance with the following memos: a. From Will Birchfield to Dave Shirk dated July 25,2008. b. From Tracy Feagans to Dave Shirk, Bob Goehring, and Scott Zurn dated July 25,2008. c. From Greg Sievers to Dave Shirk dated July 16, 2008. 4. METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL located at 974 Rams Horn Road, Owner/Applicant: William E. Monks - Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow the enlargement of an existing deck and stairs to be located 38 feet from the northern property line and 15 feet from the western property line and to allow steps to access the residence to remain adjacent to the western property line, in lieu of the 50-foot setbacks required in the RE-Rural Estate zoning district Planner Shirk stated the staff report was prepared by Planner Chilcott, who was unable to attend the meeting, and he summarized the staff report. This is a request to allow replacement and the slight expansion of an existing deck, which is attached to a 670- square-foot cabin built in 1960. A variance is also requested to allow recently constructed stairs leading to the cabin from the parking area to remain adjacent to the western property line. These steps were recently replaced in the same location as the previous steps, which were in disrepair. The cabin is located on a 0.63-acre parcel zoned RE-Rura/ Estate (a 2.5-acre zoning district). The RE-Rural Estate zoning district establishes 50-foot setbacks from all property lines. The applicant requests to locate the deck 38 feet from the northern property line and 15 feet from the western property line. Steps to the principal entrance of a residence are permitted to encroach into the setback provided they do not extend more than six feet into the required setback; however, the applicant's entry stairs are located adjacent to the western property line. In considering whether there are special circumstances associated with the lot, Planner Shirk stated there clearly are. The applicant's lot is much smaller than the 2.5-acre minimum lot size for RE-zoned lots and is closer to the 0.5-acre minimum lot size required in the E-Estate zoning district, which establishes 15-foot setbacks from front and rear property 'lines and 10-foot setbacks from side property lines. If the applicant's lot was zoned E-Estate, the proposed deck would meet the setback requirements. Also, the 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 August 5,2008 existing residence was built prior to the adoption of any setback requirements and encroaches into the western setback, and the existing deck encroaches into both the western and northern setbacks. Staff finds that the essential character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered, adjoining properties will not suffer a substantial detriment, and the requested variance represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. The variance request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or to the provision of public services. Comments were received from Larimer County Building Department, Planning and Building Services Division, and Department of Health and Environment. No comments in support or opposition to the variance request were received from neighboring property owners. Planning staff's findings appear in the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance with three conditions of approval. Chair Lynch questioned why the applicant's property had not been zoned E-Estate. Director Joseph stated at the time of the Valley-wide rezoning in 2000, that area was within a 2.5-acre zoning district. There is a hodgepodge of lot sizes in the area, and the decision was made not to change the existing zoning and create an area of spotty zoning. Public Comment: William Monks/Applicant asked if a variance would be required for any future changes to the residence. Director Joseph noted work could be done on the east side of the residence without a variance review and approval. Mr. Monk stated he had no further questions or comments. Member Newsom complimented Mr. Monks on the recently constructed stairs. It was moved and seconded (Levine/McCreery) to approve the variance request for the Metes and Bounds Parcel located at 974 Rams Horn Road, to allow the enlargement of an existing deck and stairs to be located 38 feet from the northern property line and 15 feet from the western property line, and to allow access steps to the residence to remain adjacent to the western property line, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the submitted application. 2. Compliance with the submitted affected agency comments. 3. A registered land surveyor shall set the survey stakes prior to construction, shall verify compliance with the variances, and shall provide a setback certificate. The applicant shall provide a copy of this certificate to the Estes Park Community Development Department. 5. REPORTS Planner Shirk stated that approximately two years ago the Board had heard an appeal of staff's interpretation of the Estes Valley Development Code regarding a proposed accessory dwelling unit. The Board upheld staff's determination but directed staff to "fix" the Code regarding accessory dwelling units. Staff has been working on a proposal to amend the Code language and will hold a series of public outreach meetings with various organizations and homeowners' associations to receive input on changes under consideration. Staff currently plans to present a formal request for Code amendments to the Planning Commission in September and/or October, with public hearings before the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners to follow. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 August 5,2008 There being no further business, Chair Lynch adjourned the meeting at 9:25 a.m. John Lynch, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission September 16,2008,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Ike Eisenlauer; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Bruce Grant, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, Doug Klink, and John Tucker Attending: Chair Eisenlauer; Commissioners Amos, Grant, Hull, Kitchen, and Tucker Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Town Attorney White, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Commissioner Klink, Planner Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Homeier The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence of the meeting. Chair Eisenlauer called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Alice Gray/President of Estes Valley Improvement Association began to address the Commissioners on the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment but postponed her comments until later in the meeting, as the habitat assessment was an agenda item. No other comments were provided. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of meeting minutes dated August 19, 2008. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Grant) to approve the consent agenda, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, SOLOMON SUBDIVISION, Outlots A & B, Prospect Highlands Subdivision, TBD Curry Drive, Central Administrators, Inc./Owner, Van Horn Engineering/Applicant-Continued from August 19, 2008 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting The proposed Solomon Subdivision was continued from the August 19, 2008 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting in order to take public comment and hear a short rebuttal from the applicant. Chair Eisenlauer opened the meeting to public comment on this item. Public Comment: Tom Kuepers/Neighboring Property Owner stated the proposed secondary access road will not provide access to the proposed subdivision for residents due to the locked gates. He expressed concern that emergency personnel would need keys to get through the gates and the secondary access road would not be wide enough to accommodate two- way traffic for fire engines, which would not be able to turn around; lives may be lost in a fire event. He expressed concerns about water runoff and the potential for floodin 0 of his residence. He stated dozens of rocks that have fallen from the mountain can be seen from his home; the proposed road will disturb additional rocks; the decomposed granite that makes up the rocks may not provide stability as depicted by the applicant. He expressed concern that the natural spring on Marcus Lane will be affected by the proposed development and reiterated that the proposed secondary access road is "a joke." Loren Johnson/President of Prospect Mountain Townhome Association stated neighboring property owners and the homeowners' association have written letters expressing concern about the proposed development. He noted Planner Shirk's staff report identifies a number of variances to Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) standards that would require approval for the proposal to move forward, and he expressed the homeowners' association's strong support of Planner Shirk's recommendation of disapproval. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 September 16,2008 Rick Warren/Secretary-Treasurer of Prospect Mountain Townhome Association expressed his agreement with statements made by Loren Johnson. Alan Fraundorf/President of Prospect Highlands Homeowners' Association stated the association has no significant objections to the proposed subdivision. He referenced comments from association members that he had forwarded to Planner Shirk and were included in Planning Commission packets. Comments included the road name should be Curry Drive rather than Curry Lane; the association would prefer the new lots not be served by propane; the association is responsible for rockfall mitigation and has not had problems with rockfall; the proposed new residences should become members of the existing homeowners' association. Ron Norris/Association for Responsible Development stated planning staff had done a good job of identifying a number of areas where the proposed development does not comply with the EVDC, and ARD supports that position. He noted that a decision to support the staff recommendation would enhance the credibility of officials in terms of complying with the existing land use code. Applicant's Rebuttal: Lonnie Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He stated the applicant's proposal is still changing. He was unable to meet with Public Works Director Zurn until September 15, 2008; road design and drainage were discussed. Per Director Zurn, the proposed extension of Curry Drive would need to be widened to meet road standards. A hammerhead turnaround is proposed rather than a cul-de-sac bulb. A bulb could be constructed but would require 15 feet of cut on the uphill side of the road and 15 feet of fill on the downhill side. The proposed hammerhead has been reviewed by Fire Chief Dorman and is proposed to be constructed to Larimer County standards rather than EVDC standards in order to provide a depth of 30 feet. The proposed 12-foot-wide secondary access road is not intended to provide full-service access; it is proposed to provide access for emergency responders, which would benefit the proposed subdivision and neighboring property owners. Mr. Sheldon stated Director Zurn also indicated he does not support the proposed four separate detention ponds (one on each lot) due to maintenance issues. The site can accommodate a regional detention pond in the southwest quandrant. He stated Director Zurn indicated water flows must be released into natural release areas, with detention of flow in a 100-year flood event and release during minor flow events. Technical information on detention redesign will be provided to Director Zurn. Mr. Sheldon indicated the applicant's willingness to continue the request to the next Planning Commission meeting to allow review of contemplated changes to the plans. Mr. Sheldon went on to state the following. The applicant has worked with the Bureau of Reclamation for two years on the secondary access road; construction of the road will be expensive to the developer. The current zoning of the outlots requires 0.5-acre minimum lot sizes; the applicant proposes 1.6 acres per unit. The plat of record indicates the possibility of subdividing each outlot into three lots; the applicant is proposing two lots per outlot. Three lots would not fit due to geologic constraints. The applicant could propose to subdivide the lower outlot into four lots but believes the residences would be too densely clustered. The adjoining development on Marcus Lane and Darcy Drive provides 0.2 acres per unit; the troublesome drainage occurs in this high-density area. The applicant will over-contain drainage to ensure the drainage situation is not worsened. There is a 100-foot easement between th& applicant's property and properties to the south (downhill), which provides a transitional zone that cannot be built upon. Mr. Sheldon contended the EVDC does not prohibit development in areas of 30% or greater slope but provides guidelines and requirements for doing so. He stated the future honies on the lots would be small residences tucked into areas protected from rockfall; the applicant will meet every requirement of the state geologist. Comments and Discussion by Commissioners and Staff: Planner Shirk referenced EVDC limits of disturbance standards set forth in Section 7.2, stating new lots should not be created on slopes as steep as proposed by the applicant. Director Zurn stated the Town has invested $50,000 in a drainage master plan for the area due to existing drainage problems. Director Joseph noted there is a limit of 1,000 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 September 16,2008 lineal feet for a cul-de-sac (the applicant proposes a cul-de-sac 2,000 feet long); this standard predates the adoption of the EVDC and was in effect at the time the subdivision was originally platted. Commissioner Hull noted Mr. Sheldon had discussed a number of potential changes to the applicant's plans and requested clarification on whether a vote at this meeting would be on the plans as they were submitted. Planner Shirk stated that affected agencies had provided comments based on the plans submitted by the applicant and the staff report and recommendations are also based on those plans. Mr. Sheldon argued that any requested changes to the plans should be conditions of approval and stated the applicant would prefer a continuance to a denial. Commissioner Hull questioned whether the applicant would make changes to the submitted plans that would result in fewer than the six requested waivers to EVDC standards if the subdivision proposal was continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Sheldon reviewed each waiver requested (maximum cul-de-sac length, maximum number of vehicle trips per day on a cul-de-sac, cul-de-sac bulb, concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks, and limits of disturbance criteria) and indicated that each waiver would still be requested. Commissioner Kitchen stated she did not have concerns regarding rockfall or ground stability but was cautious about potential effects of the development on water flow, having witnessed flooding in one of the homes below the proposed subdivision. She noted the natural drainage from the site flows directly toward the neighboring home and questioned what mitigation measures would be taken. Mr. Sheldon indicated a ditch could be cut below the driveway on the southeast lot to direct water into a drainage basin to the west. From that point, water could be directed toward Marcus Lane through an existing 20-foot- wide drainage easement into a 60-foot drainage easement below. He stated his belief the existing culvert in this area is undersized, and further stated the applicant would not do anything to make the situation worse. In response to a question from Commissioner Kitchen, Mr. Sheldon indicated the state geologist had requested the ditch on the north side of the proposed extension of Curry Drive be three feet deep to function as a rockfall catch basin. He stated although the submitted plans show the deep ditch running the length of the road, the ditch would only be three feet deep in front of the two building sites below the road. The applicant proposes to dress slopes similar to the existing subdivision. Commission Tucker stated he was not concerned with the proposed length of the cul-de- sac or with the composition of the rock in the area because decomposed granite will break apart when it falls. He questioned whether the applicant would provide a temporary barrier to protect homes below the development from rockfall during construction. Mr. Sheldon , indicated the applicant would do so. Commissioner Tucker stated the applicant should provide an adequate turnaround, not a hammerhead; noted the Code violation regarding development on steep slopes would not change; and indicated the applicant should have the opportunity to continue to work with the Public Works Department to resolve discrepancies. Commissioner Hull expressed concern that the proposed subdivision does not meet EVDC standards, as noted in the staff report, and stated she did not support the waivers requested by the applicant. Commission Amos requested that staff comment on whether their recommendations would change if the road/cul-de-sac and stormwater detention issues were resolved. Director Zurn stated he could only provide comment on the current proposal, noting the drainage plans could be revised but it does not appear possible to change the proposed cul-de-sac length. The cul-de-sac length and number of vehicle trips on the cul-de-sac would remain in violation of EVDC standards. Director Joseph stated the EVDC requires that approval of waivers of Code standards advance the broader purposes of the Code, such as extending a cul-de-sac into an area with fairly level topography that would reduce site disturbance. He noted the applicant's proposed development is in an area with slopes so steep the Code suggests it should not be developed. In response to Commissioner Tucker's question of how the extension of the cul-de-sac would prove detrimental, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 September 16,2008 Director Joseph stated there is developable property farther around the mountain-if the cul-de-sac standard is waived for this development, it would be difficult to deny the same type of waiver for a future developer. He reiterated that approval of a waiver to the cul-de- sac standards in order to develop on a slope that the Code says clearly should be avoided is objectionable to him. Commissioner Amos indicated the proposed secondary access may not be suitable and expressed his support of staff's recommendation for disapproval. He motioned to recommend disapproval of the request. Following the motion, he commented that neighboring property owners' concerns about rockfall and water flows, both surface water and underground water, had influenced his support of staff's recommendation for disapproval. Prior to the motion, Commissioner Grant stated his agreement with Commissioner Amos, noting he did not want to set a precedent for waiving cul-de-sac standards or standards for development on steep slopes. Commissioner Kitchen stated that c'ul-de-sac standards are an old issue, noting that Darcy Drive has 15 homes on a cul-de-sac and Rockwood Estates does not meet cul-de- sac standards, nor do other areas of the Estes Valley. She stated she is not concerned about the proposed cul-de-sac length; she would like to see the subdivision request continued to allow the applicant tithe to work out problems with the proposal; and she expressed her wish that the Fire Chief was in attendance to explain his viewpoint. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Hull) to recommend DISAPPROVAL of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Solomon Subdivision, Outlets A & B, Prospect Highlands Subdivision, to the Town Board of Trustees, due to lack of compliance with Estes Valley Development Code standards as discussed in the staff report dated August 19, 2008 and as outlined in the staff findings in said report, and the motion PASSED with one absent. Those voting in favor of disapproval: Amos, Eisenlauer, Grant, and Hull. Those voting against disapproval: Kitchen and Tucker. 4. REPORTS: a. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC COMMENT Staff Presentation: Planner Shirk provided a PowerPoint presentation, answered Commissioners' questions, and reviewed information found in the staff report, which outlines the following: the definition of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU); how ADUs are different from duplexes; the three types of ADUs contemplated in the proposed changes, including integrated, attached, and detached ADUs; why Code changes are proposed; the public outreach process on proposed changes that took place through August and September; research conducted by staff on other jurisdictions' ADU regulations; the current Estes Valley Development Code regulations regarding ADUs; and the proposed changes to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). The proposed changes to the EVDC would allow ADUs in single-family residential zoning districts except the R-1 zoning district, which is a deed-restricted, attainable- housing zoning district; would allow detached ADUs to be constructed in the E-1 (1 acre), RE (2.5 acre), and RE-1 (10 acre) zoning districts; would allow the ADU or the primary residence to be rented for a period of not less than 90 days; would allow the maximum size of ADUs to be 49% of the main dwelling or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less; would provide for architectural standards for construction of all ADUs; and would require deed restriction of ADUs. He noted that private covenants can prohibit accessory dwelling units. In addition to the information found in the staff report, Planner Shirk provided the following comments. The police department has expressed support of ADUs because an ADU could be occupied year-round by an on-site caretaker. The Estes Park Housing Authority is supportive of ADUs because they would help provide employee RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 September 16, 2008 housing for the seasonal workforce. AARP strongly supports ADUs. The definition of a dwelling unit was taken directly from the International Building Code. The proposed Code amendments would allow an ADU to be rented; however, short- term rentals would not be allowed due to potential impacts on neighborhoods. An ADU could not be owned by someone other than the owner of the principal residence. A detached ADU would be required to be located closer to the principal dwelling than to any property line. The total number of occupants on a property could not exceed the number allowed per single household. The Planning Commission could consider further limiting the occupancy of an ADU to two persons per bedroom and/or limiting ADUs to a maximum of two bedrooms. As contemplated, ADUs would be allowed on legally non-conforming (undersized) lots. In the R-Residential zoning district, only fully integrated ADUs would be allowed. In the E-Estate zoning district, integrated or attached ADUs would be allowed. In the E- 1, RE, and RE-1 zoning districts, ADUs could be integrated, attached, or detached, as outlined above. A home occupation could be conducted from either the principal residence or the ADU, but not both. The proposed size limitation for ADUs was based on input from the Estes Park Housing Authority, which indicated that a minimum of two bedrooms per ADU would be needed to help address affordable housing needs. Accessory dwelling units would be required to connect to sanitary sewer service regardless of whether the principal residence is served by a septic system, unless sewer service is not available. Larimer County Health Department is supportive of this guideline. ADUs would be required to connect to Town water service or provide verification from the state that the residence's well permit allows the addition of another unit. Access to an ADU would be from the existing driveway for the principal residence unless the property is a corner lot that can meet driveway separation requirements set forth in the development code. Designated on-site parking would be required, and the parking area would be required to be landscaped to screen vehicles from off-site. Parking within the required setbacks for a property and on-street parking would be prohibited. Additionally, the maximum number of parked vehicles for both the principal residence and the ADU, including RVs and recreational equipment, could not exceed the total number of vehicles allowed on a single property. Most general development standards set forth in EVDC Chapter 7 would apply to ADUs, including limits of disturbance, landscaping, and buffering standards. The proposed architectural requirements would apply to lighting, roof pitch, eaves, overhangs, windows, exterior finish, and trim. The entry to the ADU could not face the front of the property or be directly visible to the public unless it could be demonstrated that no reasonable alternative exists. All building permit fees, Larimer County impact fees (for properties outside Town limits), water and sewer fees, and Town impact fees (if adopted in the future) would apply to ADUs. Per information gathered from attendees at the Mountain Resort Town Planners conference, most jurisdictions allow either attached or detached ADUs and have adopted architectural standards. The national average for ADU construction is one per 1,000 households per year. Planner Shirk estimated there would be approximately six ADU requests per year in the Estes Valley. Public and Commissioners' Comments: Betty Nickel/The Portfolio Group stated there are three issues for their market-guest units, party kitchens, and caretaker units. She urged the Commissioners to provide greater clarity in the definition of kitchen facilities, and stated that bathing facilities do not create an ADU. She requested there be exceptions to the proposed "setback" requirement for ADUs, stating the slope or other limitations on a lot may give the property owner no other choice than to locate an ADU near the property line. She stated homeowners' associations should be required to sign off that they have reviewed ADU plans that meet the Town's criteria, and HOAs should take on ownership of covenant enforcement. She objected to the proposed architectural RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 September 16,2008 requirements for ADUs, noting there are no architectural controls for principle structures. She objected to the proposed requirement for Planning Commission review of detached ADUs. She requested clarification of the 1,000-square-foot limit, asking whether a mechanical room or outside walls would be included in the square-footage calculation. Bob McCreery/Estes Valley Resident stated his support of the concept and direction of the proposed Code amendments. He noted he is a new member of the Board of Adjustment and encouraged thorough review of the proposed amendments to minimize the need for variance requests. He stated that the proposed ADU guidelines may not work well for large properties, noting that a detached ADU on a large acreage may not be visible from the principle residence and architectural requirements to visually match exterior finish may not be appropriate. He expressed concern about rental of ADUs and requested that rental units and commercial enterprises be prohibited in areas where they have historically been disallowed, such as the North End. Wayne Park/Estes Valley Resident stated his support for the proposed Code amendments. He expressed concern about proposed architectural requirements and requested additional flexibility, noting that property owners may not wish to build an ADU in the same style as an existing residence they would not choose to rebuild today. Paul Brown/Town Resident provided the Commissioners copies of Code amendments he proposed in lieu of those prepared by Planner Shirk. He urged the Commissioners to allow ADUs in all residential zoning districts on all legal lots, regardless of lot size. He stated his opinion that ADU regulations as proposed erode personal freedoms and are very poor policy. Rita Kurelja/Estes Park Housing Authority Director spoke in support of the proposed ADU amendments, stating they would further affordable housing opportunities, particularly for workforte housing. The Housing Authority is unable to effectively address the need for seasonal housing, yet it is a significant need in the community. ADUs would provide a tool to disperse affordable housing throughout the community. She stated there is immediate need for 70 rental units and estimated an additional 234 to 298 units will be needed by 2015; this is a community issue that affects all residents. Cherie Pettijohn/Town Resident stated her support of the proposed amendments, particularly as an ADU would make it easier to care for an elderly relative. ADU rentals to fill the affordable housing need are unlikely due to the cost of construction. She stated the proposed architectural standards are too restrictive. Commissioner Tucker stated there have been many good comments and suggestions from the community, including the need to better define the term kitchen. He expressed his support of architectural guidelines to ensure an ADU fits into a neighborhood and with the primary residence and suggested adding a requirement that ADUs be built on site. Attorney White noted there are federal statutes that require communities to accept certain types of manufactured housing; the Town cannot prohibit this. Commissioner Tucker questioned why the proposed amendments would not allow ADUs in multi-family zoning districts (R-2 and RM). He suggested a minimum lot size requirement be included in the amendments. Paul Brown urged the Commissioners to allow detached ADUs in all zoning districts, noting that many existing lots zoned E-1 are undersized for the zoning district. He noted there is an accessory use square-footage allowance for every lot and questioned the difference between a detached ADU and a detached garage. He urged the Commissioners to review his proposed Code amendments and the current ADU regulations for Larimer County, Ridgeway, and Steamboat Springs. Planner Shirk stated the proposed Code amendments would eliminate the current requirement that a lot be 1.33 times the minimum lot size required for the zoning district in order to have an ADU. Twenty-seven percent of lots in the Estes Valley - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 September 16, 2008 could have an ADU under the current lot-size limitation. Fifty percent of lots in the Estes Valley are non-conforming in terms of lot size. Commissioner Tucker stated ADUs should not be allowed on tiny lots. Chair Eisenlauer called a recess at 3:37 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 3:48 p.m. Commissioner Kitchen thanked the public for their great comments on ADUs. She encouraged people to speak to their neighbors and return with additional comments. Commissioner Tucker requested a separate Planning Commission study session to discuss ADUs. b. UPDATE TO THE ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, APPENDIX TWO, RESOURCE INFORMATION, Wildlife Habitat Map Discussion of the proposed update to the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Wildlife Habitat Map was held at the August 19, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Due to the lateness of the hour and the number of people in attendance to provide comment on this agenda item, the meeting was immediately opened to public comment. Public, Commissioners', and Staff Comments: Alice Gray/President of Estes Valley Improvement Association (EVIA) stated the EVIA had held a special meeting to discuss the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment prepared by EDAW, Inc. She stated EDAW did a good job of providing a clear, concise, understandable report that covers many important aspects of habitat. However, she expressed concern that there were many omissions in the report, particularly the interrelationships of habitat in the Estes Valley. Barbara Frick-Finley/EVIA Member stated the habitat assessment focuses attention on the elk population but ignores elk corridors shown in the Spur 66 Management Plan created in the late 1990s. She stated there were other vague references to elk migration routes. She expressed concern that aspen and willow areas are referred to as high-value but there is no mention of the precarious status of aspen groves, particularly as they provide important habitat to elk, beaver, and nesting migratory birds. She stated there are few significant aspen patches in the Estes Valley; elk overpopulation has contributed significantly to their decline. Brian Michener/Vice President of EVIA stated beavers, birds, and bees should be considered in the habitat assessment. He noted beaver are one of the most important keystone species that provide habitat for waterfowl, fish, and other species, as well as recharge wetlands, which affects groundwater levels. A Rocky Mountain National Park study indicates that most beaver in the Park have been lost. Beaver at the YMCA of the Rockies have been displaced from the highest quality habitats due to incremental development, including things such as picnic grounds, roads, utilities, playgrounds, campfire areas, hayride programs, and a zip line. He encouraged adoption of regulations that would consider this type of development as encroachment if proposed in sensitive habitat areas. He expressed concern about impacts of development on bird and bee populations, stressing the importance of both in pollination. He encouraged the adoption of increased setback requirements, particularly in birthing and nesting areas and near beaver colonies. Dorothy Lehmkuhl/EVIA Member stated many animals use the Estes Valley as a birthing area. Habitat in the Estes Valley should be preserved for the health of high- elevation species found in Rocky Mountain National Park that use the Valley for birthing. She expressed concern that the habitat assessment prepared by EDAW included information from the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, which provides a ranking for the state of Colorado, noting this information may not reflect the relative importance of specific habitats in the Estes Valley. She stated protection of aspen should have a high priority. She expressed concern that wildlife studies such as those prepared for the Wapiti Crossing Condominiums development plan, Rocky Mountain National Park beaver studies, the Spur 66 Management Plan, and studies prepared during the development of Thunder Mountain subdivision had not been included in the EDAW assessment. She noted that EDAW recently prepared plans for the YMCA but RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS , Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 September 16,2008 the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment does not include the elk corridor or beaver habitat shown in YMCA's plan; she also questioned why a habitat study had not been required for the current redevelopment project at the YMCA. John Gronen/Estes Valley Resident stated his agreement with others' comments. He expressed appreciation that the habitat assessment had been completed and concern that loss of habitat and open space in the Estes Valley is affecting both humans and wildlife. He stated he feels strongly that the study is incomplete,Â· noting it was completed in only four months and is based on previous studies back to 1980. He expressed concern that EDAW had not contacted the Colorado Division of Wildlife to obtain objective data, as there are no footnotes referencing CDOW participation. He stated there is clearly an elk corridor down Spur 66 from Rocky Mountain National Park and there are beaver along Wind River. He stated it is extremely important to "get it right" and requested a better study be conducted in order to do so. Director Joseph noted that the local Colorado Division of Wildlife Officer had met with the consultants from EDAW twice, spending several hours each time discussing a variety of wildlife topics. Mr. Gronen noted the number of elk in the Valley with radio collars and that there is a program to test all mule deer for chronic wasting disease. He stated there must be hard data on the locations of elk and deer habitat and reiterated his opinion that the report was very incomplete. Ms. Lehmkuhl noted that Carol Beidelman and David Tiemeyer had provided letters to the Commissioners with lists of wildlife species. Mark Elrod/Town Resident expressed shock that there had been no scientific data gathering for the EDAW report. He questioned the underlying GIS maps used in the study, stating they are subjective. He reviewed difficulties he had in obtaining approval to construct a home on his lot over a swale that is shown as a mapped stream corridor in the Estes Valley Development Code, stating the EVDC map is based on a USGS map generated in 1976. He expressed concern that this map has not been updated. Director Joseph stated that in requesting proposals for the wildlife habitat study, the Town of Estes Park was very clear that there was not time or money to generate new science. The Town requested that EDAW capture the best existing available information, compile it, and present it in a report, which was done. He noted that Rocky Mountain National Park is spending $300,000 solely on a beaver study; studies of this type are not a practical undertaking for the Town. Patrick Finley/Estes Valley Property Owner stated a fair amount of existing literature was left out of the habitat study, noting the report had been prepared fast and inexpensively He stated the study should not be used for something bigger than it could be used for. He expressed concern that future users of the study would consider the study comprehensive. Director Joseph stated the report is not intended in any way to be a substitute for site- specific study; it is intended as a regional guide on how to focus efforts. The maps in the study are footnoted to indicate they will be updated as additional information becomes available. Planner Shirk stated the purpose of the study is to trigger site- specific review as appropriate for future development proposals. Commissioner Grant noted the report will help provide a basis for judgment for future Commissioners. He encouraged the public to continue to' press so that site-specific surveys will contain real science. Commissioner Kitchen stated that, as a layperson, she appreciates the general nature of the report. Ron Norris/Association for Responsible Development (ARD) submitted a letter to the Commissioners and read the letter aloud. He reviewed points found in the Estes Valley Wildlife Habitat Assessment that ARD considers key. ARD suggests that the Town and County develop a plan and budget for updating maps the study was based upon; fund an effort to map and monitor the impact of noxious weed control programs, given the impact of noxious weeds on rare vegetation communities; and integrate the results from the habitat study into the recently authorized Open Space Study. Mr. Norris reviewed the habitat definitions found in the wildlife habitat assessment and noted that highest-value habitats may not be adequately protected unless the Code is amended RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 September 16, 2008 to clarify enforcement provisions; additional protection for high-value habitat areas should be incorporated into the development code; and enforcement provisions regarding other valuable habitat, particularly in areas of steep slope or limits of disturbance, should be clarified in the Code. ARD requests the Planning Commission require the following in adopting Code changes: â€¢ A formal wildlife conservation plan for development of properties in highest- value and high-value areas and a mitigation plan to address negative impacts, with developers to pay for these plans but not directly hire the certified wildlife biologists who prepare the plans. â€¢ Provide the option for staff to require a wildlife conservation plan for properties within "other valuable habitaf' when the property contains unique characteristics such as linkages to other protected habitat or wildlife viewing areas. â€¢ Require wildlife conservation plans and mitigation plans to be reviewed and validated by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. â€¢ Allow denial of a proposal based on the amount of negative impact a development would have on wildlife and/or habitat identified in the wildlife conservation plan and the adequacy of the wildlife and mitigation plans. â€¢ Incorporate the recommended buffer widths found on page 16 of the wildlife habitat assessment prepared by EDAW. â€¢ Require an annual audit to assess compliance with these provisions. Commissioner Amos objected to Mr. Norris' reading his letter aloud, noting Commissioners could have read it on their own. He expressed concern that everyone will expect a scientific study on every property to be developed in the future. He noted the objective of this study was to compile information that would lead to changes in the Development Code, and stated his opinion that the habitat assessment is a good study. Commissioner Hull agreed the study is complete. She noted the three documents submitted by the Estes Valley Improvement Association and Carol Beidleman and suggested they be incorporated into the EDAW study. Director Joseph stated there is a sense of urgency to correct one part of the development code in particular that contemplates a role for the Division of Wildlife in which the Division has clearly stated it does not want to participate. Proposed code changes will be presented to the Planning Commission at the October 21, 2008 meeting to repair that portion of the EVDC. He stated many points made by Mr. Norris are valid; remaining changes to the EVDC will be deliberate and will take more time. Ms. Lemkuhl expressed appreciation to all for addressing this issue. She stated there are many qualified environmentalists in the Estes Valley who would serve on a committee to draw up a study such as the Spur 66 Management Plan on a volunteer basis. Additional discussion was held regarding the YMCA property. Director Joseph indicated that lack of inclusion of the Spur 66 Management Plan in the EDAW Wildlife Habitat Assessment had been his oversight, and he stated that oversight will be corrected prior to formal adoption of the habitat study. The Spur 66 plan is a neighborhood-scale study with finer detail than was intended in the current habitat assessment. Changes to the EVDC will be undertaken deliberately without any undue delay. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Tucker) to continue agenda items 4.c and 4.d, staff reports on Staff-Level Development Plans 08-06 and 08-07, to the October 21, 2008 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting, and the motion passed unanimously. Chair Eisenlauer adjourned the meeting at 4:56 p.m. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 10 September 16, 2008 Ike Eisenlauer, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 17, 2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 17th day of September, 2008. Commissioners: Chairman Newsom, Commissioners Cope, Halburnt, Little, Martinsen, White and Wilcocks Attending: Chairman Newsom, Commissioners Cope, Halburnt, Little, Martinsen, White, and Wilcocks Also Attending: EPURA Dir. Smith and Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent: None Chairman Newsom called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. COMMUNITY COMMENTS None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Cope asked about the status of the north river wall project and the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Larimer County related to the continuation of EPURA. Dir. Smith stated the river wall project is complete including flowers and plantings, and that a draft IGA has been prepared stating 10% of the future tax increment financing (TIF) received by EPURA will be paid to Larimer County. He said that Atty. Benedetti is researching whether the IGA is necessary as Resolution #11-08 passed by the Town Board on May 13,2008, describes the allocation of these funds. Commissioner Wilcocks asked Dir. Smith to evaluate the condition of the south river wall and obtain Sharon Seeley's assurance that it meets with her satisfaction. MINUTES. The minutes of the regular meeting held August 20,2008, were approved. 2008 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY. Rita Kurelja, Executive Director of the Estes Park Housing Authority, reviewed the 2008 Estes Valley Housing Needs Assessment that was completed by RRC Associates, Inc., of Boulder, Colorado, through a grant from the State of Colorado. The study provides data that can be used by entities within the Estes Valley for strategic planning purposes and addresses information related to population, age, income, numbers of employers and employees, commuter statistics, number of housing units, and projected housing needs. The study's findings illustrate the challenges many individuals face related to finding suitable, affordable housing in the Estes Valley. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. 1. Park Theater Mall - Work on the riverwall is complete. The owner of the Park Theater Mall, Sharon Seeley, will be invited to an upcoming EPURA meeting to review the project. 2. Moraine Avenue Crosswalk - Public Works Dir. Zurn obtained a grant from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for traffic improvements in the downtown area which are being studied. Although future improvements may include the intersection of Moraine Avenue and Wiest Drive, the need for a signal at the crosswalk exists at this time and is necessary to complete the Wiest Plaza project. 3. New EPURA Commissioners - Dir. Smith welcomed Commissioners White and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ''' Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - September 17, 2008 - Page 2 Martinsen to the EPURA Board and thanked Commissioners Steige and Swank for their commitment and contributions to EPUFU\. Dir. Smith noted that an election will be held at the October meeting to select a Vice Chair for the Board. 4. Change to Meeting Date - The October meeting of EPURA will be held on Wednesday, October 22,2008, at 8:00 a.m. in the Town Board room. 5. Fiscal Year 2009 Budget - Dir. Smith noted that EPURA monies are contained in a general fund, a capital projects fund, and a debt service fund. Final debt payments have been made leaving EPURA debt-free at this time. Finance Officer McFarland's latest projection shows $1.2 million to allocate to capital projects, and the Town historically allocates $200,000 to EPURA from sales tax for administrative purposes. Dir. Smith suggested further discussion of the budget at the October meeting and that the 2009 budget be adopted at the November meeting as no significant adjustments are anticipated. 6. Lawsuit related to the abolishment of EPURA - There is nothing new to report on the pending lawsuit filed by Bill Van Horn. The Commissioners will be informed if and when the litigation moves forward. EPURA PROJECT PRIORITIES. The Commissioners discussed project possibilities to be undertaken with the remaining EPURA funds. Discussion involved the following topics: renovation of the Carriage House as the location for the Stanley Museum in conjunction with the 1000 Anniversary of the Stanley Hotel; the Carriage House is not currently in EPURA boundaries; additional signage to direct visitors; a recycling center is not a project for EPURA; the fagade improvement program lacks consensus of EPURA Commissioners and Town Board; hiring a firm such as the Urban Land Institute to conduct a brainstorming session related to identifying suitable projects; guidelines for improvements and historical preservation; the need to partfier on cultural amenities and large significant projects to improve lodging, restaurants and retail; acquiring the land that is for sale on Highway 34 would provide an opportunity to further improve the image of the Town; and the Wiest parking lot resurfacing and the crosswalk signal at Moraine Avenue and Wiest. The Commissioners agreed that the Wiest parking lot must be a priority and it' was moved and seconded (Wilcocks/Cope) to move ahead with the resurfacing and re-striping of the Wiest parking lot at a cost of approximately $20,000, and it ,passed unanimously. Commissioner Halburnt suggested the use of a prioritization exercise similar to one used by the Town Board to help narrow down project choices and a decision was made to utilize this tool at the next regulatmeeting VISITOR CENTER SIGNAGE PROPOSAL. Roger Thorp, Thorp Associates, presented a concept for signage directing motorists to the Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) and the CVB parking lots. The proposal is patterned after the signs installed on Highways 34 and 36 as a joint project between the Rotary Club and the Town of Estes Park. The signs, which will be unlit and include the Town of Estes Park logo, feature stones set on a steep slope installed at a height that will make them highly visible from the highway. Mr. Thorp propodes that the signs, and the printing on them, be at a slant to resemble a natural outcrop that is being thrust up out of the ground. One sign will be located near the CVB South Parking Lot and the second on Highway 34 near the entrance to the CVB. Each sign will cost approximately $12,000 including excavation, foundation, and installation. After discussion the Commissioners unanimously preferred that the printing on the sign be horizontal to the ground and requested Mr. Thorp obtain costs for a photovoltaic fixture in the event they elect to provide lighting for the sign. It was moved and seconded (Little/Wilcocks) that Mr. Thorp proceed with locating the stone and work with the Town of Estes Park staff to determine the best sites for installation of the signs, and it passed unanimously. Commissioner Halburnt suggested that Dir. Smith take the sign proposal to a Town Board meeting in order to keep the Trustees apprisod of progress on the project. . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - September 17, 2008 - Page 3 Whereupon, Chairman Newsom adjourned the regular meeting at 10:13 a.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk f Finance, Light & Power, Water Departments Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer Date: October 28,2008 Subject: 3rd Quarter Financial Report Background Attached please find the third quarter 2008 "dashboard" financial report. Documentation/explanation The expenditure categories used in the General Fund box are not identical to the way items are reported in the budget. The categories in this report are in line with GFOA recommendations, but I thought it might be useful to report how the General Fund departments correspond to the attached report: General Government: Legislative (1100), Judicial (1200), Executive (1300), Elections (1400), Finance/Admin (1500), Community Development (1600), Buildings (1700), Employee Benefits (1800), Subsidies/Grants (1900), Transportation (5600). Public Safety: Police (2100,2155, 2175), Fire (2200), Protective Inspections (2300). Engineering/Public Works: Engineering (2400), Streets (3100). Culture/Recreation: Parks (5200). Other revenues include all of non-sales tax revenues in the General Fund, the largest of which include property tax, use tax, franchise fees, interest, PILOTs, and business and liquor licenses. The General Fund box reports revenues at 64.6% of budgeted levels. August 08 sales tax figures are not included in the totals because the financial reports are issued before we receive the August 08 numbers. With August included, revenues would be about 74% of budget, which is right in line with % of the year being complete. We will have (based on historic trends) about 81% of the annual sales tax total when September reports (around November 10th). â€žOther" revenues are looking especially strong because the General Fund has been repaid by the EPHA for their $860,000 loan. Expenditures are currently at 73.7% of budget, on target with the calendar year. General government expenditure categories (general government, public safety, engineering, and culture/recreation) are actually running slightly lower than target. Transfers are running ahead of budget because the entire $921,000 was transferred to the Fire Fund when the Fund was created. The Sales Tax box reports 3rd quarter numbers in italics, as September is an estimate based on the printed budget. With actual data available only through August, the first 8 months (67.5% of the financial year) is approximately 0.4% behind budget. This puts the budget vs actual ratio at its high- water mark YTD. Due to the economy, there is concern that the last 4 months of the year might trail 2007. It is fortunate that we have done as well as we have to date. Further details on 2008 sales tax data will be reviewed in the November 25th, 2008, Town Board Meeting, schedule permitting. The Enterprise Funds box (see supporting pages for Light & Power and Water Fund breakdowns) shows that enterprise funds revenues are at 58% of budget. The budgeted Water loan ($4,900,000) is skewing the overall revenue percentages to the downside, and it should be noted that the 78.9% utility sales figure is beyond expectations. The Water loan is not going to be reported-realized in' the budgeted format, but will be noted in the CAFR. When the budget was created, it was assumed that the Water loan would be issued in the same format at the L&P bonds, ie the Town would receive funds. This is not the case. The Town will submit invoices to the CWRPDA who will in turn pay the invoices and draw down upon our available $5,494,410 loan. Operational expenses are unifdrmly under budget (75%). The capital budget should really kick into gear in the 4~h quarter as the $6,000,000 L&P project should be 75% complete by year end. The Investments box has been retooled to show investments by type of fund. The pension funds are managed by a third party (actually, only the Fire Pension is managed by a third party, but accounts for 99.4% of the Pension Funds' assets). EPURA investments reside in a ColoTrust money market account and are not mingled with Town investments. The bond issuance is listed separately due to its size. I have added some market indicators as well as the prevailing money market fund rate. We have been fortunate this year to have our investments sheltered in conservative modes. The investment world has certainly been rocked since the last quarterly report. Through September, the major indicators are down 18-21% for 2008. Even our conservative investment stance, which is governed and protected by statute, has not been immune from the effects of the world-wide financial situation. Our situation has been expounded upon in other docu'ments, so it will not be recounted here. It is worth stating that our holdings with ColoTrust, with whom 90% of our investments lie, have been guaranteed by both MBIA (our advisor) and by the Feds (Treasury â€¢ Page 2 Department). Federal actions are developing almost daily, mostly designed to back commercial paper and to promote liquidity. Action steps requested None. â€¢ Page 3 g E 3 R & 9 2 3 2% M a.00 - 00 N MN ,Â£, h h m LR 8 3: :0 ~0 4 6 0 h 0 Y Oâ‚¬NOON 0 ro E 1, 089 B Z 2 32 32 32 4 9 1 4 2 9 K r-1.0091- 2 â€¢n co h LO m% m râ‚¬ al D E C-& LU - a. tx .E a)%%) E M z a, c JU 2 C 0 kiE a E 5 {0 Me.wde; 4 0 2008 2008 2008 % of Year-to-Date Budget Year-to-Date Budget Budget Sales taxes* $3,828,572 $7,406,463 Utility Sales $10,518,844 $13,332,501 78.9% Transfers from Enterprise 792,732 1,007,611 Other* 608,091 5,610,270 10.8% TOTAL REVENUES 7,847,150 12,144,888 11,410,012 19,687,451 58.0% 1,660,893 2,314,397 71.8% Source of Supply 3,742,679 5,324,004 70.3% ublic Sa 2,162,757 3,131,561 69.1% Purification 441,887 606,102 72.9% 1,117,638 1,584,755 70.5% Distribution 1,844,853 2,673,075 69.0% %Â£'L9 ILS'LSO'I 6*E'ZIL slunOO]V JaUJO.15no %Z'59 *60'8I0'I I6L'E99 %I'65 PZI'ZVO'E ZE8'L6L'I leJauag/u!lupv %9'65 000'05 VI8'6Z 56t/EI III'005'I LD'OOZ 001/Ua a %*OI *ZE'L60'ZI ZE'ZSZ'I II9'L00'I EL'Z6L lnO SJBJSUEN.L punpawl %0'OOI 000'ooz 000'ooz E9820â‚¬'LE ZI'tâ‚¬L'OI S3SN3dX3 %LEL ZSZ'SET'ZI â‚¬84'Z46'8 (-[It'OZ9'LS) 068'SE9$ 3SV3bl)30/3SV3kDNI 13N %I'LgEII- 9Â£9'65 (EEE'560'IS) 3SV3H)30/3SV3HDNI 13N I' Z Â£*6'OVE'6I 080'ZOL'8I Spund UAAol 87.E'60'5 96L'0Z6'E ZES'855'Z 900Z I Z6' Z L9L'L LOU IVL'SIZ'9Z lelol GENERALFUND ENTERPRISE FUNDS (L&P/WATER) ZES'LZI'I 069'5ZI'I spund UO!Suad 88L'ESL'Z laSpng SOOZ 6IE't~9E IDL'SSI VUnd3 'II6'S 9Z0'IZ9'Z SOOZ EL6'*DZ'9 OEZ'ZEZ'9 spuoe d181 OOE'LE6'S 6Zt/98I 'E ILS'OSL'Z LOOZ aouenss! ueol/puoq 000'006'*$ sapnpu! I 80 Inf - uersapniou!* 80-Inf (anieA Jied) S1N3 IAI153ANI 80 D PJE 80 sD Z jsI XV1 531VS %TIZ- DVCISVN '%L OZ- 005digS '%Z'SI- VIra :80/0â‚¬/60 nJ41 ejecl (DI 6d labpnE 80(~1323;~&~cusllsÂ°I aJoumsa puo %**Z :80/OE/60 !5668* :LO/IE/ZI 'ajeJ jualillseAU! palood ienuue FINANCIAL INDICATORS REVENUES REVENUES 3RD QUARTER 2008 EXPENSES 15ajalul %078 St*'9â‚¬8'E 06S'LOI'E ln0 galsue]1 punpalul TOWN OF ESTES L6Â£'6Â£6,6 6~'S Other 3,225,846 3,730,814 Fees/services 283,077 744,680 38.0% apniou! 80 D PJE I TOWN OF ESTES PARK 3RD QUARTER 2008 GENERALFUND 2008 2008 % of 2007 Budget Year-to-Date budget Year-to-Date REVENUES Sales taxes $7,406,463 $3,828,572 51.7% $3,902,988 Other 3,730,814 3,225,846 86.5% 2,489,834 Transfers from Enterprise Funds 1,007,611 792,732 78.7% 783,086 TOTAL REVENUES 12,144,888 7,847,150 64.6% 7,175,908 EXPENSES General Government 2,314,397 1,660,893 71.8% 1,772,133 Public Safety 3,131,561 2,162,757 69.1% 2,410,440 Engineering - Public Works 1,584,755 1,117,638 70.5% 1,043,975 Culture-Recreation 1,018,094 663,791 65.2% 621,921 Contingencies 50,000 29,814 59.6% 51,059 Interfund Transfers Out 3,836,445 3,107,590 81.0% 1,866,054 Transfer Out - EPURA 200,000 200,000 100.0% 200,000 TOTAL EXPENSES 12,135,252 8,942,483 73.7% 7,965,582 NET INCREASE/DECREASE $9,636 ($1,095,333) ($789,674) TOWN OF ESTES PARK 3RD QUARTER 2008 ENTERPRISE FUNDS LIGHT AND POWER 4 2008 2008 % of 2007 Budget Year-to-Date budget Year-to-Date REVENUES Utility Sales $10,686,947 $8,374,767 78.4% $7,876,320 Charges for Services 113,680 64,677 56.9% 83,058 Current 181,548 248,007 136.6% 161,330 Misc 377,046 230,276 61.1% 124,895 11,359,221 8,917,727 78.5% 8,245,603 EXPENSES Source of Supply 5,163,444 3,603,925 69.8% 3,764,241 Distribution 1,785,607 1,176,515 '65.9% 1,076,904 Customer Accounts 716,341 469,636 65.6% 479,780 Admin/General 1,865,008 1,060,420 56.9% 908,539 Debt Service 760,000 137,444 18.1% 50,470 Operating Transfers Out 908,390 711,855 78.4% 764,759 Capital 7,107,759 802,415 11.3% 403,963 Interest 0 0 N/A 0 TOTAL EXPENSES 18,306,549 7,962,210 43.5% 7,448,656 NETINCREASE/DECREASE ($6,947,328) $955,517 -13.8% $796,947 WATER 2008 2008 % of 2007 Budget Year-to-Date budget Year-to-Date REVENUES Utility Sales $2,645,554 $2,144,077 81.0% $1,973,375 Charges for Services 631,000 218,400 34.6% 595,705 Current 140,050 96,773 69.1% 139,859 Miscellaneous (includes loan proceeds) 4,911,626 33,035 0.7% 36,602 8,328,230 2,492,285 29.9% 2,745,541 EXPENSES Source of Supply 160,560 138,754 86.4% 122,648 Purification 606,102 441,887 72.9% 378,245 Distribution 887,468 668,338 75.396 519,976 Customer Accounts 341,170 241,713 70.8% 261,239 Admin/General 1,177,116 737,412 62.6% 343,547 Debt Service 740,111 63,026 8.5% 306,410 Operating Transfers Out 99,221 80,877 81.5% 89,294 Capital 4,989,565 449,905 9.0% 118,335 TOTAL EXPENSES 9,001,313 2,821,912 31.4% 2,139,694 NETINCREASE/DECREASE ($673,083) ($329,627) 49.0% $605,847 , Addendum to the Fire Services Task Force Plan October 2008 Subsequent to the Task Force's presentation to the Town Board Study Session on 14 October, 2008, a few new ideas and updates have occurred. These revisions are incorporated in the following revised sheets. Please replace the entire Considerations and Suggestions section of the plan with the revised material that follows. In addition, a single page of corrections to the Service Plan are also included herein. This revision corrects an error in the Legal Description of the proposed Fire Protection District. Estes Valley Fire Services Task Force Final Recommendations, October 2008 Considerations and Suggestions (Revised) In the course of discussing various options for the plan, the Task Force occasionally considered other questions that were not properly deemed to be part of the overall plan. Nevertheless, the Task Force felt that these issues should not be ignored and should be brought to the Town Board's attention as useful suggestions for the Board to consider. We present these considerations here in no particular order of importance. 1. Method of transacting payments from the Town to the Fire Protection District (the "District") In concert with discussion with the Town staff, the following idea for determining the annual payment seemed to be the simplest approach that was consistent with the way that the Town manages their budget based on input from the Town Finance Director: a. The Town will make two payments to the District each year. b. The first payment, made in January of the current year, is for 90% of the predicted payment based on projected sales tax receipts for the year. The second payment, made in February of the subsequent year, is an adjustment based on the remainder of the payment due after the actual sales tax receipts are known for the current year. This adjustment is based on the expectation that the final sales tax receipts are delivered by the state to the Town on or about February 15th. c. Toward this end, the draft IGAs included in the Appendixes formalize this proposed payment schedule. Of course, there might be other possibilities that the Board may want to consider. The Task Force also considered another payment plan that could be summarized simply as "pay as you go". In this payment plan, the Town simply arranges to move 7% of the collected sales tax revenue to the Fire Protection District whenever the state sends money to the Town. This idea was proposed to the Finance Director but was rejected in favor of the above-mentioned plan. 2. Voter objections to the plan The Task Force received continual public feedback as the plan evolved. In almost every respect, public acceptance of the plan was extremely positive. However, there was one recurring negative theme received from the public, the issue of the Town Property Tax. The negative feedback was invariably phrased as follows: "You are proposing a property tax for everyone who owns property within the proposed district. But, I already pay a Town Property Tax that covers my Town services such as fire protection, streets, etc. Why should I have to pay two property taxes for the same service?" Considerations (Rev 4b).doc Page 1 of 3 4, , The objection does have some merit. In the Task Force's quest for a Fair and Equitable plan, the two property taxes are unquestionably an inequitable burden on the Town property holders. This inequity is magnified for business owners who are also caught in the Gallagher amendment that will have the effect of significantly adding to their tax burden. The Task Force has continued to be concerned about this issue since, in our judgment, this will likely have a serious negative impact on any vote for the plan. It's possible that there would be enough negative votes to doom final acceptance of the plan. The Task Force has spent considerable time in trying to find a way to help the Town property owners with this stumbling block. Several ideas were considered and are herewith offered for the Board's consideration. It should be noted that a combination of the below-mentioned ideas might be the best way to deal with this stumbling block: a. Lower the Town Property Tax. This idea gained considerable interest since there are a number of workable ways to compensate for the lost revenue to the Town if such a course of action was adopted. In the draft 2009 Town budget, on a pro rata basis, it appears that approximately 8% of the total Town Property Tax would be allocated to the existing Town Fire Department. Based on current estimates, this would amount to approximately $23,000 - $25,000 of the Town Property Tax being earmarked for the Fire Department. Assuming that the Town Property Tax remains at the current level of 1.753 mills, it is worth considering a reduction of the mill levy by 8% (to approximately 1.613 mills), thus removing the allocated amount for the Fire Department. Then, the Town Government could tell the Town residents that their property tax was reduced by 8% to remove the Town's contribution toward fire protection. Of course, the proposed Fire District Property Tax would still be levied on all Estes Valley residents but the reduction would show good faith on the part of the Town Government. b. Offer some kind of a rebate to Town commercial (real and personal) property owners. This would be analogous to the existing food tax rebate the Town offers to low income residents. While this would likely ameliorate some dissent, the idea does seem complicated to implement. It is at least worth considering if the overall effect is to gain voter approval. c. Sub-division of the District so that a separate tax levy could be applied to each sub-division is complicated (although permitted under state statute) and could be counterproductive for the Estes Valley. However, some method of establishing more parity between the Town and the unincorporated valley property owners should be investigated. d. Undertake a significant education campaign to educate the citizens as to the realities of the Town revenues and expenditures. The Task Force has discussed several easy-to-understand ways of simplifying and presenting the complexities of Town finance. We believe that educating the citizens on these tax and finance realities would be helpful in improving the voters' understanding of the issues involved. The Task Force would be glad to work with the Town government in developing such an educational campaign. Considerations (Rev 4b).doc Page 2 of 3 3. Benefits of the District Purchasing Support Services from the Town The Task Force considered the issue of how the District would perform infrastructure tasks such as Fleet Maintenance of the equipment, payroll, etc. The plan recommends that many such services be contracted out instead of hiring support personnel solely to support the operations of the District. At least initially, the recommended ideas for support services include support on a fee basis by appropriate Town departments. The Task Force saw several benefits: a. The District benefits by having personnel experienced with their equipment and issues continue to provide the same services. b. The Town benefits by avoiding personnel reductions or reassignments and increased overhead rates while keeping their personnel fully employed. Considerations (Rev 4b).doc Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT C LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED DISTRICT The proposed District includes all of the properties located within Larimer County, Colorado and bounded as described below: Beginning at the Northwest corner of the Southwest quarter-quarter section of Section 6,Township 5 North, Range 72 West of the 6'h P.M., thence East to the Northeast corner of the second quarter-quarter section of Section 4, Township 5 North, Range 72 West, thence North to the Northwest corner of the Southeast quarter section of said Section 4, thence East along the Center section line to the Northeast corner of the Southeast quarter section of Section 1, Township 5 North, Range 72 West, thence South along the East section lines, Range 72 West to the Southeast corner of Section 36, Township 5 North, Range 72 West, thence East along the North section line to the Northeast corner of Section 1, Township 4 North, Range 72 West, thence South along the East section lines, Range 72 West, to the Southeast corner of Section 13, Township 4 North, Range 72 West, thence West along the South section lines to the Southwest corner of Section 13, Township 4 North, Range 73 West, thence North along the West section line of said Section 13 to the Southeast corner of Section 11, Township 4 North, Range 73 West, thence West along the South section line of said Section 11 and Section 10, Township 4 North, Range 73 West, to the East Boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park; thence along the East Boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park to the point of beginning. .. 1 4 -. 4 2 . 4 9 04 -4 ' CommunitÂ¥+ - .' 1 Development L Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: David Shirk, Planner *14 Date: October 28,2008 Subject: Wonderview Village Supplemental Condominium Map (Unit 11) Background. On December 11, 2007, 1 1 \927 the Town Board approved the Final Condominium Map for Wonderview ~ Village, a seventeen unit residential Wonderbew Ave -3*-L-\11 - development currently under construction. Initial approval "finalized" one unit, and r-T- ki identified the general location of the remaining sixteen units. 7-9 2 The applicant (Steve Murphree) now 44 r requests to finalize the second of these 7-71 units, which will be known as Unit 11. The 1 I. 7~7-T--73\-Â·~ -~-\- / \ remaining fifteen units will be finalized as development proceeds; pursuant to state law, maps cannot be finalized until units are substantially complete. The map is consistent with the approved development plan and preliminary condominium map. Budget. N/A Action. Staff recommends approval of the "Condominium Map of Wonderview Village Condominiums Unit 11" CONDITIONAL TO: 1) Compliance with original preliminary condominium map approval (May 23, 2006). 2) Compliance with approved development plan of Wonderview Village. 3) Service lines and meter locations shall be delineated on the plan sheet. CO 1 @55 *ME 0e: . li z 46 4:* 9 I Z 2 -8 3 -ge m . -% 3/. . 0/= 0 I ... b -EC- 010 - 1/ :1 t.22--' L .: .â€¢ 5 8 wri *4 .4.. 1 =2 9 90 1 1,4 5:, 0 liz ,31. * , 1 te 'n . ..... -.-. -----'.---- k -9 3 1 Ria i 0 130: billi t 11 66 1 -2 ..&.. Â¥t p :m 02Â«u-3 2 2 -s . WO I la*,-W Ii-Z 2---ul M ./. f 'if r 80- Â£ e â€ž 5Â¥bq~6Â·-Sâ€¢Ned 1 " 11 9 1 0 53 -_ i - if tt=Lt - - 1 .Â©.1 - 7 1\- d Â£ 1. 11 ' - li:2 *SEE@K*%;i*se 1.,i -â€ž IM / r= M =202=11=:r-Â·m mi -/ & N - e & I. 42%=a/*Emage /4*1 9.Â«--1 // / d . I 15 1 3 \ 8 1 \1 i f \ 3 8 / 9 \ 1 84 5 / 8 6 soÂ·m.,s. os ts / ../.I--.......#..*..~.....: l.=WMIU, Al 9 , r------------ . 0.4 : rs 1 2 J fÂ·* 0 l 4 2 , 11 0 i, a S A./ 1 1 1 I Isf, Â· . 1 ,/5 , 1 tic ___ _ M."=-111'91.--_ Â·Â·Â· lEi . , A &0 1 00 J 1 1 1 /8 - 2 tia b 1 1 4 11 3..... it' -3- -2- i - & 220 * 0 2 i : 01 4; 11 4 / 1 1 / 1 ;11, 1 \ 1 L. d ..7..U -- 1 1 1 1 \\ 1 1 ki. 1 Iji!!846##m4<1:: 11 1 *aff#MA i iwiji:ji~~i e 1 :i 1 ?.i 9 - /4 3 -- 21 ,// 1,JT\ \ \,1 m 1 9 I Dp \ ......... W 2 1 1 : 2 1 1 i 2 % i . 1 \*- ...B i, ShiE 82'rE 8.1 LE:.i li : 5 liii , 4 I M & 4 b 5 ' 2 13,414 ~r ;~ 3:-:~ 1 %1 D 1 1 2 4 M 0- . 7 11!!f mÂ».1-0 lilli I ,% 1 8-1 eY rn NJ h L_+ ~Â§ 30 / 2 51 1 9 1 i 1 A 1 6 1. 2.2 i â€¢ 1 .. . 1 2 15Â§. .0~ ~Â£ ,~flos -IÂ·~- - & 9 4 Mi E ia 1 1 ./1 19 0 0 1 M 21; I 61 1 14 1 /3 .IL:... LE#<. il 11 Gj 1 li Â·Â·Â·~ 3/ Â© _.K ~Ej SE .8/ . I ' 1 Z 4 10 000 2 29/ 4*/ 2/1 j 1 4/ ill i AUÂ·: 11.-\. 41 11 1 1( li} Ili ..IN.:6 -th R. 0 # 8 ./ 3 I. .02* 0 1 H $ *41 . -zi :i i \1 i * 11 ~ 0 '.,/ VAP 1 - I 1 Rig 1 1- -- 111:21 5 & -: 44=01:*1311 ' 4 I till '3!5& -- : I 4/ 1 ~ 41 2 \ ap/-1 -WlÂ« -- 1 & 1 1 .lâ€¢ al e ~ ha.~E~ m. -N 58 X 1 .JU b 8, 1 1 2 ) r. 1 I.'Ill /10./..1 0 C ?ili~ 39.2 1/ 37~W 00SAU 5 ---L.&4*2--* 1,' ~8 101 ID HOU}.104 Of..ON U ..INCH ./. GODZ Â·011 sas ./ SI,0134,nS ~If~.d .m O -ON''SB3.0 . S~011'.BAS >litrd SllS] ULLa-9e' CON........0. 7603 81 O3MU~IHD *Wd Ue NkÂ¥. LOCATED IN THE S 1/2 OF SECTION 24 T5N 97-W OF THE 6â„¢ P OF ESTES PARK. COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO 1 Â»PPR~AL Of 1}05 PUT CR~TE5 A - P...... ~~WI TO ,AnCLE OP ..24. C.I. Â»SM . 11*/ rus,Mts rEAr PAMIC COLÂ£*00, BONÂ©AU T11[omERS mD UD,Holocls I'OU~-G DESCILISED COÂ· %DJENT - .UmON NOT DEn/ED /5* UNIM, i# MECO~ Mâ„¢ ni~ Cow#W. .215$12 *5 *. C~~0 ALL- T~lâ‚¬ %.*g $ . c R . SECMN ... 3-$ -41--4- 0.~ iâ„¢, 2.02 49t ~ 6'.1.. ArllÂ¢-LC'llia,1, 3 V NOUDiS S}mINIEOUNOJ Yoyl'IIA lifIAyEGNOM NOTES: t 'ON dy* Â·IXLNE}VHldinS S 1 1/Nn >arl,1 '31S3 30 HheL >IMId 531S3 30 lital '01 >I)019 30 NOISIAIO SONAOB V S313Â·,N WIS 108#./. =.00900' ON HOLeS.8 1Â¥ DE I. ofr.I ~0 4 ~NO.Â¥m~ ml...DOMâ„¢IUME, WS Ve mED -O SUMMOED Slli'.11'10014100 Ood3 aAS '.... . %. L ... IE PRES,EMT FOR flag ..*B~NK ..rES PARK Â¢Dt:ORâ€¢00. OF Â»E 5TA. . COL684Â©0: T,Or ./ P[Ar ~WPf|(-Â£~NK~L 'P ~4 1 OP S.1.Wl' 3Â¥~W (C) Woj OJAW= = ...mmm.**.' -ga 2 acs,Cl'r. NA%01(S IN3'35Â¥13 Url,Irl 31Â¥/Jud ONÂ¥ SS3301 SUPPLEMENTAL 9 0.1 01 *0019 '5 101 JO ./ 1,1110,1 - '.10 3N0ISMOTI. YOR'S .RUFf{ZATE ACTUAL & PLâ€¢TIED DNENSK)145 $ 2. ..... ~- SIN 3BrUJU (Â¥) .3 03Â·,83 Auu g) *o:, 03,4[3S3. GRAPHIC SCALE ~ Town of Estes Park liu Community Development ESTES M~ Â® PARK COLORADO Room 210, Town Hall P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: October 22,2008 Re: Park River West Condominiums, Supplemental Condominium Map, Phase XXIV, Lot 2, Park River West Subdivision, Richard H. Wille Trust/Applicant. Background. The Richard H. Wille Trust has submitted a supplemental condominium map application for Park River West Phase XXIV. Phase XXIV consists of two units, Units 614 and 616 in Building 16. Both units are located on Lot 2, Park River West Subdivision. The site is adjacent to River Rock Condominiums on Moraine Avenue (CO Highway 36). Lots 1 and 2 of the Park River West Subdivision are zoned RN\-Multi-Family Residential. The condominium map is consistent with the approved development plan. An as-built development plan is required once construction of improvements is completed. The Town Board approved a Supplemental Condominium Map for Park River West Phase XX111 at the July 24,2007 meeting. Budget. None. f \ 1 i. 7 8 /91- 7 Action. >612 f Ce ar Rifge Ci~~le ill Approval of the condominium map -4 --- application. 44~-3 3 18 // B~ Riv~r 141 Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: David Shirk, Planner 9Â·6 Date: October 28,2008 Subject: Solomon Preliminary Plat Background. This is a request to subdivide two ~ frot in iown) existing outiots into four \ jzz. I . 4 single-family residential lots, -r~--- = - 4/1- This proposal does not meet - i Proposed Subdiv~n ~ the following Estes Valley --4 --/-\ Development Code 2 -- - - --Â»-1 ,"T- [-t--1 requirements, as discussed I throughout the report: Â· -r, iFf / Limits of Disturbance i_ 9~NJ-EÂ»YD~~- criteria, geologic hazard 4--L_*5/3,14*-7 j--4~ / A-1/I,Â·r:r-A , 1-.- mitigation, cul-de-sac 51/Â«-723 En~-r-ZA standards (number of units , 1]Â¢24,2941193314 length, turn-around design) and ''AN;i W4AJ//*lf I r , t ., 7--7- 2- curb/gutter/sidewalk requirements. Furthermore, the proposed drainage plan has not been approved by the Town Engineer. The applicant has requested the following modifications and/or waivers to the following Code standards: 1. Appendix D.Il.E.1 - Maximum cul-de-sac length. 2. Appendix D.11.E.2 - Maximum number of vehicle trips per day on a cul-de-sac. 3. Appendix D.IX.D - Street Connection Details (cul-de-sac bulb). 4. Appendix D.11.1 - Concrete curb and gutter. 5. Section 10.5.D - Sidewalks. 6. Section 7.2.D.2.b - Limits of Disturbance criteria Approval of this subdivision plat requires the Town Board approve the above requested waivers. History. \n 1996, the applicant submitted a subdivision proposal to divide a 66-acre parcel into twenty-one single-family lots and one outlot. This application did not meet subdivision standards, which had maximum limits of twelve units on a dead-end street, and a maximum length of 1,000 feet. The application was revised to comply with these standards, and a twelve lot single- family residential plat (with outlots) was approved and recorded. That plat maximized development potential under the code in place at the time (the same cul-de-sac standards apply today: 12 units; 1,000 feet). Note: the current maximum unit standard is expressed as "vehicle trips per day," but the limit of twelve applies to a single-family subdivision. The outlots include a note "Reserved for Future Development." Because the existing plat maximized allowed density under the subdivision standards in place at the time of approval, Staff suggests this note is does not imply approval for additional density. Neighborhood Comments. Staff has received written comments from seven nearby property owners and two nearby property owners association. Of these nine, all but one expressed concern regarding this proposal. The Prospect Highlands Homeowners Association, representing properties west of the proposal on Curry Drive, did not express opposition to the proposal, but did have comments regarding the name of the street being mislabeled, stormwater runoff, location of propane tanks, and some residents felt building envelopes would be too close together. The Prospect Mountain Townhomes Association, representing properties "down hill" from the proposal, submitted a letter outlining concerns regarding limits of disturbance, development on steep slopes, groundwater, geologic mitigation, and impact on wildlife. Seven individual property owners from that association also provided written statements of opposition. Concerns expressed include geologic mitigation, stormwater runoff, and limits of disturbance standards not being met. At the August 19 Planning Commission meeting, three neighboring property owners spoke in opposition before the meeting was adjourned. â€¢ Page 2 September 16 Planning Commission meeting, four neighboring property owners spoke (three in opposition). In addition, Ron Norris was present on behalf of the Association of Responsible Development, and spoke in opposition, noting a decision to support the staff recommendation would enhance the credibility of officials in terms of complying with the existing land use code. Budget. N/A Action. At their regularly scheduled September 16 meeting, the Estes Valley Planning Commission found: 1. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. The Colorado Geological Survey has suggested additional information be presented with the hazard mitigation plan. 2. The Public Works Department does not support approval of this project at this time. 3. The subdivision design, if approved, would require future owners of Lots 1 and 2 to go through development plan review in order to build any structure. 4. The design of the road has yet to be finalized, and Staff questions the additional cut and fill required for the widening of the road and the proposed ditch section. 5. The subdivision design does not comply with the following sections of the Estes Valley Development Code: a. Section 7.2.D "Limitations on Site Disturbance" b. Section 7.7.F2c "Geologic Mitigation Plan Requirements" c. Section10.5.D "Sidewalks" d. Appendix D.ll.E.1 - Maximum cul-de-sac length. e. Appendix D.11.E.2 - Maximum number of vehicle trips per day on a cul-de-sac. f. Appendix D.IX.D - Street Connection Details (cul-de-sac bulb). g. Appendix D.11.1- Concrete curb and gutter. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission voted 4-2 (one absent) to recommend DISAPPROVAL, which is the recommendation now before the Board. enc: Planning Commission minutes â€¢ Page 3 C C RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS -'.'t f Regular Meeting otthe4Estes Valley planning Commiss'670 feptember.16, 2008, .1:33-Em.-, Board Room, Estes Park T6WiTHall Commission: Chair Ike Eisenlauer; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Bruce Grant, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, Doug Klink, and John Tucker Attending: Chair Eisenlauer; Commissioners Amos, Grant, Hull, Kitchen, and Tucker Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Town Attorney White, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Commissioner Klink, Planner Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Homeier The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence of the meeting. Chair Eisenlauer called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Alice Gray/President of Estes Valley Improvement Association began to address the Commissioners on the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment but postponed her comments until later in the meeting, as the habitat assessment was an agenda item. No other comments were provided. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of meeting minutes dated August 19, 2008. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Grant) to approve the consent agenda, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. c.3.:PRELIMINARY-SUBDIVISION-PLAT, -SOLOMON _SUBDIVISION, -Outlots A & B, Prospect Highlands Subdivision, TBD Curry Drive, Central' Administrators, Inc./Owner, Van Horn Engineering/Applicant-Continued from August 19, 2008 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting The proposed Solomon Subdivision was continued from the August 19, 2008 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting in order to take public comment and hear a short rebuttal from the applicant. Chair Eisenlauer opened the meeting to public comment on this item. Public Comment: Tom Kuepers/Neighboring Property Owner stated the proposed secondary access road will not provide access to the proposed subdivision for residents due to the locked gates. He expressed concern that emergency personnel would need keys to get through the gates and the secondary access road would not be wide enough to accommodate two- way traffic for fire engines, which would not be able to turn around; lives may be lost in a fire event. He expressed concerns about water runoff and the potential for flooding of his residence. He stated dozens of rocks that have fallen from the mountain can be seen from his home; the proposed road will disturb additional rocks, the decomposed granite that makes up the rocks may not provide stability as depicted by the applicant. He expressed concern that the natural spring on Marcus Lane will be affected by the proposed development and reiterated that the proposed secondary access road is "a joke." Loren Johnson/President of Prospect Mountain Townhome Association stated neighboring property owners and the homeowners' association have written letters expressing concern about the proposed development. He noted Planner Shirk's staff report identifies a number of variances to Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) standards that would require approval for the proposal to move forward, and he expressed the homeowners' association's strong support of Planner Shirk's recommendation of disapproval. 1 C RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 September 16, 2008 Rick Warren/Secretary-Treasurer of Prospect Mountain Townhome Association expressed his agreement with statements made by Loren Johnson. Alan Fraundort/President of Prospect Hightands Homeowners' Association stated the association has no significant objections to the proposed subdivision. He referenced comments from association members that he had forwarded to Planner Shirk and were included in Planning Commission packets. Comments included the road name should be Curry Drive rather than Curry Lane; the association would prefer the new lots not be served by propane; the association is responsible for rockfall mitigation and has not had problems with rockfall; the proposed new residences should become members of the existing homeowners' association. Ron Norris/Association for Responsible Development stated planning staff had done a good job of identifying a number of areas where the proposed development does not comply with the EVDC, and ARD supports that position. He noted that a decision to support the staff recommendation would enhance the credibility of officials in terms of complying with the existing land use code. Applicant's Rebuttal: Lonnie Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He stated the applicant's proposal is still changing. He was unable to meet with Public Works Director Zurn until September 15, 2008; road design and drainage were discussed. Per Director Zurn, the proposed extension of Curry Drive would need to be widened to meet road standards. A hammerhead turnaround is proposed rather than a cul-de-sac bulb. A bulb could be constructed but would require 15 feet of cut on the uphill side of the road and 15 feet of fill on the downhill side. The proposed hammerhead has been reviewed by Fire Chief Dorman and is proposed to be constructed to Larimer County standards rather than EVDC standards in order to provide a depth of 30 feet. The proposed 12-foot-wide secondary access road is not intended to provide full-service access; it is proposed to provide access for emergency responders, which would benefit the proposed subdivision and neighboring property owners. Mr. Sheldon stated Director Zurn also indicated he does not support the proposed four separate detention ponds (one on each lot) due to maintenance issues. The site can accommodate a regional detention pond in the southwest quandrant. He stated Director Zum indicated water flows must be released into natural release areas, with detention of flow in a 100-year flood event and release during minor flow events. Technical information on detention redesign will be provided to Director Zurn. Mr. Sheldon indicated the applicant's willingness to continue the request to the next Planning Commission meeting to allow review of contemplated changes to the plans. Mr. Sheldon went on to state the following. The applicant has worked with the Bureau of Reclamation for two years on the secondary access road; construction of the road will be expensive to the developer. The current zoning of the outlots requires 0.5-acre minimum lot sizes; the applicant proposes 1.6 acres per unit. The plat of record indicates the possibility of subdividing each outlot into three lots; the applicant is proposing two lots per outlot. Three lots would not fit due to geologic constraints. The applicant could propose to subdivide the lower outlot into four lots but believes the residences would be too densely clustered. The adjoining development on Marcus Lane and Darcy Drive provides 0.2 acres per unit; the troublesome drainage occurs in this high-density area. The applicant will over-contain drainage to ensure the drainage situation is not worsened. There is a 100-foot easement between the applicant's property and properties to the south (downhill), which provides a transitional zone that cannot be built upon. Mr. Sheldon contended the EVDC does not prohibit development in areas of 30% or greater slope but provides guidelines and requirements for doing so. He stated the future homes on the lots would be small residences tucked into areas protected from rockfall; the applicant will meet every requirement of the state geologist. Comments and Discussion by Commissioners and Staff: Planner Shirk referenced EVDC limits of disturbance standards set forth in Section 7.2, stating new lots should not be created on slopes as steep as proposed by the applicant. Director Zurn stated the Town has invested $50,000 in a drainage master plan for the area due to existing drainage problems. Director Joseph noted there is a limit of 1,000 [ i RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 September 16,2008 lineal feet for a cul-de-sac (the applicant proposes a cul-de-sac 2,000 feet long); this standard predates the adoption of the EVDC and was in effect at the time the subdivision was originally platted. Commissioner Hull noted Mr. Sheldon had discussed a number of potential changes to the applicant's plans and requested clarification on whether a vote at this meeting would be on the plans as they were submitted. Planner Shirk stated that affected agencies had provided comments based on the plans submitted by the applicant and the staff report and recommendations are also based on those plans. Mr. Sheldon argued that any requested changes to the plans should be conditions of approval and stated the applicant would prefer a continuance to a denial. Commissioner Hull questioned whether the applicant would make changes to the submitted plans that would result in fewer than the six requested waivers to EVDC standards if the subdivision proposal was continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Sheldon reviewed each waiver requested (maximum cul-de-sac length, maximum number of vehicle trips per day on a cul-de-sac, cul-de-sac bulb, concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks, and limits of disturbance criteria) and indicated that each waiver would still be requested. Commissioner Kitchen stated she did not have concerns regarding rockfall or ground stability but was cautious about potential effects of the development on water flow, having witnessed flooding in one of the homes below the proposed subdivision. She noted the natural drainage from the site flows directly toward the neighboring home and questioned what mitigation measures would be taken. Mr. Sheldon indicated a ditch could be cut below the driveway on the southeast lot to direct water into a drainage basin to the west. From that point, water could be directed toward Marcus Lane through an existing 20-foot- wide drainage easement into a 604oot drainage easement below. He stated his belief the existing culvert in this area is undersized, and further stated the applicant would not do anything to make the situation worse. In response to a question from Commissioner Kitchen, Mr. Sheldon indicated the state geologist had requested the ditch on the north side of the proposed extension of Curry Drive be three feet deep to function as a rockfall catch basin. He stated although the submitted plans show the deep ditch running the length of the road, the ditch would only be three feet deep in front of the two building sites below the road. The applicant proposes to dress slopes similar to the existing subdivision. Commission Tucker stated he was not concerned with the proposed length of the cul-de- sac or with the composition of the rock in the area because decomposed granite will break apart when it falls. He questioned whether the applicant would provide a temporary barrier to protect homes below the development from rockfall during construction. Mr. Sheldon indicated the applicant would do so. Commissioner Tucker stated the applicant should provide an adequate turnaround, not a hammerhead; noted the Code violation regarding development on steep slopes would not change; and indicated the applicant should have the opportunity to continue to work with the Public Works Department to resolve discrepancies. Commissioner Hull expressed concern that the proposed subdivision does not meet EVDC standards, as noted in the staff report, and stated she did not support the waivers requested by the applicant. Commission Amos requested that staff comment on whether their recommendations would change if the road/cul-de-sac and stormwater detention issues were resolved. Director Zurn stated he could only provide comment on the current proposal, noting the drainage plans could be revised but it does not appear possible to change the proposed cut-de-sac length. The cul-de-sac length and number of vehicle trips on the cul-de-sac would remain in violation of EVDC standards. Director Joseph stated the EVDC requires that approval of waivers of Code standards advance the broader purposes of the Code, such as extending a cul-de-sac into an area with fairly level topography that would reduce site disturbance. He noted the applicant's proposed development is in an area with slopes so steep the Code suggests it should not be developed. In response to Commissioner Tucker's question of how the extension of the cul-de-sac would prove detrimental, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 September 16,2008 Director Joseph stated there is developable property farther around the mountain-if the cul-de-sac standard is waived for this development, it would be difficult to deny the same type of waiver for a future developer. He reiterated that approval of a waiver to the cul-de- sac standards in order to develop on a slope that the Code says clearly should be avoided is objectionable to him. Commissioner Amos indicated the proposed secondary access may not be suitable and expressed his support of staff's recommendation for disapproval. He motioned to recommend disapproval of the request. Following the motion, he commented that neighboring property owners' concerns about rockfall and water flows, both surface water and underground water, had influenced his suppoll of staff's recommendation for disapproval. Prior to the motion, Commissioner Grant stated his agreement with Commissioner Amos, noting he did not want to set a precedent for waiving cul-de-sac standards or standards for development on steep slopes. Commissioner Kitchen stated that cul-de-sac standards are an old issue, noting that Darcy Drive has 15 homes on a cul-de-sac and Rockwood Estates does not meet cul-de- sac standards, nor do other areas of the Estes Valley. She stated she is not concerned about the proposed cul-de-sac length; she would like to see the subdivision request continued to allow the applicant time to work out problems with the proposal; and she expressed her wish that the Fire Chief was in attendance to explain his viewpoint. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Hull) to recommend DISAPPROVAL of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Solomon Subdivision, Outlots A & B, Prospect Highlands Subdivision, to the Town Board of Trustees, due to lack of compliance with Estes Valley Development Code standards as discussed in the staff report dated August 19, 2008 and as outlined in the staff findings in said report, and the motion PASSED with one absent. Those voting in favor of disapproval: Amos, Eisenlauer, Grant, and Hull. Those voting against disapproval: Kitchen and Tucker. 4. REPORTS: a. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC COMMENT Staff Presentation: Planner Shirk provided a PowerPoint presentation, answered Commissioners' questions, and reviewed information found in the staff report, which outlines the following: the definition of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU); how ADUs are different from duplexes; the three types of ADUs contemplated in the proposed changes, including integrated, attached, and detached ADUs; why Code changes are proposed; the public outreach process on proposed changes that took place through August and September; research conducted by staff on other jurisdictions' ADU regulations; the . current Estes Valley Development Code regulations regarding ADUs; and the proposed changes to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), The proposed changes to the EVDC would allow ADUs in single-family residential zoning districts except the R-1 zoning district, which is a deed-restricted, attainable- housing zoning district; would allow detached ADUs to be constructed in the E-1 (1 acre), RE (2.5 acre), and RE-1 (10 acre) zoning districts; would allow the ADU or the primary residence to be rented for a period of not less than 90 days; would allow the maximum size of ADUs to be 49% of the main dwelling or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less; would provide for architectural standards for construction of all ADUs; and would require deed restriction of ADUs. He noted that private covenants can prohibit accessory dwelling units. In addition to the information found in the staff report, Planner Shirk provided the following comments. The police department has expressed support of ADUs because an ADU could be occupied year-round by an on-site caretaker. The Estes Park Housing Authority is supportive of ADUs because they would help provide employee C RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission August 19, 2008, 1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Ike Eisenlauer; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Bruce Grant, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, Doug Klink, and John Tucker Attending: Chair Eisenlauer; Commissioners Amos, Grant, Hull, Kitchen, and Tucker Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, Town Attorney White, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Commissioner Klink The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence of the meeting. Chair Eisenlauer called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of meeting minutes dated July 15, 2008. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Tucker) to approve the consent agenda, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. UPDATE TO THE ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, APPENDIX TWO, RESOURCE INFORMATION, Wildlife Habitat Map Director Joseph stated that EDAW, an environmental planning and design firm, had been retained by the Town to conduct a study to update the existing wildlife habitat map found in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 1996. The study provides an up-to-date, comprehensive analysis of the inventory of wildlife habitat within the Estes Valley. The study is available in draft form via the Town's website and from the Community Development office in Town Hall. Minor revisions to the study are needed; therefore, the proposal to adopt the new wildlife habitat map into the Comprehensive Plan will be on the Planning Commission's September 16, 2008 meeting agenda. EDAW Presentation: Drew Stoll of EDAW, Inc. provided a PowerPoint presentation as an overview of the draft Estes Valley Habitat Assessment, which was authored by EDAW with assistance from staff members of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW), and Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP). Existing ecological information and documentation was used to complete a rapid, targeted habitat assessment; there was not extensive field work involved in this assessment. Information was gathered from the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Town staff, Rick Spowart of the CDOW, RMNP biologists, the Estes Park Bird Club, and others. Habitat on all lands was considered, regardless of whether the property is privately owned or public land. Focus was placed on target resources-those that are most endangered, rare, or important due to high use by species such as bighorn sheep-including hydrologic resources; riparian corridors; rare vegetation; important bird, bighorn sheep, elk, and mule deer habitats; and wildlife movement corridors. Areas within the Valley that have been developed were considered compromised in terms of their wildlife value. Priorities for conservation of ecological networks included conservation of habitat patches, conservation and restoration of ecological linkages (wildlife corridors), protection of rare plant and animal species, and protection of important bird habitat. Mr. Stoll noted that there are some vegetative communities within the Estes Valley that are ranked as globally significant. There are also endemic plant and butterfly species (species that exist in this area and nowhere else in the world). Raptors and migratory birds occur in the area, which is part of the Rocky Mountain flyway. The assessment strives to provide a highly diverse ecosystem resulting * C RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 August 19, 2008 s. iEGRmiANÂ¥ -SUB[ililigION- PLAT,_SOLOMON _SUB-DiVISIdii- 0Jwoix-A- 1-BJ Prospgct Highlands-Subdivisiord TBD Curry Drive, Central Administrators, ~Ific./Owner, Van Horn Engineering/Applicant Staff Presentation: Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This is a request to re-subdivide two existing outlots, Outlots A and B of Prospect Highlands Subdivision, into four single-family residential lots. The total acreage is approximately 6.25 acres. The outlots are in a steeply sloped area and are zoned E-Estate, a 1/2-acre-minimum-lot-size zoning district. The proposed lot sizes must be adjusted for slope, which the applicant has done. The proposal does not meet Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) limits of disturbance criteria, geologic hazard mitigation requirements, cul-de-sac standards (number of units, length, and turn-around design), and curb/gutter/sidewalk requirements. The applicant has requested modifications and/or waivers to the EVDC standards listed below: â€¢ Appendix D.Il.E.1 - Maximum cul-de-sac length â€¢ Appendix D.11.E.2 - Maximum number of vehicle trips per day on a cul-de-sac â€¢ Appendix D.IX.D - Street connection details (cul-de-sac bulb) â€¢ Appendix D.11.1 - Concrete curb and gutter â€¢ Section 10.5.D - Sidewalks â€¢ Section 7.2.D.2.b - Limits of disturbance criteria In 1996, the property owner submitted a proposal to subdivide 66 acres into 21 single- family lots and one outlot. The application did not meet the subdivision standards in place at that time, including a maximum of twelve units on a cul-de-sac and a maximum cul-de- sac length of 1,000 feet. The applicant submitted revised plans that maximized the development potential of the property at that time. The same standards limiting cul-de-sac length are in place today. Although the EVDC does not specify the maximum number of units allowed on a cul-de-sac, it addresses this issue by providing for a maximum number of allowable vehicle trips per day, which provides the same result. When the original subdivision plat was recorded, the outlots included the note, "Reserved for Future Development." However, because the existing plat maximized allowed density, planning staff suggests.the note does not imply approval for additional density. The applicant proposes a secondary connection to Curry Drive, which would change the street from a cul-de-sac to a street with a second point of access. This proposed connection would be through the Koral Heights residential neighborhood approximately two miles away, with three locked gates in between. Staff suggests this connection would not benefit the proposed subdivision (although it would provide a secondary access point to the top of Prospect Mountain) and would not satisfy the requirements of the EVDC in terms of limitation of cul-de-sac length, the maximum number of units allowed on a cul-de- sac, or connectivity. These requirements are based on fire protection, as well as the number of trips generated on a single access point. The proposed lots meet the adjusted minimum lot size based on slope; each lot would be approximately one acre in size. The proposal does not meet any of the following limits of disturbance criteria set forth in EVDC Section 7.2.D: â€¢ Avoidance of visual impacts, including but not limited to ridgeline protection areas, steep slopes and scenic views. â€¢ Avoidance of steep slopes in excess of thirty percent and other erosion prevention and control Measures. â€¢ Preservation of forests, significant native trees, rock outcroppings or formations, and other significant native site vegetation. â€¢ Mitigation of geologic hazards, including potential adverse impacts on downslope and adjacent properties. â€¢ The practical needs of approved construction activity in terms of ingress and egress to the developed project and necessary staging and operational areas. . i RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 August 19,2008 The proposed building envelopes on the upper two lots are in an area of 35% slope; the Code states lots should not be platted in such areas. Planner Shirk noted that the area of disturbance on the lot would be greater than the proposed building envelopes due to excavation, installation of utility lines, backfill, and so forth. The submitted plans do not account for the true limits of disturbance proposed on the property. The proposed subdivision lies within geologic and wildfire hazard areas. The geologic hazard mitigation plan submitted by the applicant does not satisfy all the submittal requirements set forth in the EVDC. Staff agreed to forward the mitigation plan to tile Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) for review and comment and agreed to accept the plan if the CGS found it acceptable. However, CGS indicated that additional study is necessary. The Planning Commission should consider this fact in their review of the proposal. The stormwater management plan submitted by the applicant has not been approved by the Town Engineer. The applicant proposes that each lot have its own detention pond; the Town Engineer has indicated that one detention pond should be provided on the lower portion of the property to serve all four lots. The Colorado Geologic Survey also commented that any detention ponds should be aligned, thus creating a retention pond, so that stormwater would not filter into the groundwater. Additionally, the Public Works Department has received notification from downhill neighbors that stormwater runoff from the south side of Prospect Mountain has resulted in flooding. This issue may warrant further investigation, including subsurface investigation of groundwater flows. There are several road design standards with which the proposal fails to comply, and the applicant is requesting waivers or modifications to these standards. The maximum allowed length of a cul-de-sac is 1,000 feet (the same standard was in place when the original subdivision was platted in 1996); the applicant proposes a cul-de-sac 2,000 feet long. The maximum allowed number of vehicle trips per day on a cul-de-sac is 120 (ten trips/day per single-family residence); the applicant's proposal would result in 160 trips per day (a total of 16 units would access the cut-de-sac).The applicant proposes to construct a hammerhead turnaround rather than the required cul-de-sac bulb; the hammerhead would require a three-point turn for fire trucks and snow plows and would need to be signed "no parking" and "no snow storage." A cul-de-sac bulb was required for the original subdivision. The applicant requests waiver to the requirement to provide concrete curb and gutter and sidewalk; staff would support the request to waive the sidewalk requirement. The applicant proposes to widen the road from the current sixteen-foot width to the required 20 feet and provide two-foot shoulders on each side. The road would be widened a total of eight feet, which would require additional cut and fill. It would also require a wider drainage ditch on the uphill side of the road, which would add an additional five to ten feet of width, resulting in an extra fifteen to 20 feet of additional width along the road. A six- to eight-foot cut currently exists on the uphill side of the road. Staff suggests the application does not truly demonstrate the resulting level of additional disturbance on the mountainside. Grading and limits of disturbance standards should be considered when reviewing this application for development on a very steep slope. Planner Shirk read for the record the following statement provided by Public Works Director Scott Zurn. "The Public Works Department found that the proposed improvements generally do not meet adopted standards regarding streets and drainage. Therefore, the Public Works Department does not support approval of this project at this time. If the applicant chooses to resubmit an application in conformance with Town of Estes Park standards, the Public Works Department reserves the right to make additional comments and revise comments as more detail is provided." Fire Chief Dorman has noted no concerns with the addition of four lots at the end of the cul-de-sac, provided a pull-out is built and the road meets width requirements. The submitted plans do not include this pull-out. Correspondence from three neighboring property owners and the Prospect Mountain Townhome Association had been received at the time the staff report was written; .. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 10 August 19,2008 additional comments have been received since that time and were included in the Planning Commission meeting packets. Most of the waivers requested by the applicant are waivers to Appendix D of the EVDC, which includes provisions for modifications and waivers and grants that authority to the Public Works Department. The Public Works Director did not grant the requested waivers; thus, the applicant may request the Planning Commission to grant them. The EVDC requires that the Planning Commission find that the requested modifications or waivers will result in superior engineering and relieve practical difficulty in developing the site. Planner Shirk stated the requested waivers may relieve practical difficulty in developing this site but will not result in superior engineering. Director Joseph added that another standard set forth in the EVDC is that requested modifications/waivers will lessen site impact and stated that, in this case, they will not. Per EVDC standards, development on any lot with a slope greater than 30% requires the landowner to consult with an engineer, prepare a development plan, pay the requisite application fee, and go through the staff-level development plan review process, including consultation with the Public Works Department, submittal of a geologic survey and drainage plan, and submittal of any other documentation required by staff or the Code. Planner Shirk read for the record the staff findings as set forth in the staff report. Based on these findings, staff recommends disapproval of the Solomon Subdivision request. Chair Eisenlauer called a recess at 3:35 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 3:45 p.m. Applicant Presentation: Lonnie Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering provided a lengthy presentation on behalf of the applicant. He provided the Commissioners copies of information on the importance of providing a secondary access to the top of Prospect Mountain. He expressed his belief that the proposed subdivision is a good fit for the area and disappointment in the Public Works Department's response to the proposal, stating the applicant knew the proposal did not meet the EVDC standards but is proposing an alternative to those standards. He read for the record a letter from property owner/applicant Jerry Solomon, which states that proposed building envelopes will keep construction in a compact region out of rockfall hazard areas, and the applicant will pay for utilities and associated upgrades, including construction of the proposed secondary access road, which would provide benefit to all involved. He also read a letter from adjoining property owner John Heron expressing support for the arrangement to trade easements and complete road work on property owned by the Heron family and the Bureau of Reclamation, which would improve access to communication facilities at the top of Prospect Mountain. Mr. Sheldon went on to emphasize the importance of the proposed secondary emergency access, which is intended to offset the impact of three requested waivers-maximum cul- de-sac length, vehicle trips per day, and connectivity standards. Emergency providers may have a key to the locked gates, push-button security combinations may be provided, or emergency personnel can use bolt cutters to get through the gates. The proposed road would be a 12-foot-wide all-weather surface and would not be built to current road standards due to the blasting and fill that would be required to do so. Mr. Sheldon contended the secondary emergency access road would negate the cul-de-sac length limits set forth in the EVDC. The original plat of Prospect Highlands Subdivisions shows a possible six additional lots where four are proposed. The applicant will meet road construction standards for sub- local residential streets even though the requirement to do so is not triggered unless 20 or more lots are served (a total of 16 lots would be served). The required cul-de-sac bulb is not feasible due to the slope of the site; Fire Chief Dorman has approved the proposed hammerhead turnaround, conditioned on the area being signed to prohibit parking and snow storage. Responsibility for enforcement would fall to the homeowners' association. Mr. Sheldon stated the applicant's request for waiver to concrete curb and gutter standards is justified because the proposed subdivision is low density and low drainage. The applicant proposes to widen the road from its current 12-foot width to 22 feet; the current road has asphalt curb and gutter. In widening the road, all drainage will be RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 11 August 19,2008 directed toward the mountainside; the drainage ditch will double as a geohazard rockfall catch feature. Mr. Sheldon stated individual stormwater detention ponds are proposed on each lot. The ponds would be sized to release drainage at the natural flow rate, would capture peak flow from the homes and driveways, and would not increase downstream drainage. Mr. Sheldon stated that a single detention pond, as requested by the Public Works Director, would require the applicant to cut ditches across the mountain to channel water to the pond. He expressed concern that he had not received direct feedback from the Director. Impervious coverage of the proposed subdivision would be approximately 8.1 percent. The applicant does not feel sidewalks are necessary or needed. The upper two lots are proposed in areas of 35% and 36% cross-slope. Mr. Sheldon stated the EVDC does not prohibit development on slopes this steep but does provide standards that must be met. The applicant proposes small building envelopes, the development is not on a ridgeline, fill and retaining walls will be minimized, foundation walls will be stepped to follow the natural terrain, and no more than ten feet of cut will be made. Mr. Sheldon showed several drawings illustrating how homes could be situated on the proposed lots. Director Joseph noted that future homeowners will not want a driveway apron steeper than 8%; most prefer 3%. This will compound the difficulty of locating future residences on this slope. Mr. Sheldon agreed it would be difficult to do so and stated there will be site- specific plans for each residence with opportunity for further review, noting that problems will be the problems of the person who purchases the lot and can be worked out. Director Joseph went on to state that the level of site disturbance that would result can easily be seen by looking at existing residences in this subdivision and suggested Mr. Sheldon was painting a rosier picture than the final project would yield. He stated the necessary amount of cut and fill, retaining walls, and the overall site impact would be greater than what Mr. Sheldon described. In response to questions from Commissioners, Mr. Sheldon provided the following information. Additional cut will be made on the mountainside to provide the required 24- foot width for Curry Drive. Proposed limits of disturbance on the lots are small, are on the less-steep portions of the lots, and would result in the future homes on proposed Lots 1 and 2 being located directly below large, stable rock outcroppings to protect them from rockfall hazard. Ongoing geohazard maintenance will be the responsibility of the homeowners' association, as is currently the case for the existing Prospect Highlands Subdivision HOA. All rocks are the site are lichen-covered, indicating that rockfall is infrequent. An existing sewer main is located southeast of the property; the applicant proposes a sewer-line connection that would run directly down the slope along the proposed lot line between Lots 3 and 4 to this existing main. Electric lines would also be placed in this location. Staff has suggested the utility lines be placed in the road but this would greatly increase the length of the lines and cost of installation. Planner Shirk clarified that placement of utilities in the road is a requirement of the EVDC. Mr. Sheldon went on to state the lots will connect to town water and will not be part of the Prospect Mountain water system. The applicant proposes a natural gas connection from Prospect Highlands Subdivision; if propane is used, the tanks would be buried. The proposed lots meet density, lot size, and setback requirements and residences could be designed to meet the height limit and limits of disturbance standards. The applicant proposes the new lots join the existing Prospect Highlands homeowners' association and participate in the annual geohazard rockfall mitigation efforts undertaken by the HOA. Mr. Sheldon stated the proposed subdivision fits the character of the existing neighborhood, would be less dense, and would provide a secondary access that would be beneficial to many entities. Mr. Sheldon stated the applicant's willingness to continue this request to the September 16, 2008 Planning Commission meeting and to work with the Public Works Department to get feedback on the proposal. Public Comment: Rick Warren/Neighboring Property Owner expressed concern about potential rockfall and drainage problems that may result from the proposed subdivision. He stated that a neighbor's residence has flooded twice from an underground spring and expressed . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 12 August 19,2008 concern that surface drainage may increase, groundwater flows may be altered, or the entire hydrologic system for the mountain may change as a result of development as proposed. He stated the proposed subdivision is in a scenic area in the middle of the mountain with large rocks and boulders; this area should not be disturbed. He stated a variety of wildlife use the area proposed for development, including deer, elk, coyotes, and bobcats; this should not be a minor consideration. In response to questions from Commissioner Amos, he stated rockfall has not occurred on his property but has on a neighboring property during periods of rainy weather. He stated groundwater is the biggest concern. Kim Comstock/Adjoining Property Owner stated his lot is located directly below the proposed development and expressed concern about surface and underground water flows from the mountain, particularly during torrential storms. He stated his belief that it is absurd to say there will be no changes given the proposed changes to the road and the increased number of houses; he requested hard data that no changes would occur. He stated the proposed development might change the path of an underground spring and cause flooding where there has been no prior flooding. He stated any change to groundwater flows could flood his home and noted that homeowners insurance and flood insurance does not cover this type of event. Tom Kuepers/Neighboring Property Owner stated he lives below the proposed subdivision. He requested the opportunity to address the Commissioners prior to the applicant if the proposal is continued to the next meeting. He stated the proposed secondary access road would not result in a connecting road; Curry Drive will remain a cul-de-sac. Commissioner Hull stated her desire to hear additional public comment, noting the applicant's presentation had gone on for 65 minutes. Commissioner Amos suggested continuance of this item to the next meeting. He specifically stated his desire to hear the objections staff may have to the accommodations the applicant has suggested in order to address staff's concerns regarding the ways the proposal does not meet EVDC standards. Mr. Sheldon indicated his agreement to a continuance. Commissioner Kitchen assured those in attendance that there would be an opportunity to speak at the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Amos moved to continue this item to the September 16, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hull, who amended the motion to clarify that the applicant's presentation has been completed; public comment and a short rebuttal by the applicant will be heard at the September meeting. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Hull) to CONTINUE the Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Solomon Subdivision, Outlots A & B, Prospect Highlands Subdivision, to the September 16, 2008 Estes Valley Planning Commission meeting, with the understanding that the applicant's presentation has been completed and public comment and a short rebuttal by the applicant will be heard at this meeting, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 6. REPORTS: None. Chair Eisenlauer adjourned the meeting at 5:01 p.m. Ike Eisenlauer, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary . Town of Estes Park Community Development ESTES 1~Â®P ARK COLORADO Room 210, Town Hall P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: October 22,2008 Re: Vested Rights Extension Request for Streamside on Fall River Development Plan #05-05, Lot 1 of Streamside Amended Plat, Curt Thompson/Applicant. Background. Streamside Development Plan #05-05 was approved by the Estes Valley Planning Commission on October 18, 2005. The three-year statutory vesting period expires this October. The applicant is requesting a one-year extension of this vesting period. Staff recommends that this application be continued to November 25,2008 Town Board meeting to allow the applicant time to correct existing violations. The applicant is in violation of their 2005 condominium approval and in violation of their subdivision improvement agreement with the Town. Action. Staff recommends continuance of the application to the November 25, 2008 Town Board meeting. . From: jerry zahourek [mailto:jz@elkhornlodge.org] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12: 16 PM To: Bob Joseph Subject: Re: elkhorn annexation continuation Hi Bob: we would appreciate continuation of the elkhorn annexation issue until next month; we understand that this issue cannot remain in an open status. Should you determine that it might be advantageous to continue this issue for a longer period of time, this might save money for both parties. In any event, thanks, Jerry Zahourek . IMU TOWN of ESTES PARK ESTES PARK Public Works Department COLORADO INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: October 21, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham, Town Board of Trustees FROM: Dave Mahany / Scott Zum SUBJECT: Air Curtain Burner Fencing Contract (Acct # Streets 101-3100-431-26-23 / Light & Power 502-7001-580-32-22) Background: Recently we have opened the lower section of the Towns storage yard so the public will have access to the Bark Beetle Tree Disposal and Weed Disposal drop off areas, thus security of the yard has been difficult at times without a barrier dividing the Light and Power / Public Works storage from the drop off area. Light & Power and Public Works would share the cost to fence between the drop off area and storage area to prevent unauthorized entry of storage area. (See attached map) Cost/Budget: Cost: Arrow Fencing & Automated Gates Inc. - Laporte CO. Yard Fencing w/Gate ............................................................... $13,875.45 (Includes all materials - posts, gate, fence, labor) Custom Fence & Supply Inc. - Longmont, CO. Yard Fencing w/Gate ............................................................... $21,089.00 (Includes all materials - posts, gate, fence, labor) Budget : Streets: $6,938 (101-3100-431-26-23) Light & Power: $6,937 (502-7001-580-32-22) Cost: $13,875.45 Action: Staff recommends: Approval to purchase/install new fencing between the Bark Beetle Tree Disposal / Weed Disposal and the Towns storage yard from Arrow Fencing & Automated Gates Inc., Laporte CO. fora cost of $13,875.45 installed. I f " 4 ~ ~, Fl i .T f .F .. . .. 4 .... 9. ke . '.k ,-.-- 4.1,7,42/. illilliliEt6illillillij: 1.1- e 9 1 .. . 0 . , 4- r j . -4*TJ'-I*f 4, . 4, .N 7# -0 1 ' 1 - . - 07'A-? 6.Â· P .'.4 1- ....1-~ . 1 . 1- , .4 4 ..... -4.Ir//0 * .i '9., ' Â»*Litll...ILEJ. t . 4. .- . I ., - .,-2 I *6 1 , ?. 49... 4 . + 49> - . 1 1 4/*BI %.,A *. ..% .. 4 42UF-r-,i *1 - a.7 1 W 81-9 ..,- , ' 0- 40211â€¢ 1 1.Â® - . - Y? U . -- * n : 1, 9,64 I 41 el '8'P . , 1 9, .1 . -9 I pÂ· *i-4 0.: 1â€¢'& r. . . ..14 . r '. ~- 4 4 4 A - Â¥ i .r . L. 4 4,/ . 4 4 41 9. ~0 -W Â¢ *4 i I e , f . r . 4 4 94. 4 24 4 Lâ€ž f . â€¢ e 5 X' WITD . Â· 4 ~ 1 f I , 4 r r. , 4 I K 1 V .4 ./ - 4 A. * 414 .,4 .1. I## & 1, rk - - 4 Â· 1 4 â€¢ . ' efr- 1 44 . 1. I . / 44 1 4 1 , I ' 4 1 , . 9 %... 4/. '9 9/ ' '.. ' I * /. '' 1 :ffÂ¢i. I '.. 4~'â€¢ <4 , râ€¢ Â¢ .0 K 1 . ' f. ,, ti ti' 7 x . I ' j 1 .~,1 ) ..44 . .4 ' 4 .. t â€¢1 - 40 Cy 4 4%: , e,0 d L I - 0 le 41 4 418' 9. lil 3\ 1.2 -Â§ . -- . #u. yl , ' b...1 . 4- 'U>~ , r.\ 0 0% 63Â¢ I I , . . t 1,3 4 e Â¢ 1 g Sand/Salt Storage Tent 2 . TOWN of ESTES PARK Â® ESTES PARK Public Works Department COLORADO INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: October 21, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham, Town Board of Trustees FROM: Dave Mahany / Scott Zum SUBJECT: 2009 Downtown Flower Contract (Acct # 101-5200-452-26-36) Background: The 2009 proposed Parks Department budget includes $40,000 for flowers in the downtown area flower beds. The Parks Department plants 40,000+ flowers in 53 flower beds within the downtown area. We are making the 2009 request at this time because growers have a Dec. 15,2008 order deadline to ensure May 2009 delivery. The growers realize the need in the Estes area of providing mature plants in May/June to provide a healthy full blooming plant by July 4th. This is the main flower order; other smaller and special plants would be ordered in Jan/Feb. We are recommending Duran's Hobby Acres Greenhouse of Longmont due to the high quality they provided in 2008, they have also assured us they can provide the main flowers within the time frame needed to meet the July 4th deadlines. Cost/Budget: Cost: Duran's Hobby Acres Greenhouse, Longmont CO. Perennials/Annuals ...................................................estimate $22,242 Flower Pots (17).........................................................estimate $ 1,911 Estimate Bid Price $ 24,153 Gulley's Greenhouse, Ft. Collins, CO Perennials/Annuals ...................................................estimate $26,097 Flower Pots (17).........................................................estimate $ 2,530 Estimate Bid Price $ 28,627 Center Greenhouse, Denver, CO. Perennials/Annuals ...................................................estimate $22,147 Flower Pots (17) .....................Can't Provide Flower Pots Estimate Bid Price - Doesn't Meet Requirements 2009 Budget Request: $40,000 (Acct # 101-5200-452-26-36) Estimated Cost: $24,153 Action: Staff recommends: Approval to place the main 2009 downtown flower order by Dec.15, 2008 and purchase the 2009 flowers and planted pots from Duran's Hobby Acres Greenhouse, Longmont, Co. for the estimated cost of $24,153. .. . TOWN of ESTES PARK Â® ESTES PARK Public Works Department COLORADO INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: October 21, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham, Town Board of Trustees FROM: Dave Mahany / Scott Zum SUBJECT: Sidewalk Trench Grate Replacement Contract (Acct # 101-5200-452-26-22) Background: The 2008 Parks Department budget includes $20,000 for repairing trip hazards in the downtown area. The concrete along the edges and curb line of the drains are cracking and breaking off creating trip hazards. We would like to replace some of the drains with new ADA compliant type to eliminate trip hazards at these areas. Cost/Budget: Cost: M. Atkins Inc. - Estes Park, CO. Remove and Install new grate 8@$1000 ea ..............................$8,000.00 Grate and Framework estimate 8@$586.44 ea............................. $ 4,691.52 Bid Price $12,691.52 Mountain Concrete Construction, Inc, - Estes Park, CO. Remove and Install new gate 8@$1400 ea ..............................$11,200.00 Grate and Framework estimate 8@$586.44 ea............................. $ 4,691.52 Bid Price $15,891.52 Cornerstone Concrete Inc. - Estes Park, CO. .................. NO RESPONSE Johnson Concrete-Estes Park CO. ................................ NO RESPONSE Budget: $20,000 (Acct # 101-5200-452-26-22) Cost: $12,691.52 Action: Staff recommends: Approval to replace eight (8) sidewalk drains in the downtown area (Library, Bank, Davis Lot, Qwest comer, Rockwell). Town providing the grates for a cost of $4,691.52 and have M. Atkins Inc installing them for a cost of $8,000.00 for the combined cost of $12,691.52. . Town of Estes Park ESTES -w-Â® PARK COLORADO Public Works Engineering Room 100, Town Hall P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Memo 970-577-3586, gsievers@estes.org TO: Mayor Pinkham & Board of Trustees From: Scott Zum, PW Director Date: October 28,2008 Re: Elkhom Avenue & Riverside Drive Intersection Improvement Contract Background: This is a Fast-Track project to take advantage of CDOT partnering, and precede the winter weather. The PW Dept. completed an RFP process and hired Nolte Associates to redesign this intersection. (see PWC minutes 9/23/08). The primary goal is to reduce downtown congestion. Staff is working closely with CDOT to modify the north-bound tum-lane of East Riverside Drive where it turns right onto East-bound Elkhom Avenue (State Highway Business Route 34/36). This surface and signal improvement will allow truck traffic to not only have the proper turning radius to complete this movement without running over the sidewalk or crossing over lanes, it will also greatly improve pedestrian safety. The new tum lane will have a nearly constant green light that will improve flow but will still incorporate a pedestrian 'call' Phase. Nolte has produced Plans & Specifications to reconstruct this south-east portion of the intersection. The project will include the total replacement of two signal-poles and their mast-arms by CDOT. Other work will include replacing underground connecting conduit for signal wires on three legs of the intersection, as well as associated junction boxes and winng. The plan is to complete the intersection work by December f, 2008. Budget / Cost: The 2008 budget contains $100,000 for this intersection project. (see page 174, #204-5400-544-33-31) Recommendation: Staff provided bid packages to 4 local contractors on Thursday, October 23rd with th bids to be submitted on Monday, Oct 27 . The results will be provided directly to the Town Board on Tuesday, October 28m. Staff recommends accepting the low bid and request to hold an additional 15% as contingency funds. Following the successful completion of contractual issues, and CDOT approval, staff is prepared to start this construction as soon as November 3rd. Contractor name Location Owner Bryson Concrete Estes Park Jon Bryson Cornerstone Construction Concepts Estes Park Kerry Prochaska Cornerstone Concrete Estes Park Robert Pavlish Mountain Concrete Estes Park Scott Miller . Estes Park Museum Memo To: Town Board of Trustees From: Betty Kilsdonk, Director, Museum/Senior Center Services Department CC: Jacquie Halburnt; Lowell Richardson Date: October 28,2008 Re: Orientation Film BACKGROUND: Staff has identified the need for a brief (ten minute) orientation film for Estes Park. The goals of the film are to present Estes Park as a family-friendly, intergenerational community; describe the services the Town of Estes Park offers; and show that Estes Park is affordable for mountain living. The film's intended audience would be threefold: Those who are considering moving here, Citizens Information Academy (CIA) class members, and current Estes Valley residents. Specific areas to be covered include identifying the services the Town provides; describing the Town's financial situation, support of infrastructure, and affordability relative to other mountain communities; and outlining the Town's vision, mission and governance system. Filming would include some stock footage, location shots and interviews, and would take place this fall, with first use of the product at the CIA in February, 2009. The film would be burned to DVDs and be available on our website as a PDF. We will design the product to have a shelf life of about five years. The DVD would have room to add information such as housing data, an employment application, a link to our website, etc. to help keep the material current. The project was initially presented at the October 2,2008 CDC meeting. At that time we had identified three local providers and prices, but had not gone to competitive bid. The proposal was referred to a future full Town Board meeting as an action item. On October 3, an RFP was issued for any or all project components: Script; filming and editing; voice-over; and DVD production. The RFP was posted on the Town's website and was sent to the three local providers listed on the original proposal. In addition, it was sent to two other local filmmakers, a local writers' group, a second local voice over talent, and a local photo company which advertised DVD production. Julie Nikolai, the Town's film crew liaison, was queried and had no additional names. The RFP closed on October 15. BUDGET/COST: The revised 2008 budget includes $6000 for an orientation film (101-1100-411.27-04). Four bids were received for the project and are attached. . J h They are: LC Marketing & Design Co, Grand Junction (Bid on Entire Project) Not-to-Exceed $19,100 Nick Molle Productions, Estes Park (Stock Transmittal/Filming/Editing) $3000 Flat Fee Steve Mitchell, Estes Park (Script) Not-to-Exceed $1050 J. Halburnt, Estes Park (Voice-Over Talent) $500 Flat Fee RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends accepting the following local proposals for production of a Town of Estes Park orientation film for $4550: Nick Molle Productions, Filming/Editing and Stock Transmittal, flat fee of $3000 Steve Mitchell, Script, fee not-to-exceed $1050 J. Halburnt, Voice-Over Talent, flat fee of $500 Staff requests the latitude to select a DVD reproduction service for a not-to-exceed cost of$1450. â€¢ Page 2 l . malktling & design company October 15, 2008 Betty Kilsdonk, Director of Museum and Senior Center Service Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Ms. Kilsdonk: LC Marketing & Design Co. has been producing video for various uses since 1994: training, sales, trade/consumer shows, commercials. On this project we would team with Mike Murphy of Productions West who does most of our videography, editing, and production; he has been making film for two decades. We are all very familiar with the Town of Estes Park and would very much enjoy putting our marketing, writing, and video production talents towards the production you have requested. Our not-to-exceed bid is attached as well as a bit about both our team and our subcontractor. We'd like very much to create an Orientation Film for you that is as spectacular as your beautiful town, and we're ready to get started! Thank you for the opportunity to bid on this project. Very best regards, t U N Patricia Rae Linn LC Markelina & Disign Company 2385 South lin Miguel Drin glin, junction, Color:10 81501 folo] 241-1992 @Imilk,tingiesign.com www.Icm:iketingdosign.com f M Pq I '' Relevant Experience It is our goal to make the entire process of creating, directing, editing and producing this orientation film - from script creation, music choices, and production shoot, to post production services, final DVD and duplication delivery - as easy and streamlined as possible. Our references will attest that this is something in which we'excel. LC Marketing & Design Co. is ideally suited for doing the planning, film production, editing, and post-production of an exceptional orientation film for the Town of Estes Park because, as a full- service communications and marketing agency, we understand and can identify and utilize accurate, appropriate, and compelling communication of information. We employ high-impact messaging and graphics to achieve the communication that alters public perception and achieves the goals of the client. We are marketers first, and we are mission- and vision- based multi-media producers second. Our venerable leader, Patricia Linn, has over 20 years of marketing experience and has specific experience with film making, editing, and production since 1994. Pat and the LC Marketing & Design Co. team's relevant experience includes: Corsair Marine, Exclusive Full-Service Marketing Firm (1994-2006) Relevant film experience: 7 minute education and entertainment video, 30-minute training video, six 5- to 20-minute product videos. During this 12-year contract, the client needed to be re-branded due to shifts in the recreational boating industry and the inclusion of a line of powerboats in their string of sailboat models; this rebranding required new logos, graphics, website, print collateral, signage, and advertising. Additionally, we created the "sales through sails" marketing program for the company which required developing and managing events worldwide where owners of Corsair boats would voluntarily take prospective buyers aboard and give them the full experiences of cruising and racing; in this way we were able to add 150 non-compensated members to our sales force increasing sales 15%. The company also required the development of sales sustainability programs which we designed: one of these programs involved putting pre-owned boats into a sailing school thus taking the competition of used boats vs. new away, while generating the additional revenue stream of the sailing school; another program incorporated the inclusion of a line of lightweight, vacuum-molded (the manufacturing technique that made Corsaifs superior in strength and light weight) travel trailers for rugged and civilized use. We were also responsible for managing the annual National Regatta, developing owner associations for each model, writing and implementing the dealer network program, managing trade show positioning for over 20 shows worldwide annually. Ultimately we were on the team that relocated the entire company to its new owner in Vietnam in 2004. Value of contract: $600,000.00+ Contact: Corsair Marine, manufacturer of high-tech sail- and powerboats (www.corsairmarine.com), Chula Vista, CA, Kurt Jermari(619) 571-3513, kurt@westcoastmultihulls.com Grand Valley Transit System, Marketing Plan Development/Fulfillment (2008-2010) Relevant film experience: 3,30-second, informational commercials; effective and purposeful messaging for diverse audiences Town of Estes Park Orientation Film October 15, 2008 Page 3 of 7 . Based on a needs assessment done by Mesa County staff, we developed and implemented a comprehensive and sustainable (to five-seven years) 100-page marketing plan for the GVT, and then implemented it; the plan identified 24 reasons to ride the bus, and focused onthree key areas in 1988: gas prices, going green, and un-frazzling the soccer mom. Plan and implementation included but was not limited to: the new slogan (GVT - Give it a try!) a media awareness campaign, a public awareness campaign, print, radio and television advertising (we produced three television and three radio commercials and numerous print ads), a complete print collateral suite, photography services, web enhancements, and outdoor and ambient media, and a strong emphasis on utilizing advertising themes at events, i.e. three parades wherein the bus was decorated in such themes as "Real Cowboys Ride Green." Ridership has increased 27% since the plan was implemented. Value of contract: $80,380.00 Contact: Mesa County Regional Transportation Planning Office, Grand Valley Transit System (GVT), Grand Junction, CO, Todd Hollenbeck (970)255-7168, Todd.Hollenbeck@mesacounty.us Garfield County Regional Airport, Re-branding and Market Positioning Campaign (2008-on) Relevant film experience: Streaming website video; effective and purposeful messaging for diverse audiences. In 2007, GCRA re-branded itself as the fly-in destination for high-dollar general aviation (private and corporate jets) with the "Request Rifle" brand. Phase One of this three-phase project consisted of the marketing campaign look and feel, and all-new website that indudes a live-feed 24/7 weather cam with streaming video. The site, although designed primarily for use by pilots and owner/pilots, presented unique challenges in that it caters to the rich and famous but is located in the down-home community of Rifle; as such, the site must balance the glamour of Vail/Aspen second home owners' needs with community service to Garfield County which includes air fairs and student field trips. Garfield County Regional Airport Administrator, Janet Sampson, repons that, "Our website is very attractive and professional. It is very easy to navigate to find general information as well as specific pilot data... a very integrated and thorough website." From Brian Condie, Airport Manager, "The website is professionally designed and concise." Since the go-live, the website has seen a 200% increase in visitations. Value of contract: $22,000.00 Contact: Garfield County Regional Airport (www.requestrifle.com) Rifle, CO, Brian Condie, Airport Manager (970) 625-1091, Rifleairport@gmail.com Project Approach The importance of look and feel, and the theme of a video cannot be emphasized too much. The Town of Estes Park is a unique community in culture and location and LC Marketing & Design Co. is supremely equipped to guarantee that this is reflected in the overall foundation of the film. We look forward to crafting a premiere, aesthetically compelling, informative, and captivating orientation film. We know how to effectively massage public perception in this medium, always focusing on quality and credibility. Viewers expect to be supplied with any and all information, stated in the most to-the-point, yet entertaining and charming manner. They want to be intrigued without being hampered with mundane facts and they want answers without more questions From concept to final product, LC Marketing & Design Company will make this project its top priority, and dedicate whatever time and resources are required to create a first-class film for Town of Estes Park Orientation Film October 15, 2008 Page 4 of 7 .. 4 . the Town of Estes Park. We expect to work dosely with the Town of Estes Park staff and any other interested parties for the duration of the project. This would be achieved routinely through regular and expedient email and telephone contact as well as on-site visits for filming and interviews and for final project completion, no later than, December 31, 2008. Company Informbtion LC Marketing & Design Company has been in business for two decades; the firm was established in Boston, Massachusetts and Newport, Rhode Island in 1988 as PRL Marketing Consultants then relocated to Tucson and North/Central Arizona in 2000 where it was re-branded. Now dba LC Marketing & Design Company, we moved to Grand Junction, Colorado in 2004 where we have been serving clients regionally and worldwide. LC Marketing & Design Company is a woman- owned, sole proprietorship (not required to be licensed in Grand Junction, Mesa County or the State of Colorado) with an excellent credit rating. We provide the following professional services to which we believe would relate directly to the orientation film for the Town of Estes Park: â€¢ Scripting and screenplay writing â€¢ Videography and video editing â€¢ Production of multi-media presentations â€¢ Photography â€¢ Research, writing, and editing, â€¢ Graphic design, â€¢ Mapping, â€¢ Technical illustration, â€¢ Architectural and civil 3D rendering. â€¢ Design and implementation of marketing campaigns from branding to event management, â€¢ Public and media relations, â€¢ Advertising design and media buying and selling, LC Marketing & Design Company has substantial experience creating successful "Look and Feel" packages for every conceivable industry and well understands the critical necessity for and benefits of an impactful and compelling final product. Subcontractors LC Marketing & Design Co.'s preferred subcontractor to team with is Mike Murphy of Productions West LLC, in Grand Junction, CO. Productions West is a video production company specializing in creative, outside-the-box television commercials and has become synonymous with quality, high-end, large market productions. Mike's talents extend through videography, editing, and production in places as diverse as Oregon, Alaska, Montana, California, and now Colorado. We have teamed with Mike on a variety of products and he is a film veteran with over two decades of relevant experience. Mike Town of Estes Park Orientation Film October 15,2008 Page501:7 . also ventures from behind the lens of the camera and into the ears of the listeners as he has narrated many commercials and other videos for LC Marketing & Design Co. Whether it's a 30-second TV commercial or a long form promotional or marketing piece, Production West, LLC is the premier video production company on the Western Slope. A state of the art digital production and post production package compliments Mike's directing, shooting and editing skills. Sample of Applicable Work See CD/DVD. Additional samples of work available at www.Icmarketingdesign.com. Bid: Orientation Film for Town of Estes Park Pricing LC Marketing & Design Co. respectfully submits this pricing quotation to the Town of Estes Park for a high-quality, 8-10 minute, Orientation Film. The categories with line item breakdowns reflect each component of the quote for this orientation film project. TOTAL (not-to-exceed) $19,100 Pre-Production Research, outline and creation of approved written script ..................................... $3,500 Editing of script (3 phase process) .......................................................................... $1,500 Graphic, and look and feel development ................................................................ $1,500 Stock Transmittal/Theme Footage .......................................................................... $1,500 Production Includes 3-4 day shoot of facility, residents, staff, and any other materials within the ' script, as well as obtaining photo releases from all participants. 3-4 day shoot on location in Town of Estes Park ..................................................... $4,000 Voice-over talent ....................................................................................................... $500 Interviewq 91,500 Post -Production (approx. 40 Hrs post production) Includes editing, and creation of film for review. Final prlitq 51,500 Final Product Includes 1,000 copies of the completed DVD labeled with the name and image of The Town of Estes Park and packaged in individual plastic jewel cases .......................... $1,500 Town of Estes Park Orientation Film October 15,2008 Page 6 of 7 .. . Cover design and packaging <E;no Travel and lodging at $200/day, estimated 8 days .................................................. $1,600 Additional Charge Items {optional, not included in total) Encoding the video for website playback ................................................................. Gratis Streaming video services/editing 5,25/hr Town of Estes Park Orientation Film October 15, 2008 Page 7 of 7 'Pf't~g. ~~~f/t. f'~ $ D T '5/ EPTV :* .........1,-71:4~01....'.~ P.O. Box 2048 142 E. Elkhorn. Suite 8 Telephone (970)586-6399 Estes Park. CO, 80517 Fox (970)586-1691 Betty Kilsdonk, Director Museum/Senior Center Services Dept. Town of Estes Park 970.577.3760 Dear Ms. Kilsdonk, Thank you for considering Nick Molle Productions for the production of the Estes Park Orientation Film. I am certain that we can provide the quality product that you require. Based on the information given to me so far, -1 believe that we could acquire the necessary new footage in two to three days of filming. The rest of the sequence footage necessary will come from our stock footage library. We will provide the musical background from our music library. You will provide the voice over and the script Editing of the final eight to ten minute piece will require at least five days. We will be using a Sony 300DVCAM for filming with audio and light kit. The edit will be completed on an Autodesk Discreet Edit system. The final delivery will be on DVD with five copies. The master will be your property kept at our studio on DVCAM digital tape. The delivery date is expected to be no later than December 31*, 2008. I will be o/Fering this production at a substantially discounted rate. Our usual rate for filming which includes a producer/camera operator equipment and assistant is $1,000 per day. Our regular rate for editing is also $1,000 pei day The rate for this amount of stock footage would be approximately $2,000. I am willing to contribute to the cost and offer this $8,000 production to the Town ofEstes Park for $3,000 Thank you for the opportunity to participate. Sincerely, /7 - Nlclf*Ali~e President, Nick Molle Productions 970-586-6399 41{[iI:<LV<-.~~~~~<~~ .' ' I Stephen John Mitchell P.O. Box 3847 Estes Park, CO 80517 (970) 586-6257 Career Obiective To find stimulating writing challenges in the areas of screenwriting, magazine writing, and technical writing. Work Experience 1985-2007: I worked at the Estes Park Library where I served as a part-time library clerk, automation technician, interlibrary loan librarian, director of reference and technical services. I served as interim library director during the summers of 1998 and 2006, 1979-1985: I wrote and researched for Solar Utilization News, an international monthly periodical that focused on alternative energy. 1969-1975: I was an electronics technician in the U.S. Navy where I maintained and repaired radar systems. I achieved the rank of second class petty officer, a supervisory position. Writing Experience 2005: I was a contract writer for Forever Resorts on a bid package to Rocky Mountain National Park. 2001: I self-published the novel Steve McOueen Would Be Proud. I am now at work on my second novel, tentatively entitled Throwing Grenades at Gilligan's Island. 1985-2007: I wrote a weekly column for the Estes Park Library as well as feature articles about everyday life in Estes Park in the local newspapers. In 2007 I wrote an essay for James Frank and Paul Firnhaber's "Magic in the Mountains." I have also written magazine articles that have appeared in The Rotarian, Solar Age and Earth Living. Education 2008: At the Rocky Mountain Fiction Writers Colorado Gold Conference, I attended "Tools of the Screenwriting Trade" where I learned formatting basics as well as narrative, dialogue, character and structural arcs. 1994: Attended the Master of Arts Program in Library Science at the University of Arizona. 1975-1979: Earned a B.A. in Journalism and Mass Communications from Iowa State University where I took classes in screenwriting. . Estes Park Film Proposal -- Scriptwriter $30/hour for meetings, research and scriptwriting. 15 script pages @ 17 lines a page, for 255 total lines of script (normal double spaced page has 24 lines). Hours estimate â€¢ Facility tours and research 5 hours â€¢ Meetings 5 hours â€¢ 15 script pages (17 lines each) 10 hours â€¢ 3 rewrites (5 hours each) 15 hours 35 hours @$30/hour TOTAL $1,050 Note: In the industry, scriptwriters often charge from $100 to $300 per run minute, so for a 15 minutes spot that would run from $1,500 to $4,500. Sources: international Association of Business Communicators and Society for Technical Communication 1 . 'f 4 f. October 2,2008 Voiceover bid for Town of Estes Park video project: Studio Time- $75 per hour Engineering- $50 per hour Mastering- $100 Talent - $100 per page Total - TBD I have offered to complete the entire voiceover portion of this project for a flat fee of $500. The other option is to work off my per hour, per page rate. I am including a DVD of my latest work, a program called Golf Life which aired nationwide on Fox Sports Net (FSN) back in July of this year. Thanks for your conside ation, J. Halburnt Studio J Productions 2305 Arapaho Road Estes Park, CO 80517 Office - (970) 577-1705 Cell - (970) 390-9001 Fax - (970) 577-1706 j@studiojvo.com I. . Town of Estes Park Memo To: Mayor William Pinkham and Town Board of Trustees From: Lowell Richardson Deputy Town Administrator CC: Jacqueline Halburnt, Town Administrator Date: 10/24/2008 Re: Bid for Town of Estes Park Property, Casualty and Liability Insurance Background For over twenty years the Town of Estes Park has maintained insurance for liability, property, and casualty through Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA). Created in 1982 CIRSA provides various insurance services for its members. The Town of Estes Park has remained a client of CIRSA for its value added services, competitive pricing and their ability to provide services relevant to Colorado Municipalities. For 2008, a decision was made to send out an RFP for insurance services relevant to liability, property and casualty. This RFP was sent to various insurance providers to include two local insurance companies. The Town staff required bidders to focus on affordable rates and value added services. We received four bids from: 1) Sisk and Associates, 2) LBN and Associates, 3) CIRSA, and 4) Insurance Associates of Estes. The four bidders made their presentations to the Town's Safety committee. The Safety Committee rated each of the bidders based on (11) criteria. (See attachment "A" to review the criteria) The Safety Team's findings were presented to Town Administration. The four competitors and their submitted bids are listed below: 1. Sisk Insurance Company..................$150,429 2. LBN Insurance .................................... $185,907 3. Insurance Associates........................$190,562 4. CIRSA ................................................... $186,840 (includes loss control incentive of $5,012) 1 '' Budget/Cost Property and liability insurance costs are distributed throughout the Town's various department funds. The total amount budgeted for property, liability and casualty insurance is $190,000. Recommendation Staff recommends accepting the bid from CIRSA. CIRSA currently provides property, liability and casualty insurance for 86 Colorado cities and provides workers comp for another 147. Please see attachment "B" that contains a list of Colorado Municipalities who receive property, liability, and casualty insurance services.-- Because CIRSA insurance is tailored for Colorado Municipalities they specialize in governmental immunity issues, government personnel practices, public safety liability, board liability, and other specialized services for Colorado Municipalities. In addition, they provide value added services above and beyond the other bidders as presented in attachment â€¢ Page 2 - . al:z #Ez 222222. 2 16 E M - M @NE2 U Zolitzo~~2 . 2 E 2222//5/=22- Â»Â»Â»Â» 1 3 i 40 5 -7 17 7 -7 -7 -7 -7 -7 -7 -7 -7 M - e -' u.0 :r=u . â‚¬ ;2 i -8 U . U' ..â€¢RUMEG . 2 0Eff-Â»72<84 _ .40.36: 1:% 2 Z tt N. m.1 8-t OL 82=601- vi U ,- M 1.6 Z U~dEL'Â·u .. CIRSA Yes ~ Volunteer Accident Me i Yes Yes ~ Legal Council/In House Yes Yes ~ Yes Yes ~ Yes Yes ~ onic J, 3@~ .. f Yes nt-In House Yes ~ Casualty Insurance Service Comparisons I , . Attachment "B" CIRSA Client List For Property/Liability/Casualty Insurance 1. Town of Aguilar 42. Town of Hotchkiss 2. Town of Antonito 43. Town of Johnstown 3. City of Aspen 44. Town of Keensburg 4. Aspen/Pitkin County Housing 45. Town of Kim Authority 46. City of La Junta 5. Town of Avon 47. City of Lafayette 6. Town of Berthoud 48. Town of Lakeside 7. Town of Bethune 49. Larimer Emergency Telephone 8. City of Black Hawk Authority 9. Town of Boone 50. City of Las Animas 10. Town of Breckenridge 51. Las Animas County 911 Authority 11. City/County of Broomfield 52. City of Loveland 12. City of Burlington 53. City of Littleton 13. City of Canon City 54. Loveland Larimer Building Authority 14. Town of Carbondale 55. Town of Mead 15. City of Castle Pines North 56. Town of Meeker 16. Town of Colbran 57. Mountain Express Transportation 17. City of Commerce City System 18. City of Cortez 58. Town of Mountain View 19. Town of Crestone 59. Town of Mountain Village 20. Town of Crowley 60. North Metro Drug Task Force 61. City of Northglenn 21. Town of Dinosaur 62. Northwest Colorado Council of 22. Town of Eagle Governments 23. Eagle Valley Library District 63. Town of Pitkin 24. Town of Ecjley 64. City of Pueblo 25. Town of Estes Park 65. Pueblo Regional Building Department 26. Town of Fairplay 66. Town of Ramah 27. City of Federal Heights 67. Town of Raymer 28. Town of Flagler 68. City of Rifle 29. City of Fort Morgan 69. Town of Rockvale 30. Town of Foxfield 70. Town of rye 31. Town of Frisco 71. Town of Saguache 32. Town of Genoa 72. Town of Silverthorne 33. Town of Granada 73. Town of Snowmass Village 34. City of Grand Junction 74. Town of Swink 35. Great Western Trail Authority 75. Town of Telluride 36. Town of Green Mountain 76. City of Thronton 37. City of Greenwood Village 77. Town of Vail 38. Town of Grover 78. Town of Vona 39. Town of Hartman 79. City of Wlasenburg 40. Town of Haswell 80. Town of Westcliffe 41. Town of Hayden Attachmeht "B" CIRSA Client List For Property/Liability/Casualty Insurance 81. City of Westminster 82. Westminster Housing Authority 83. Windsor Housing Authority 84. Woman Creek Reservoir Authority 85. City of Wray 4. . Administration Memo To: Honorable Mayor Bill Pinkham and Board of Trustees From: Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Date: October 23,2008 Subject: Stanley Historic District Lot 5,6,and 8 BACKGROUND: The town board decided to create permanent open space on Lots 5, 6 and 8 of the Stanley Historic District. Staff talked to Estes Valley Land representatives, who were willing to accept a conservation easement on the property. EVLT's attorney, Ken Oldham, prepared the attached conservation easement for your consideration. Greg White also reviewed it and his comments have been incorporated. The town remains responsible for any upkeep and maintenance of the property. BUDGET/COST: There is no coaster RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the attached conservation easement. -L 4. . * DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT This DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT is granted this day of , 2008 by TOWN OF ESTES PARK, a Colorado municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Town") to and for the benefit of ESTES VALLEY LAND TRUST, a Colorado nonprofit corporation having an address at P.O. Box 663, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 (hereinafter referred to as "Trust") . RECITALS: A. Town is the sole owner in fee simple of the certain real property (the "Property") , described as follows: LOTS 5, 6 and 8, STANLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT SUBDIVISION of a portion of Tracts 4 and 5, Stanley Addition to the Town of Estes Park, located in the SEN of Section 24, T.5 N., R.73 W., 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado. B. The Property possesses significant open space, scenic, wildlife and plant habitat and other aesthetic and ecological values (the "Conservation Values") of great importance to Town and its citizens, the people of Larimer County and the people of the State of Colorado. C. Town has made available to Trust, prior to the execution of this Conservation Easement, information sufficient to document the Conservation Values of the Property, including the current features and status of the Property and the specific characteristics giving it the Conservation Values, photographs and a description of current uses of the Property (the "Baseline Documentation"). The parties agree that the Baseline Documentation provides an accurate representation of the Property as of the date hereof and is intended to serve as an objective information baseline for purposes of monitoring and enforcing compliance with the terms of this instrument. It is not intended, however, to preclude the use of other evidence of the present condition of the Property. D. Town intends, as owner of the Property, to convey to Trust the right to preserve and protect the Conservation Values of the Property in perpetuity. E. Trust is an organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"); has been classified as a publicly supported charity under Sections 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(a) (vi) of the ... Code; is an eligible recipient of conservation easements under Colorado Revised Statutes Secs. 38-30.5-104(2 ), et seq.; and has as its primary purpose the preservation and conservation of natural areas for scenic, open space, aesthetic and ecological purposes. F. Trust agrees by accepting this grant to honor the intentions of the Town stated herein and to ,preserve and protect in perpetuity the Conservation Values of the Property. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants, terms and conditions herein contained, Town hereby voluntarily grants and conveys to Trust, its successors and assigns, and Trust hereby voluntarily accepts, a perpetual conservation easement in gross (an immediately vested interest in real property defined by Colorado Revised Statutes Secs. 38-30.5-101, et seq.) over the Property, of the nature and character and to the extent hereinafter set forth (the "Conservation Easement" or the "Deed") . 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of'this Conservation Easement is to preserve and protect in perpetuity the Conservation Values of the Property. Town intends that this Conservation Easement will confine the use of the Property to activities consistent with such purpose, as hereinafter provided. Town and Trust intend that this Deed shall be and constitute an instrument of conveyance creating a conservation easement over the property pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes Sec. 38-30.5-104(1). 2. RIGHTS OF TRUST. To accomplish the purpose of this Conservation Easement the following rights are hereby conveyed to Trust: (a) The right to'preserve and protect the Conservation Values of the Property; (b) The right to enter upon the Property at reasonable times in order to monitor Town's compliance with and otherwise enforce the terms of this Conservation , Easement; (C) The right to enjoin any activity on or use of the Property that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement and to enforce the restoration of such areas or features of the Property that may be damaged by any inconsistent activity or use. 3. PROHIBITED USES. Any activity on or use of the Property inconsistent with the terms and conditions of this Conservation Easement is prohibited. Without limiting the Page 2 generality of the foregoing, the following activities and uses are expressly prohibited: (a) Further Subdivision. The Property consists of three (3) separate platted lots in the Stanley Historic District Subdivision, Town of Estes Park. The further subdivision of the Property, physically, or by legal process, including partition, is prohibited. (b) Construction of Buildings or Other Structures; Construction of Roads and Trails. The construction, location, placement or installation of any buildings, camping accommodations, mobile homes or other structure or improvement, temporary or permanent, on the Property is prohibited. The construction of roads on the Property is prohibited. The construction of new trails on the Property is prohibited; provided, that Town shall have the right to maintain the existing paved walkway crossing the northwest corner of Lot 6 of the Property. (C) Timber Harvesting. Trees may be cut only to control insects, parasites and disease, to control invasive non-native species, to clear for fire control or to prevent serious risk of personal injury and property damage. (d) Mining. The mining or extracting of soil, sand, gravel, rock, oil, natural gas, coal, fuel or any other mineral substance (including moss rock and flagstone) is prohibited. (e) Topographical Changes. No excavating, grading, cut and fill, berming or other similar topographical changes shall occur on the Property. (f) Trash. The dumping or uncontained accumulation of trash or refuse on the Property is prohibited. (g) Hazardous Materials. The storage, dumping or other disposal of toxic and/or hazardous materials, industrial wastes or other unsightly or offensive materials on the Property is prohibited. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Conservation Easement to the contrary, this prohibition does not make Trust an owner of the Property, nor does it permit Trust to control any use of the Property by Town which may result in the storage, dumping or disposal of hazardous or toxic materials; provided, however, that Trust may bring an action to protect the Conservation Values of the Property as described in this Conservation Easement. (This prohibition does not impose liability on Trust, nor shall Trust be construed as having liability as a "responsible party" under CERCLA or similar federal or state statutes.) Page 3 ,, 4 2 (h) Retail, Commercial or Industrial Activity. No retail, commercial or industrial uses shall be allowed on the Property. (i) Signs and Billboards. No commercial signs, billboards, or advertisements shall be displayed or placed on the Property. (j) Motorized Vehicles. No dunebuggies, motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles or any other types of motorized vehicles may be operated or ridden on the Property, except by employees or agents of Town as may be necessary to maintain and restore the existing trail on Lot 6 of the Property. (k) Fences. Town may repair or replace existing fences and new, fences may be built for separation of uses. (1) Camping, Animal Control, Fires. Camping on the Property is prohibited. Town shall not knowingly permit horses or any other domesticated animals to go or remain at large on the Property. Town shall not allow fires to be set on the Property and shall make reasonable efforts to suppress any fires that may occur on the Property. Nothing in subparagraphs (a) through (1) above shall apply to or prohibit any activities undertaken in connection with the exercise of the rights and uses reserved and permitted in paragraph 4. 4. RESERVED RIGHTS; PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS AND USES; RECLAMATION OF DISTURBED AREAS. Town reserves to itself and its successors and assigns all rights accruing from its ownership of the Property, including the right to use the Property for all purposes not expressly prohibited herein and not inconsistent with the purpose hereof. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Town expressly reserves the following rights: (a) Town expressly reserves the right to convey the Property, or any of the separate platted lots comprising the Property, to another party subject to the restrictions imposed by this Conservation Easement. (b) The public shall have access to the Property including the existing paved walkway on Lot 6 of the Property. Town shall have the obligation to take reasonable actions, on an ongoing basis, to minimize the environmental impacts of public access on the Property; provided, that . Town shall have no obligation to prevent such passive activities as pedestrian usage. Town may establish rules and regulations governing and limiting public access as it deems appropriate. Page 4 1- . (C) Town may construct and maintain storm water and flood retention and drainage facilities on Lot 8 of the Property. (d) Town shall have the right to place and maintain a reasonable number of life-size or smaller public sculpture(s) and commemorative plaques and monuments on the Property. (e) Town may construct and maintain utility lines on the Property, and may grant appropriate utility easements over the Property; provided, that all utility installations on the Property, whether by Town or third-parties, shall be underground. (f) All areas disturbed by the maintenance of the existing walkway on Lot 6, or by construction and/or maintenance of storm water retention facilities on Lot 8 or by construction and/or maintenance of utility lines permitted by this Conservation Easement shall be reclaimed and restored to their natural condition promptly following such construction or maintenance. 5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF TOWN AND TRUST NOT AFFECTED. Other than as specified herein, this Conservation Easement is not intended to impose any legal or other responsibility on Trust, or in any way to affect any existing obligation of Town as owner of the Property. Among other things, this shall apply to: (a) Taxes. As between Town and Trust, Town shall be solely responsible for payment of all taxes and assessments levied against the Property. If Trust is ever required to pay any taxes or assessments on its interest in the Property, Town, or its successors, will reimburse Trust for the same. (b) Upkeep and Maintenance. Town shall continue to be solely responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the Property. Trust shall have no obligation for the upkeep or maintenance of the Property. 6. HOLD HARMLESS. Town, to the extent allowed by law, shall indemnify, defend, and hold Trust and its members, officers, directors, employees, agents, contractors and permitted assignees (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties") harmless from and against any and all liabilities, penalties, costs, losses, damages, expenses, causes of action, claims, demands, or judgments, including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees, arising from or in any way related to: (i) injury to or the death of any person, or physical damage to any property, resulting from any act, omission, condition, or other matter related to or occurring on or about the Property, regardless of cause, Page 5 unless due solely to the negligence or intentional acts of any of the Indemnified Parties; (ii) the obligations specified in paragraph 3 and subparagraphs 5(a) and 5(b) above; (iii) the costs and expenses of Trust in enforcement of this Conservation Easement; or (iv) the presence or release by Town or persons under the direction or control of Town of hazardous or toxic substances on, under or about the Property. For the purpose of this paragraph, hazardous or toxic substances shall mean any hazardous or toxic substance that is regulated under any federal, state, or local law. The parties agree and understand that Town is relying on, and does not waive, by any provision of this Conservation Easement, the monetary limitations or terms (presently One Hundred Fifty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($150,000) per person and Six Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($600,000) per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protection provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101, C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to Town or any of its officers, agents, volunteers or employees. 7. ENFORCEMENT. Trust shall have the right to prevent and correct or require correction of violations of the terms and purposes of this Conservation Easement. Trust may enter the Property as provided in subparagraph 2(b) for the purpose of inspecting for violations. If Trust finds what it believes is a violation, Trust shall immediately notify Town in writing of the nature of the alleged violation. Upon receipt of such written notice, Town shall either (a) restore the Property to its condition prior to the violation or (b) provide a written explanation to Trust of the reason why the alleged violation should be permitted. If the condition described in clause (b) above occurs, both parties agree to meet as soon as possible to resolve this difference. If a resolution of this difference cannot be achieved at the meeting, both parties agree to meet with a mutually acceptable mediator to attempt to resolve the dispute. Town shall discontinue any activity that could increase or expand the alleged violation during the mediation process. Should mediation fail to resolve the dispute within a reasonable time (not to exceed sixty (60) days), Trust may, at its discretion, take appropriate legal action. If a court with jurisdiction determines that a violation is imminent, exists, or has occurred, Trust may obtain an injunction to stop it, temporarily or permanently. A court may also issue an order to require Town to restore the Property to its condition prior to the violation. Trust's remedies described in this paragraph 7 shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to all remedies now or hereafter existing at law or in equity, including the right to recover any damages for loss of scenic or environmental values. Page 6 - 8. COSTS OF ENFORCEMENT. Any costs incurred by Trust in seeking to enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement against Town, including, without limitation, costs of suit and attorneys' fees and any costs of restoration necessitated by Town's violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Town unless a court with jurisdiction determines that Trust has acted in bad faith in seeking to enforce this Conservation Easement or was not entitled to any part of the requested enforcement, in which event Town's costs of suit, including, without limitation, attorneys' fees, shall be borne by Trust. 9. TRUST'S DISCRETION. Enforcement of the terms of this Conservation Easement shall be at the discretion of Trust, and any forbearance by Trust to exercise its rights under this Conservation Easement in the event of any breach of any term of this Conservation Easement by Town shall not be deemed or construed to be a waiver by Trust of such term or of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term of this Deed or of any of Trust's rights under this Conservation Easement. No failure of Trust to discover a violation or delay or omission by Trust in the exercise of any right or remedy upon any breach by Town shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. 10. ACTS BEYOND TOWN'S CONTROL. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be construed to entitle Trust to bring any action against Town for any injury to or change in the Property resulting from causes beyond Town's control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement or from any prudent action taken by Town under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to the Property resulting from such causes. 11. TRANSFER OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. With the prior written approval of Town, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, Trust shall have the right to transfer the Conservation Easement and assign its rights and obligations hereunder to any public agency or private nonprofit organization that, at the time of transfer, is a "qualified organization" under Sec. 170(h) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, and under Colorado Revised Statutes Secs. 38-30.5-101, et seq. and only if the assignee agency or organization expressly agrees to assume the responsibility imposed on Trust by this Conservation Easement. If Trust ever shall cease to exist or no longer qualifies under federal or state law, a court with jurisdic- tion shall transfer the Trust's rights and obligations under this Conservation Easement to another qualified organization having similar purposes that agrees to assume the responsibility. Page 7 12. TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY. Any time the Property is to be the subject of a permitted transfer by Town to any third party, Town shall notify Trust in writing, and the document of conveyance shall expressly refer to this Conservation Easement. The failure of Town to comply with this notice requirement will not invalidate the conveyance (provided the conveyance complies with the provisions hereof), but the third party grantee shall nevertheless be bound by the provisions hereof relating to the rights and obligations of the Town herein. 13. CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES; TERMINATION OF EASEMENT. If a court with jurisdiction, following a hearing at which all interested parties have been afforded an opportunity to be heard, determines that conditions on or surrounding the Property have changed so much that it has become impossible to maintain any significant amount of the Conservation Values intended'to be preserved by this Conservation Easement, the court, upon application of either Town or Trust, may terminate the conservation easement created by this Deed. 14. AMENDMENT. In the event of unexpected circumstances that render an appropriate amendment to or modification of the terms of this Conservation Easement necessary or desirable to preserve or enhance its purposes, Town and Trust may amend this Conservation Easement by means of a written instrument signed by both of them, provided that no such amendment shall be made that shall (a) adversely affect the status of the conservation easement created hereby as a "qualified conservation" easement and its contribution by Town as a "qualified conservation" contribution within the meaning of Section 170(h) of the Code; (b) adversely affect the status of Trust as an organization eligible to hold conservation easements under all applicable laws, including Colorado Revised Statutes, Sees. 38-30.5-101, et seq. and Section 170(h) of the Code; (c) be inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement; or (d) affect the perpetual duration of this Conservation Easement. 15. JURISDICTION. Any mediation or arbitration concerning this Conservation Easement shall take place in Larimer County, Colorado. If a court action, it will take place in the District Court for Larimer County, Colorado. Town and Trust consent to personal jurisdiction in Larimer County, Colorado. 16. INTERPRETATION. This Conservation Easement shall be interpreted under the laws of Colorado, resolving any ambiguities and questions of the validity of specific provisions so as to give maximum effect to its conservation purposes. Pacjre 8 1 - 1 17. PERPETUAL DURATION. The Conservation Easement created by this Deed shall be a servitude running with the land in perpetuity. This Deed shall be recorded in the real property records of Larimer County, Colorado promptly following its execution and delivery. Every provision of this Deed that applies to Town or Trust shall also apply to their respective agents, assigns and all other successors as their interests may appear. 18. NOTICES. Any notices required by this Deed shall be in writing and shall be personally delivered to or sent by first class mail to Town and Trust respectively at the following addresses, or at a subsequent changed address if a party has been notified in writing by the other party of such a change of address: TOWN: Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Attention: Town Administrator TRUST: Estes Valley Land Trust P.O. Box 663 Estes Park, CO 80517 19. TOWN'S TITLE WARRANTY. Town warrants that it has good and sufficient title to the Property as herein described, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, subject to restrictions, easements and covenants of record, and hereby promises to defend title to the Property against all claims that may be made against the same by any person claiming by, through, or under Town. 20. ACCEPTANCE. Trust hereby accepts without reservation the rights and responsibilities conveyed by this Conservation Easement. 21. GENERAL PROVISIONS. (a) Entire Agreement. This Deed sets forth the entire agreement and understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements, arrangements and understanding relating thereto, all of which are merged herein. (b) Severability. If any provision of this Deed, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is found to be invalid, the remainder of the provisions of this Deed, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, as the case may be, shall not be affected thereby. Page 9 , 2% (C) Captions. The captions in this Deed have been inserted solely for convenience of reference and are not a part of this instrument and shall have no effect upon construction or interpretation. (d) No Forfeiture. Nothing contained herein will result in a forfeiture or reversion of title in any respect. 22. AUTHORIZATION. Trust is authorized to accept and enter into this Conservation Easement by virtue of a resolution adopted by its Board of Directors on the day of , 2008. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD this Conservation Easement, and the rights and obligations created hereby, unto Trust, its successors and assigns, forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Town and Trust have executed this Deed of Conservation Easement, to be effective as of the day and year first above written, notwithstanding the actual date of execution. TOWN: TOWN OF ESTES PARK a Colorado municipal corporation Attest: By: Town Clerk Mayor TRUST: ESTES VALLEY LAND TRUST, a Colorado nonprofit corporation Attest: By: Kenneth R. Oldham James V. White Vice President and Vice President Assistant Secretary Page 10 Estes Vaney Fire Services Task Force Final Report & Recommendations Presented to the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees October 2008 Photo Courtesy Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department Photo Courtesy Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department . , ...k , 9 - I Â¥ I * 44**2 . r r . 1 1 .4 Â·U22,1.3,7 11 - I. i=ah=='*:Er - *- N.. ...... 4 A .... t/ 49; 7 Â· ..t . 3 P , * , . 22*-I - -7. 7 48///~4-46,6Â¢a,~~~*â€¢ Photo Courtesy EP NewsjHazeiton 00 41 Ea g Estes Valley 4 Fire Services Task Force Final Report & Recommendations Presented to the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees October 2008 Table of Contents â€¢ Executive Summary â€¢ The Plan and Related Discussions â€¢ Considerations/Suggestions â€¢ Timeline Showing Important Milestones â€¢ Appendixes _ - Appendix A - Budget Spreadsheet - Appendix B - Interim IGA Draft - Appendix C - Ongoing IGA Draft - Appendix D - Service Plan Draft Estes Valley Fire Services Task Force Final Recommendations, October 2008 Executive Summary To the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees: In February 2008, the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees adopted a "plan for a plan" to form a Task Force charged with the responsibility of recommending a plan to the residents of the Estes Valley for a comprehensive fire and emergency services system that would unify the entire Estes Valley under one roof. The plan was to include a timetable and fiscally responsible funding proposals that would be considered fair and equitable to all the residents of the Estes Valley. In the event that the recommendation resulted in the need for a citizen initiative election, sufficient time would be required to prepare the necessary documents in time for putting the proposal to a vote in November of 2009 (not 2008). The Task Force was required to present their recommendations in the form of a complete plan for review by the Town Board of Trustees in October 2008. (This is that plan.) In February-March 2008, applications for membership on the Task Force were accepted and carefully reviewed. At the end of March, 2008, the members were selected for the Task Force. The first meeting was -- held at the Estes Park Fire Department on Wednesday, April 2,2008, and was attended by the members of the Task Force and the general public. The Task Force was comprised of 11 members representing many different interests and backgrounds. The general makeup includes: â€¢ Residents who live within the Town boundaries â€¢ Residents who live outside the Town boundaries * The Town Fire Chief â€¢ A Volunteer Fire Department member elected by the Volunteer Fire Department â€¢ A senior member of the Town Staff â€¢ One of the Town Trustees The Task Force met in public meetings a total of 13 times. All meetings were recorded via meeting minutes and posted on a website created specifically to inform the public as to the status of the Task Force's deliberations and to obtain public feedback on a continuing basis. The website may be found at http:/ /EVFireServices.org. Sixteen different proposals were considered during these meetings. At about the halfway point, a consensus began to emerge on a single plan. Following agreement on the general outlines of the plan, the remaining meetings were devoted to refining the details of the plan as well as consideration of different financial factors such as projected budgets, funding options, etc. In September, 2008, the complete draft plan was presented publicly for the first time. The first presentation was to the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department and was primarily used to obtain feedback as to how the firefighters viewed the plan. Firefighter reception of the plan was positive. The second and third public presentations were held for the general public in the Estes Park Town Board Room. Again, reception was positive. In the course of developing the plan, it became apparent that there were ancillary considerations and ideas that were not properly a part of the plan. Rather than ignore these ideas, a separate section entitled Considerations is included in this Final Recommendation so that the Town Board may consider other ideas that may be of interest in the overall planning for fire and emergency services in the Estes Valley. Executive Summary (Rev 3).doc Page 1 of 3 Details of the plan and various supporting documents may be found in the following pages. In brief, the plan recommends the following steps: 1. The plan recommends the creation of an inclusive Fire Protection District (the "District") that encompasses the entire Estes Valley. Boundaries of the District are determined by the existing boundaries of other districts such as RMNP, Glen Haven, the US Forest Service, Pinewood Springs, and Allenspark. In other words, the proposed District covers all of the Estes Valley that is not currently covered by some other fire protection agency. Creation of the proposed District must be approved by a vote of eligible voters within the proposed District. Ballot questions, such as new - Â£ taxes and the question for approval of the proposed District are only allowed on general election ballots in November of each year. An election in November 2009 is anticipated and is the soonest this issue could go to the public. 2. As required by state statute, a newly established district will have five Directors who are to be elected by the voters on the same ballot with the question for approval of the District and its tax levy. The Directors will be elected at large in the District. 3. Legal requirements for approval of a ballot question to establish a new District include a preparation of a Service Plan describing the District and how it will operate. The Service Plan must include Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) covering arrangements with other political entities. A draft Service Plan and two draft IGAs between the Town and the proposed District have been prepared and are included in the Appendixes of this Recommendation. These drafts cover 1) the transition period between the election and the time when the District is financially viable, and 2) the continuing operations of the District. 4. The plan recommends an orderly transfer of the current Town-owned apparatus and equipment from the Town ownersh* to the District ownership. Details of this transfer are spelled out in the IGAs proposed above. 5. The plan recommends that certain services such as Human Resources, Accounting, Fleet Maintenance, etc., should not necessarily be included as activities operated directly by the District. Instead, as appropriate, such services should be contracted out. It is likely that some of the services will most naturally be contracted out to the Town. Indeed, other organizations, such as the Library District and the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (911-LETA), already contract with the Town for certain support services. 6. The plan recommends that the District, if approved by the voters, will begin limited setup in late 2009 and will begin an orderly transition in 2010. Fully funded operations will begin in 2011. 7. The plan proposes a working budget for the operation of the District. Also, the plan proposes a funding mechanism to fully fund the District. A copy of the budget details and funding mechanism may be found in the Appendixes. In briet the funding works as follows: a. A mill levy of 1.95 mills is proposed as a property tax to be assessed on all property owners within the proposed District. The milllevy would go into effect in 2010 following a favorable election result in 2009 and would generate revenue for the District beginning in 2011. b. The plan also proposes that the Estes Park Town Government approve a funding plan that would require the Town Government to transfer seven percent (7%) of collected Town sales tax revenues to the District on an annual basis. By defining the transfer at a fixed percentage rate, the Town is assured that the obligations to the District have an upper limitation that would follow the general Town economy. Again, the IGAs will be required to spell out the details of this funding mechanism. Executive Summary (Rev 3).doc Page 2 of 3 The Task Force has worked diligently on this task for six months. We are pleased to report that a unanimous consensus was reached on the various aspects of the plan and public feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. We believe that the plan is a fair and equitable plan that stands a good chance of voter approval in a forthcoming election. We recommend approval of this plan by the Town Board. We will be pleased to discuss this plan with you and explain matters that may not be completely clear. Thank you for the opportunity to work on this Task Force. We believe it will have historic ramifications far into the future. Lowell Richardson, Co-chair> Deputy Town Administrator Don Widrig, Co-chair County Resident Dorla Eisenlauer Town Trustee Scott Dorman <7 Estes Park Fire Chief Â·---0- T &<jt.,v r v#1.9.~vl--- Will Finch Â«I- Volunteer Fireman A Sue Doylen :V Town Resident Bob Dekker 7 Town Resident Bill Van Horn 12/ C County Resident Bruce Johnston fI2. u--i:je-. A,i- County Resident , 06/*././.4 9,- \,v- Jim Austin County Resident Frank Theis $/Â«2121:,jeli:.Trifip- Town Resident October, 2008 Executive Summary (Rev 3).doc Page 3 of 3 Addendum to the Fire Services Task Force Plan October 2008 Subsequent to the Task Force's presentation to the Town Board Study Session on 14 October, 2008, a few new ideas and updates have occurred. These revisions are incorporated in the following revised sheets. Please replace the entire Considerations and Suggestions section of the plan with the revised material that follows. In addition, a single page of corrections to the Service Plan are also included herein. This revision corrects an error in the Legal Description of the proposed Fire Protection District. Estes Valley Fire Services Task Force Final Recommendations, October 2008 Considerations and Suggestions (Revised) In the course of discussing various options for the plan, the Task Force occasionally considered other questions that were not properly deemed to be part of the overall plan. Nevertheless, the Task Force felt that these issues should not be ignored and should be brought to the Town Board's attention as useful suggestions for the Board to consider. We present these considerations here in no particular order of importance. 1. Method of transacting payments from the Town to the Fire Protection District (the "District") In concert with discussion with the Town stat the following idea for determining the annual payment seemed to be the simplest approach that was consistent with the way that the Town manages their budget based on input from the Town Finance Director: a. The Town will make two payments to the District each year. b. The first payment, made in January of the current year, is for 90% of the predicted payment based on projected sales tax receipts for the year. The second payment, made in February of the subsequent year, is an adjustment based on the remainder of the payment due after the actual sales tax receipts are known for the current year. This adjustment is based on the expectation that the final sales tax receipts are delivered by the state to the Town on or about February 158. c. Toward this end, the draft IGAs included in the Appendixes formalize this proposed payment schedule. Of course, there might be other possibilities that the Board may want to consider. The Task Force also considered another payment plan that could be summarized simply as "pay as you go". In this payment plan, the Town simply arranges to move 7% of the collected sales tax revenue to the Fire Protection District whenever the state sends money to the Town. This idea was proposed to the Finance Director but was rejected in favor of the above-mentioned plan. 2. Voter objections to the plan The Task Force received continual public feedback as the plan evolved. In almost every respect public acceptance of the plan was extremely positive. However, there was one recurring negative theme received from the public, the issue of the Town Property Tax. The negative feedback was invariably phrased as follows: "You are proposing a property tax for everyone who owns property within the proposed district. But I already pay a Town Property Tax that covers my Town services such as fire protection, streets, etc. Why should I have to pay two property taxes for the same service?" Considerations (Rev 4b).doc Page 1 of 3 The objection does have some merit. In the Task Force's quest for a Fair and Equitable plan, the two property taxes are unquestionably an inequitable burden on the Town property holders. This inequity is magnified for business owners who are also caught in the Gallagher amendment that will have the effect of significantly adding to their tax burden. The Task Force has continued to be concerned about this issue since, in our judgment, this will likely have a serious negative impact on any vote for the plan. It's possible that there would be enough negative votes to doom final acceptance of the plan. The Task Force has spent considerable time in trying to find a way to help the Town property owners with this stumbling block. Several ideas were considered and are herewith offered for the Board's consideration. It should be noted that a combination of the below-mentioned ideas might be the best way to deal with this stumbling block: a. Lower the Town Property Tax. This idea gained considerable interest since there are a number of workable ways to compensate for the lost revenue to the Town if such a course of action was adopted. In the draft 2009 Town budget, on a pro rata basis, it appears that approximately 8% of the total Town Property Tax would be allocated to the existing Town Fire Department. Based on current estimates, this would amount to approximately $23,000 - $25,000 of the Town Property Tax being earmarked for the Fire Department. Assuming that the Town Property Tax remains at the current level of 1.753 mills, it is worth considering a reduction of the mill levy by 8% (to approximately 1.613 mills), thus removing the allocated amount for the Fire Department. Then, the Town Government could tell the Town residents that their property tax was reduced by 8% to remove the Town's contribution toward fire protection. Of course, the proposed Fire District Property Tax would still be levied on all Estes Valley residents but the reduction would show good faith on the part of the Town Government. b. Offer some kind of a rebate to Town commercial (real and personal) property owners. This would be analogous to the existing food tax rebate the Town offers to low income residents. While this would likely ameliorate some dissent the idea does seem complicated to implement. It is at least worth considering if the overall effect is to gain voter approval. c. Sub-division of the District so that a separate tax levy could be applied to each sub-division is complicated (although permitted under state statute) and could be counterproductive for the Estes Valley. However, some method of establishing more parity between the Town and the unincorporated valley property owners should be investigated. d. Undertake a significant education campaign to educate the citizens as to the realities of the Town revenues and eupenditures. The Task Force has discussed several easy-to-understand ways of simplifying and presenting the complexities of Town finance. We believe that educating the citizens on these tax and finance realities would be helpful in improving the voters' understanding of the issues involved. The Task Force would be glad to work with the Town government in developing such an educational campaign. Considerations (Rev 4b).doc Page 2 of 3 , 3. Benefits of the District Purchasing Support Services from the Town The Task Force considered the issue of how the District would perform infrastructure tasks such as Fleet Maintenance of the equipment, payroll, etc. The plan recommends that many such services be contracted out instead of hiring support personnel solely to support the operations of the District. At least initially, the recommended ideas for support services include support on a fee basis by appropriate Town departments. The Task Force saw several benefits: a. The District benefits by having personnel experienced with their equipment and issues continue to provide the same services. b. The Town benefits by avoiding personnel reductions or reassignments and increased overhead rates while keeping their personnel fully employed. Considerations (Rev 4b).doc Page 3 of 3 . EXHIBIT C LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED DISTRICT The proposed District includes all of the properties located within Larimer County, Colorado and bounded as described below: Beginning at the Northwest corner of the Southwest quarter-quarter section of Section 6,Township 5 North, Range 72 West of the 6th p.M., thence East to the Northeast corner of the second quarter-quarter section of Section 4, Township 5 North, Range 72 West, thence North to the Northwest corner of the Southeast quarter section of said Section 4, thence East along the Center section line to the Northeast corner of the Southeast quarter section of Section 1, Township 5 North, Range 72 West, thence South along the East section lines, Range 72 West to the Southeast corner of Section 36, Township 5 North, Range 72 West, thence East along the North section line to the Northeast corner of Section 1, Township 4 North, Range 72 West, thence South along the East section lines, Range 72 West, to the Southeast corner of Section 13, Township 4 North, Range 72 West, thence West along the South section lines to the Southwest corner of Section 13, Township 4 North, Range 73 West, thence North along the West section line of said Section 13 to the Southeast corner of Section 11, Township 4 North, Range 73 West, thence West along the South section line of said Section 11 and Section 10, Township 4 North, Range 73 West, to the East Boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park; thence along the East Boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park to the point of beginning. THE PLAN Fire Services Task Force Plan 10/08/08 A Proposed Plan for the Estes Valley Fire Protection District -- Town Board Presentation, 14 Oct 2008, Presented By The Estes Valley Fire Services Task Force 1 Overview Â· The Search for a Fair and Equitable Plan Â· Background Â· Issues Â· Structural Considerations Â· Budget Considerations Â· Funding Considerations Â· Task Force Plan 2 Fair and Equitable Â· Primary Goal of the Task Force Was "Fair and Equitable" - All Estes Valley Property Owners Should Pay the Same Rate For Fire Protection Services - All Estes Valley Property Owners and Visitors Should Receive Equal Fire Service Protection - Town Government Should Support the Community in a Fair and Equitable Manner Â· All Public Input Stressed the Same Theme 6 3 1 Fire Services Task Force Plan 10/08/08 Â· Background How We Got Here Issues â€¢ Structural Â· Budget Funding Plan Â· The 2004 Plan and Election Â· The 2006 Plan and Election Â· Our Current Situation 4 Background Setup of Task Force in Issues Â· Structural 2008 Â· Budget Â· Town Board chartered the Fire Funding Plan Services Task Force in February Â· Task Force must recommend a plan to the Town Board in October Â· Plan should encompass fire and emergency services supplied by the current Fire Department Â· Members of Task Force chosen to represent a wide spectrum of interests in the Estes Valley 5 -r Â· Background Issues Task Force Members Structural â€¢ Budget Lowell Richardson, Co-chair Bob Dekker Funding Deputy Town Administrator Town Resident â€¢ Plan Don Widrig, Co-chair Bill Van Horn County Resident County Resident Dorla Eisenlauer Bruce Johnston Town Trustee County Resident Scott Dorman Jim Austin Estes Park Fire Chief County Resident Will Finch Volunteer Fireman Frank Theis Town Resident Sue Doylen Town Resident 6 2 Fire Services Task Force Plan 10/08/08 Background Summary of Task Force â€¢ Issues Structural Meetings â€¢ Budget Funding Â· Plan Â· Created Website to Communicate http://EVFireServices.org Â· Developed Method to Evaluate Ideas Â· 16 Candidate Plans Proposed Â· Educationat Sessions Â· Tool Developed to Evaluate Funding Â· Developed 5-year Recommended Plan . 7 Background Issues Issues Â· Structural Budget Â· Current Fire Protection Services Are Funding Becoming Financially Difficult Â· Plan Â· Valley Property Owners Participation Requested for Several Years Â· Fair & Equal in Fire Protection Services Â· Funding Should Be Shared Between Protecting Life and Propertv Â· Ballot Acceptance 8 Background Issues Evaluation Criteria Â· Structural Budget Funding Â· Plan Â· Shared Revenue Sources Inclusive Fire Protection District Â· Property Tax Increase Less Than 2 Mills Â· Long-term Town Financial Exposure Â· All Eligible Voters Have Vote Â· Oversight Management 9 3 Fire Services Task Force Plan 10/08/08 Â· Background Issues Structural Considerations Â· Structural Â· Budget Funding Â· Plan Â· Current Fire Department Â· Unincorporated Estes Valley Fire _ Djstrict + Town Â· Inclusive Fire Protection District Â· Fire Authority 10 Municipal Fire Department . . 14 \ C"" ~ 0 ./ 4 I . 6 1 11 Background Issues Structural Considerations Â· Structural - Budget Funding Â· Plan Â· Current Fire Department Â· Unincorporated Estes Valley Fire District + Town Inclusive Fire Protection District Â· Fire Authority 12 4 Fire Services Task Force Plan 10/08/08 Unincorporated + Town i r fl ... l 1Â»4 : . Of 6 d.0 1 -1 j 13 Background Issues Structural Considerations Â· Structural Budget Funding Â· Plan Â· Current Fire Department Â· Unincorporated Estes Valley Fire District + Town Â· Inclusive Fire Protection District Â· Fire Authority r.r N -C//b----- 14 Inclusive Fire Protection District /14-7 AR At ~5-- ~ , Afull legal descript,on of the : boundaries may be found in . . ~ the, proposed Service Plan. \1 1 15 5 Fire Services Task Force Plan 10/08/08 Background â€¢ Issues Structural Considerations Â· Structural Budget Funding Â· Plan Â· Current Fire Department Â· Unincorporated Estes Valley Fire District + Town Â· Inclusive Fire Protection District â€¢ Fire Authority (In all cases, Mutual Aid agreements provide for help with reciprocal aid from other districts.) /5/K 16 Â· Background Â· Issues Budget Considerations Â· Structural - Budget Â· Funding Plan Â· Personnel (Paid and Volunteer) Â· Operations Maintenance Â· Capital Reserve Fire Protection District Overhead . :<pj*.......- 17 Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department 54.00 49.00 44.00 3900 ~ n 3400 1% f Average YOS 2900 ---Number of FF 24.00 i Average Age 1900 14.00 9.00 -$ : *:- 4.00 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 18 6 Fire Services Task Force Plan 10/08/08 Background Issues Personnel Â· Structural Â· Budget Funding â€¢ Plan Â· Recruiting and Retention Â· Volunteers Paid Staff Â· Part-time Staff Incentives Â· Pension 19 Â· Background - Issues Funding Considerations â€¢ Structural Budget Funding Plan Â· Fundraising & Donations Â· Subscription Fees Â· New Sales Tax - Â· New Mill Levy Â· Sales Tax Collection 20 Background Â· Issues Fire Protection Mill Levy â€¢ Structural Â· Budget Funding Â· Plan Â· Fire Protection Mill Levy in Other Districts - Berthoud: 15.274 - Johnstown: 9.478 - Poudre Valley: 9.301 - Allenspark: 7.507 - Pnewood Springs: 6.336 - Loveland Rural: 5.808 21 Fire Services Task Force Plan 10/08/08 â€¢ Background Issues Town General Fund Structural Budget Funding Plan 0 9 2008 (Simplified) '* 09./&* â‚¬/ F*re Department f'unding --4 Â¥ p r *4 * 4 Â·-- 22 Background Issues The Task Force Plan - Structural Budget Funding Plan Â· Structure Â· Budget Â· Funding 23 Background Issues Proposed Structure Structural Â· Budget Funding Â· Independent Fire Protection District Plan Â· District Includes Entire Estes Valley Â· Five Directors Elected At Large From the District Â· Independent Entity Can Issue Bonds for Future Capital Projects 24 8 Fire Services Task Force Plan 10/08/08 Background Issues Proposed Structure Â· Structural Budget Â· Fire District Pays for Support Services Funding - Fleet Maintenance Â· Plan - HR Services - Accounting - Dispatch Services Â· Contract Between Town Government and Fire Protection District - Town Leases Fire Station - Town Transfers Equipment Ownership - Fire Protection District Handle Own Finances - Inter-governmental Agreement (IGA) Provides -- Details Background Â·Issues Projected Budget Â· Structural Budget Â· Started with 2009 Projected Budget Funding for a!! costs related to Fire Plan Department Â· Increased the costs at an Annual Rate of 3.5% Â· Projected Fire District Funding for the First 5 Years of Operation Â· In the Years 2011 - 2015, the Fire District Budget Ranges from $992,000 to $1,113,000. 26 Â· Background Â· Issues Funding Concept Â· Structural Â· Budget Â· Funding Should Come from Sales Funding Â· Plan Taxes for the Fire District's Protection of Life Â· Funding Should Come from Property Taxes for the Fire District's Protection of Property 27 9 Fire Services Task Force Plan 10/08/08 Background Issues Proposed Funding Â· Structural Â· Budget Â· Town Government Serves as a Conduit for Funding Our Community's Sales Taxes, Distributing Â· Plan an Amount Equal to 7% of Collected Sales Tax Revenues - Protection of Lifg Â· All Estes Valley Property Owners Assessed a New Mill Levy of 1.95 Mills Starting in 2010 and Collected Starting in 2011. ($15.52/$100K Residential Market Value) ($56.55/$100K Other Property Value) - Protection of ProoerÂ·tv 28 Â· Background Issues Proposed Funding Â· Structural Â· Budget Â· Funding Â· Plan 0 0 Lir~f PÂ»staton * * Pfipefty pf.â‚¬â‚¬,tÂ©rt (Proposed) â€ž*,2 Fire District Funding e?*4 29 Why Is This A Fair Plan? Â· From the Town Government's Point of View: - Sales Tax Portion Tied to Economy - Predictable Expense Â· From the Property Owner's Point of View: - Fair and Equitable. Same Service Valley-wide - Reasonable Mill Levy for All Valley Property Owners - Board of Directors to Represent Everyone's Interests Â· From an Economic/Visitors' Point of View: - High Level of Service with No Direct Charge to 3,500,000 Visitors 30 10 Fire Services Task Force Plan 10/08/08 Summary Â· Fair and Equitable Services for All Estes Valley Residents and Visitors Inclusive Fire Protection District for Entire Estes Valley to Continue to Provide Excellent Service to the Estes Valley Fire Protection District Board of Directors Elected At- large Â· Shared Funding Arrangement with Contributions --- from Property Taxes and Sales Taxes Plan Establishes a Viable Future for Fire Protection -- Services 31 What's Next? Â· Trustees Consider the Plan Initiatives Committee Is Formed Â· Numerous Legal Steps Accomplished by Initiatives -- Committee to Get on the November 2009 Ballot Â· Voters Approve Initiative and Select District Directors in November 2009 Â· District Formed in Late 2009 Â· Full Funding Begins in 2011 32 Website http://EVFireServices.org ..4- 33 11 Fire Services Task Force Plan 10/08/08 Comments? ? 34 12 CO~ESTIONS /SNOINVE Estes Valley Fire Services Task Force Final Recommendations, October 2008 Considerations and Suggestions In the course of discussing various options for the plan, the Task Force occasionally considered other questions that were not properly deemed to be part of the overall plan. Nevertheless, the Task Force felt that these issues should not be ignored and should be brought to the Town Board's attention as useful suggestions for the Board to consider. We present these considerations here in no particular order of importance. 1. Method of transacting payments from the Town to the Fire Protection District (the "District") In concert with discussion with the Town staff, the following idea for determining the annual payment seemed to be the simplest approach that was consistent with the way that the Town manages their budget: a. The Town will make two payments to the District each year. b. The first payment made in January of the current year, is for 90% of the predicted payment based on projected sales tax receipts for the year. The second payment made in February of the subsequent year, is an adjustment based on the remainder of the payment due after the actual sales tax receipts are known for the current year. This adjustment is based on the expectation that the final sales tax receipts are delivered by the state to the Town on or about February 15m c. Toward this end, the draft IGAs included in the Appendixes formalize this proposed payment schedule. Of course, there might be other possibilities that the Board may want to -- consider. 2. Obstructions to voter approval of the plan The Task Force received continual public feedback as the plan evolved. In almost every respect, public acceptance of the plan was extremely positive. However, there was one recurring negative theme received from the public, the issue of the Town Property Tax. The negative feedback was invariably phrased as follows: "You are proposing a property tax for everyone who owns property within the proposed district. But I already pay a Town Property Tax that covers my Town services such as fire protection, streets, etc. Why should I have to pay two property taxes for the same service?" Part of this objection is based on the public misperception that the Town Property Tax is used to pay for the Fire Department. Of course, this simply isn't true. Inspection of the Town budget shows that the Town Property Tax simply is another revenue source that feeds the General Fund which, in turn, is parceled out to a host of Town services. In the proposed 2009 Town budget approximately 8% of the overall budget is allocated for fire protection services. Still, the objection does have some merit. In the Task Force's quest for a Fair and Equitable plan, the two property taxes are unquestionably an inequitable burden on the Town property holders. This Considerations (Rev 3).doc Page 1 of 2 inequity is magnified for business owners who are also caught in the Gallagher amendment that will have the effect of significantly adding to their tax burden. The Task Force has continued to be concerned about this issue since, in our judgment this will likely have a serious negative impact on any vote for the plan. It's possible that there would be enough negative votes to doom final acceptance of the plan. The Task Force has spent considerable time in trying to find a way to help the Town property owners with this stumbling block. Several ideas were considered and are herewith offered for the Board's consideration: a. Lower the Town Property Tax. This idea gained considerable interest since there are a number of workable ways to compensate for the lost revenue to the Town if such a course of action was adopted. However, a factor that seems to doom discussing this idea is that EPURA funding hinges on various tax increment financing issues related to the Town Property Tax. In other words, EPURA funding willlikely be at risk if the Town Property Tax is adjusted. The Task Force has not obtained a legal opinion on this issue and it would be worth the Board's time to confirm this. b. Offer some kind of a rebate to Town commercial (real and personal) property owners. This would be analogous to the existing food tax rebate the Town offers to low income residents. While this would likely ameliorate some dissent, the idea does seem complicated to implement. It is at least worth considering if the overall effect is to gain voter approval. c. Sub-division of the District so that a separate tax levy could be applied to each sub-division is complicated (although permitted under state statute) and could be counterproductive for the Estes Valley. However, some method of establishing more parity between the Town and the unincorporated valley property owners should be investigated. d. Undertake a significant education campaign to educate the citizens as to the realities of the -- Town revenues and expenditures. The Task Force has discussed several easy-to-understand ways of simplifying and presenting the complexities of Town finance. We believe that educating the citizens on these tax and finance realities would be helpful in improving the voters' understanding of the issues involved. The Task Force would be glad to work with the Town government in developing such an educational campaign. - 3. Benefits of the District Purchasing Support Services from the Town The Task Force considered the issue of how the District would perform infra-structure tasks such as Fleet Maintenance of the equipment, payroll, etc. The plan recommends that many such services be contracted out instead of hiring support personnel solely to support the operations of the District. - At least initially, the recommended ideas for support services include support on a fee basis by appropriate Town departments. The Task Force saw several benefits: a. The District benefits by having personnel experienced with their equipment and issues continue to provide the same services. b. The Town benefits by avoiding personnel reductions or reassignments and increased overhead rates while keeping their personnel fully employed. Considerations (Rev 3).doc Page 2 of 2 TIMELINE Estes Valley Fire Services Task Force Final Recommendations, October 2008 Timeline The Town government and the Estes Valley community must work together to successfully establish an inclusive Fire Protection District and community-wide financial support for the future of our Fire Department. This section outlines the sequence of steps the Task Force has identified to implement the entire recommended plan. 1. Town government agrees on a plan and Service Plan for formation of an inclusive Fire Protection District (the "District"). 2. Town accepts the condition of shared funding of Fire Department and of payment of 7 % of annual total collected sales tax receipts to the District for Fire Department support. 3. Town accepts the condition of transfer of the Fire Department to the District. 4. Committee for District initiative formed as a political action committee. 5. Initiative committee prepares final service plan and final IGAs with the Town and County. 6. Initiative committee completes legal steps of getting initiative on special ballot for 10 Nov 2009. 7. Initiative committee conducts fund raising to pay fees and expenses of getting initiative on ballot. a. Cost estimated at $20,000 to $30,000. 8. Town agrees to financially support the District initiative committee. 9. After a successful special election, the District Court certifies election results in Nov 2009 and authorizes formation of the District and swearing in of Directors. 10. Town loans money to the District for minimum necessary expenses for Nov 2009 thru Jan 2011. a. Predicted expenses not to exceed $50,000; repayment at $10,000 plus interest per year annually beginning mid-year 2011. 11. County Assessor adds the District to property taxing entities for year 2010. 12. Town pays to the District in January 2011, 90 % of 7 % of sales tax receipts predicted for 2011. 13. District assumes responsibility and oversight management of the Fire Department in January or February 2011. 14. County Assessor distributes majority of 2010 property tax receipts to the District in 2nd quarter of 2011. 15. Town pays, in February 2012, a reconciled payment for a total of two payments equaling 100% of 7% of the sales tax revenues collected by the Town during the calendar year 2011. 16. This two-payment process continues annually for subsequent years. Timeline (Rev 1).doc Page 1 of 1 APPENDIXES ....... Appendix A Budget Spreadsheet 0 0 0 0 0 0 gr 0 0 0- E 0 0 O 4 g 9.E 0 A .0 -O Z g ici 0 4:~ 55 C C co O m = m C a. CD 2 9 9 8 + 2009 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 rt-time staff 71,000 71,000 71,000 71,000 71,000 42,000 46,000 48,000 50,000 50,000 Operations & Maint 200,619 177,470 183,681 190,110 196,764 203,651 210,779 218,156 479,091 181,173 161,173 166,814 172,653 178,695 184,950 191,423 t98'998 6Â£9' Lt,8 OZZ '9 Le *ZZ'68Z 926'29L 966' ZZ9 601'1Â£9 Â£8/'ZK6 eu!legs 029'66 COZ'96 6*6'26 909'69 69Z'99 999'Â£9 000' Le 000' 18 LZe'LL Z80' L L ELL'OL 09â‚¬'OL 000'ox [Pv uo'Sued + *98'69 9ZE'Z9 9â‚¬*'99 L99'â‚¬9 09Â£ Lg 000'09 *8Â£'69 9LE'Zg 9Â£.'99 :99'Â£9 09 Z' :9 000'09 a:IA + 169'LEO' L Â£69'900' L DZ'*L6 +08'Â£*6 **8' L :6 0Â£8'KZZ 601'ELL Â£8/'Â£66 ;06png a:Ile,01 Â£6Â£'9Z Â£*8'ZZ 08Â£'OL 000'08 uonens!U!UIPV ad=1 + Personnel 232,473 273,566 283,141 293,051 303,308 313,923 324,911 336,282 Lt*'101.1. 8Z9'LOL ZEO'170k sts'OOL 610 L'26 9Â£8'â‚¬6 000' tg 000' 1.8 uo!Sued fPV Fire Protecti District Budget Projections (based on preli inary T wn budgets for 2009) 980'Â£1,1.4 9Â£9'6L0'I. ZZI.'91~0'10 t~08'1,1.04 Â»8'1.66 :06png ad=I lejol October 2008 Proposed Budget Estimates ( et approved by Town) WAOI, ag UI04 ueol e BIA papUrg aq 1-[P'A OIOZ U[ uoueiado Iewed IOJ jolls!(l uo!})0104[ 043 01R JO UOUeI}SWIUIPV :E a}ON Addn'I ~~S~f~alary/Yr 0~~(base salary in 2010) (Note 2) Escalation Rate Addn'I Paid Staff lunteer Incentives uo!inq!]lu00 O~A + uoilnqujuoO C]=IA + uogesuedll]00 houeBU!:uoo + If> R il N OO 8.1 22 o 4 2 2 e= ~2 =2 - V .0-. IW 0 r -- 0-232.0 00 q.ge g (\1"Â» r N U) e= 16 Of z-2.. Of = 552 0 HO h c 29 0 --" 0 2>-E xxm CD 2 m m a -0 a) W - (DO v E v 1-1-0 05 mwi *%00 22& 2 1 05 o E Sms &19 16 8 0 0.0 M < a. b ME.5 0< 0 220 0 < 27 < 0- D. U. LL m 2 5 5%8 g ;3 3 cojo ooE 500 0 1-01-LE COC/)~ ~-O~- LL U- 1- 1- 7,400,000 7,548,000 7,698,960 7,852,939 8,009,998 8,170,198 8,333,602 8,500,274 tion from Gen Fund 921,027 435,365 771,830 549,706 560,700 571,914 583,352 595,019 164,731,997 159,790,037 162,985,838 166,245,555 169,570,466 172,961,875 176,421,112 179,949,535 108,000,000 104,760,000 106,331,400 107,926,371 109,545,267 111,188,446 112,856,272 114,549,116 t99'96â‚¬t761 99â‚¬'222'691 LEE'091.'*91 Zâ‚¬Z'91.1.'6ZZ 916' LZI.'t,ZE 991'Z 1.Â£'691 LEO'099'*91 Z66' Lâ‚¬Z'ZZZ OZO'OZZ ZL9'9LE â‚¬ X9'â‚¬ LE 99*'OLE 9*Â£'ZOE t60'p99 Â£60'*99 9ZZ'*49 9Â£91.9 69 /'919 01.1.'691.'1. St*'ZE X' I 061.'91.1.4 9Â£Â£'960' I tze'*LO' L 0Â£8'KLL 99Â£'01.9 ZZO'960' L 980'ELL' L 9Â£9'6Z0'L ZZL'9170' L 17087:09 t*8' K66 0Â£8'LZZ 60Z'ELZ Â£8/'Â£66 Â£99'Itc 889'961 619'ZEZ L99'99 L 0Â£028 **8'ZOL ( ouep) pure koue5uguoo (based on pre inary Town budgets for 2009) mills (same mill levy for Town and Cty) $15.52 per $100K market value 2009 2010 2011 2014 LZO'17*â‚¬ 921'Zâ‚¬Â£ 199'0Â£Â£ 62 Ctâ‚¬Â£ ZZe'Z LE 910'9* 606' 29 890' tz L /29'Â£9 0Â£0'â‚¬8 (4*9'ZO L) **9'ZOL 110!Jep) snldins enueAeÂ¥ Fire Protect District Budget Projections October 1, 2008 percentage of Sales Tax Revenues) Proposed Funding Es oved by Town) ntribution from County 175,000 175,000 (Note 1) XUIOUO 03 U[elia)Ull 01 anP 600E U[ pasi?anap SanTEA paSSOSSÂ¥ :I MON 06png j a el!=' le,01 (Jeells 186png Cl=1 U'04) Appendix B Transition IGA Overview â€¢ Effective for November and December 2009 and calendar year 2010 and first quarter of 2011 â€¢ Fire Protection District shall serve all persons and properties within the boundaries of the district equally and without priorities and fees â€¢ Fire Protection District shall remain a municipal department of the Town until the end of the transition period â€¢ Town shall have full financial responsibility for the Fire Protection District during the transition period â€¢ Town shall provide loans to the District for the District to meet minimum legal obligations and other expenses â€¢ Transition period shall be terminated when; o District has sufficient tax revenues and other funds to meet the remaining 2011 obligations of the District o District shall be capable of assuming the remaining 2011 financial obligations of the Estes Park Fire Department o The termination date shall be mutually agreed to by both parties a minimum of 45 days prior to the termination date DRAFT - IGA FOR TRANSITION PERIOD = REV 4 ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT - TOWN OF ESTES PARK INTERGOVERNMENTALAGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, effective this day of 2009, is by and between the ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, a Colorado Special District, ("District" and "EVFPD") and the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, a Colorado Municipal Corporation, ("Town"). RECITALS: WHEREAS, the District was organized by order of the Larimer County District Court dated , 2009 for the purpose of providing fire protection, fire suppression and rescue services to persons and properties located within the District; and WHEREAS, the boundaries of the Distrid extend beyond the Town in unincorporated Larimer County and include all properties located within the Town having a total area of about 66.3 square miles, and WHEREAS, the parties recognize the value of entering into this Intergovernmental Agreement for the mutual benefit of both parties; and WHEREAS, both parties mutually agree that it is necessary to work together in good faith to provide needed fire protection, fire suppression and rescue services to persons and properties located within the District consistent with the financial resources of the parties; and WHEREAS, the Town continues to operate the Estes Park Fire Department for the purpose of providing fire protedion, fire suppression and rescue services to properties located within the Town and to properties located within the Estes Park Fire Department's Other Protedion Area, and WHEREAS, the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department provides personnel and other resources to the Estes Park Fire Department to assist in the operations of the department, and WHEREAS, the District has the lawful authority to provide fire protection, fire suppression and -- rescue services within the District; and WHEREAS, Section 29-1-203, C.R.S., provides that the parties may cooperate or contract with one another to provide functions and services lawfully authorized to the individual entities; and WHEREAS, the parties have determined to enter into this Intergovernmental Agreement for the purpose of providing the terms and conditions for the provision of fire protedion, fire suppression and rescue services by the Estes Park Fire Department to the District; and DRAFT - IGA FOR TRANSITION PERIOD - REV 4 DRAFT - IGA FOR TRANSITION PERIOD - REV 4 WHEREAS this time period between voter approval of the District and a time when the District has received sufficient ad valorem revenues and other funds to become financially viable shall be called the "transition period;" and WHEREAS the Larimer County, Colorado, County Assessor will not assess ad valorem revenues for the District on properties within the boundaries of the District until the year 2010; and WHEREAS the County Assessor will not begin distribution of tax revenues to the District until the first half of 2011; and WHEREAS the District will have insufficient revenues to meet minimum District financial obligations until the first half of 2011; and WHEREAS the District will not be financially viable nor financially capable of operating the Estes Park Fire Department until it receives substantial tax revenues and other funds in 2011; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the applicable statutes of the State of Colorado, the parties hereto are authorized to enter into this Intergovernmental Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING, THE DISTRICT AND THE TOWN AGREE AS FOLLOWS: The Recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated into the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 1. This Agreement is for November and December 2009 and the calendar years 2010 and 2011. This Agreement shall not be renewable beyond 2011 and shall automatically terminate during 2011 subject to the termination and budget conditions of Paragraphs 5 and 6 of this Agreement. 2. During this transition period; a. It is the intent of the parties that the current level of response to fire and rescue incidents provided by the Estes Park Fire Department ("EPFD") and the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department, existing at the time of execution of this Agreement, shall remain substantially the same unless the parties mutually agree to revisions of the level of response to fire and rescue incidents within the District, and b. It is the intent that the EPFD shall serve all persons and properties within the boundaries -- of the district equally and without priorities and fees, and c. The EPFD shall remain a municipal department of the Town, and d. The Town shall have full financial responsibility, and DRAFT - IGA FOR TRANSITION PERIOD - REV 4 DRAFT - IGA FOR TRANSITION PERIOD - REV 4 e. Annual payments to the Firemen's Pension Fund and any and all other financial obligations related to the EPFD shall be the responsibility of the Town, and f. The Town shall provide loans, i. at prevailing rates, and ii. of sufficient funds to the District for the District to meet minimum legal obligations and other expenses, however, iii. at no time during the transition period shall the total value of the principal and interest of the loans exceed TBD, and iv. the repayment of the loans shall be TBD 3. The transition period shall be terminated under the following conditions: a. The District shall have sufficient tax revenues and other funds, or shall have reasonable expectations of such revenues and funds, to meet the remaining 2011 financial obligations of the District, and b. The District shall assume the remaining 2011 financial obligations of the EPFD and its successors, and c. The termination date shall be mutually agreed to by both parties a minimum of 30 days prior to the specified termination date. 4. The transition period shall be followed immediately by continuing operations of the fire department under separate intergovernmental agreement between the District and the Town. 5. Either party may terminate this Agreement by written notice to the other party giving 90 calendar days or more notice of the intent to terminate. 6. Each party understands and agrees that the sums necessary to continue this Agreement shall be subject to the annual budgetary process of each individual entity. The financial obligations of the parties shall not be deemed to be financial obligations under Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado -- Constitution. The parties shall have the right to terminate this Agreement in whole (but not in part) under the provisions of Paragraph 5 of the Agreement. 7. Since the EPFD provides all of the operational responses to fire and rescue incidents in the District during the transition period, and since the District will assume oversight responsibility of the fire department following the transition period, decisions by the Town with regard to operations of the EPFD may significantly impact the District. The Town shall consult with the District and the parties shall mutually agree prior to making any final decision in the following areas: a. Any major matter which would have a substantial budgetary impact on the District such as new communication systems, increase in number of paid personnel of the EPFD, and changes in manpower and equipment; and b. Changes in response patterns which would have a substantial effect upon response within the Distrid; and c. Hiring of any new fire chief; and d. Purchase of new fire engines and rescue vehicles. 8. The parties understand and agree that in the event the parties cannot mutually agree on any of DRAFT - IGA FOR TRANSITION PERIOD - REV 4 DRAFT - IGA FOR TRANSITION PERIOD - REV 4 the above matters, the Town may make the final decision during this transition period and until termination of this agreement. 9. All notices, demands or other documents required or desired to be given, made or sent to either party, under this Agreement, shall be made in writing, and shall be deemed effective upon mailing or personal delivery. If mailed, said notice shall be mailed, postage pre-paid, certified mail, return receipt requested as follows: EVFPD Town of Estes Park Attention: Board President Attention: Town Ad ministrator TBD P O Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Estes Park, CO 80517 10. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed a waiver of the defenses and limitations of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101, et. seq. C.R.S., nor deemed to confer any benefits to any person not a party to this Agreement. 11. This Agreement represents the entire agreement of the parties and any amendment to this Agreement shall be in writing and executed by both parties hereto. The parties enter into this Agreement as separate and independent governmental entities and each shall maintain such status throughout the term of the Agreement. This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado. ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT By: - ATTEST: TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: - ATTEST: DRAFT - IGA FOR TRANSITION PERIOD - REV 4 A-yoendix C - Ongoing IGA Overview â€¢ For 2011 and subsequent years, IGA automatically renews for an additional one year period â€¢ IGA is effective immediately upon termination of the IGA covering the transition period â€¢ District collects ad valorem taxes on properties in the District to pay a portion of Fire Protection District expenses â€¢ Town makes 2 payments to District for each calendar year to pay a portion of Fire Protection District expenses o first payment, made in January, is for 90% of 7% of expected sales tax receipts for the year o second payment, made in February of the subsequent year, for the remainder of the 7% of the actual sales tax receipts collected for the given year â€¢ Town to transfer ownership of the Town-owned physical assets of the Estes Park Fire Department to the District â€¢ Town to lease Dannels fire station to District for nominal fee â€¢ Town to provide dispatch services to the fire department for an appropriate fee â€¢ District shall consult and inform the Town or Town representatives concerning: o Changing needs for fire and rescue services in the District o Changes in the level of response to fire and rescue incidents in the District o Changes and additions of major apparatus o Changes in stationing of major apparatus in the District â€¢ District makes the final decisions on all Fire Department issues â€¢ District will assure and protect the positions of salaried staff of the Estes Park Fire Department except for significant cause, for a minimum of 36 months following the transition period â€¢ District shall repay to the Town allloans under terms of the loan agreements â€¢ District shall honor all pre-existing agreements related to fire and rescue services between the Town and other governmental entities o District will enter into agreement with Larimer County and the Larimer County Sheriff to replace the IGA dated 17 Sept 2007 covering fire services by the Town and the Estes Park Fire Department DRAFT - IGA FOR CONTINUING OPERATIONS - REV 4 ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT - TOWN OF ESTES PARK INTERGOVERNMENTALAGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, effective this day of 2009, is by and between the ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, a Colorado Special District, C"District" and "EVFPD") and the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, a Colorado Municipal Corporation, ("Town"). RECITALS: - WHEREAS, the District was organized by order of the Larimer County District Court dated ---- , 2009 for the purpose of providing fire protection, fire suppression and rescue services to properties located within the District; and WHEREAS, the boundaries of the District extend beyond the Town in unincorporated Larimer County and include all properties located within the Town having a total area of about 66.3 square miles; and WHEREAS, the parties recognize the value of entering into this Intergovernmental Agreement for the mutual benefit of both parties; and WHEREAS, both parties mutually agree that it is necessary to work together in good faith to provide needed fire protection, fire suppression and rescue services to properties located within the District consistent with the financial resources of the parties; and WHEREAS, the District has the lawful authority to provide fire suppression, fire prevention and rescue services within the District; and WHEREAS, Section 29-1-203, C.R.S., provides that the parties may cooperate or contract with one another to provide fundions and services lawfully authorized to the individual entities; and WHEREAS, the parties mutually agree to share the costs of all operations and other expenses of the Estes Park Fire Department and its successors, and WHEREAS, the parties have determined to enter into this Intergovernmental Agreement for the purpose of providing the terms and conditions for the provision of fire suppression, fire prevention and rescue services by the Estes Park Fire Department and its successors to the District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the applicable statutes of the State of Colorado, the parties hereto are authorized to enter into this Intergovernmental Agreement. DRAFT - IGA FOR CONTINUING OPERATIONS - REV 4 DRAFT - IGA FOR CONTINUING OPERATIONS - REV 4 NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING, THE DISTRICTAND THE TOWN AGREE AS FOLLOWS: The Recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated into the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 1. This Agreement is for the calendar years 2011 and subsequent years subject to the termination and budget provisions of Paragraphs X and Y of this Agreement. This Agreement shall automatically renew for an additional one year period on January 1 of each calendar year unless terminated by either party pursuant to Paragraph 17 of this Agreement. 2. This agreement shall become effective immediately upon the termination of the IGA dated TBD - between the District and the Town which specifies the agreements for the transition period until the newly formed District has financial viability. 3. The District shall collect ad valorem taxes on properties within the District, as described in the Service Plan for the Estes Valley Fire Protection District, to pay for a portion of the services described herein. 4. The Town shall make two payments to the District for each calendar year to pay for a portion of the services described herein. The first payment shall be made in January of the given year and the second payment shall be made during February of the subsequent year after the Town has a full accounting of the sales tax received during the given year. 5. For the year 2011 and at the time of termination of the IGA dated TBD covering the transition period, a. the Town shall transfer revenue to the District in the amount of 90% of 7% of the sales tax revenues projected to be collected by the Town during the calendar year 2011, and b. On or before the last business day of February 2012 the Town shall make a final reconciled payment to the District to reflect a total of the two payments equaling 100% of 7% of the sales tax revenues collected by the Town during the calendar year 2011. i. The projected sales tax revenues shall be based on the actual collected sales tax for the previous calendar year and the projected annual growth rate forthe current year. 6. For the year 2012 and subsequent years; a. On or before the last business day of January of each year the Town shall transfer revenue to the District in the amount of 90% of 7% of the sales tax revenues projected to be collected by the Town during the specified calendar year, and DRAFT - IGA FOR CONTINUING OPERATIONS - REV 4 DRAFT - IGA FOR CONTINUING OPERATIONS - REV 4 b. On or before the last business day of February of the subsequent year the Town shall make a final reconciled payment to the District to reflect a total of the two payments equaling 100% of 7% of the sales tax revenues collected by the Town during the specified calendar year. 7. Revenues received by the District from the Town shall be used only for payment of expenses of the Estes Park Fire Department and its successors and shall not be used for payment of District overhead expenses. 8. The Town shall transfer ownership of the physical assets of the Estes Park Fire Department to the District. 9. The Town shall lease the Dannels Fire Station to the District for a nominal annual amount to be - agreed to by both parties during December of each year for the subsequent year. a. The payment shall be made prior to the last business day of January of each year. 10. The Town shall provide dispatching and communications services to the fire department for an appropriate annual amount to be agreed to by the parties during December of each year for the subsequent year. a. The payments shall be made quarterly within the first ten business days of each calendar quarter. 11. The District shall provide oversight management of the fire department to maintain, in general and as a minimum, the current level of response to fire and rescue incidents throughout the District which have been provided by the EPFD and the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department, at the time of execution of this Agreement. a. Each party understands the necessity of maintaining continuing consistent and reliable services to the persons and properties of the District. The District shall consult and inform the Town or Town representatives concerning; i. Changing needs for fire and rescue services throughout the District, and ii. Changes in the level of response to fire and rescue incidents within the District, and iii. Changes and additions of major apparatus, and iv. Changes in stationing of major apparatus within the District. 12. The parties understand and agree that in the event the parties cannot mutually agree on any of the matters of 11 a. above, or other matters pertaining to the business of the District or the operations of the fire department, the District may make the final decision, in its sole discretion. 13. The District shall assure and protect the positions of the salaried staff of the Estes Park Fire Department, except for significant cause, for a minimum of 36 months following transition of the fire department from the Town to the District. DRAFT - IGA FOR CONTINUING OPERATIONS - REV 4 DRAFT - IGA FOR CONTINUING OPERATIONS - REV 4 14. The District shall repay to the Town all loans under the terms of the loan agreements. 15. The District shall assume all financial responsibility for the fire department, the Firemen's Pension Fund, maintenance and replacement of equipment and apparatus, and all other fire department obligations. 16. The District shall honor all preexisting agreements related to fire and related rescue services between the Town and other governmental entities. a. The district shall enter into an agreement with Larimer County and the Larimer County Sheriff to replace the agreement dated the 17th day of September 2007 between the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County and the Larimer County Sheriff covering fire protedion, fire suppression and rescue services by the Town of Estes Park and the EPFD. 17. Either party may terminate this Agreement by written notice to the other party on or before July -1 of each calendar year. Such termination shall be effective on Decem ber 31 of said caleridar year. 18. Each party understands and agrees that the sums necessary to continue this Agreement shall be subject to the annual budgetary process of each individual entity. The financial obligations of the parties shall not be deemed to be financial obligations under Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution. The parties shall have the right to terminate this Agreement in whole (but not in part) under the provisions of Paragraph 17 of the Agreement. 19. All notices, demands or other documents required or desired to be given, made or sent to either party, under this Agreement, shall be made in writing, and shall be deemed effective upon mailing or personal delivery. If mailed, said notice shall be mailed, postage pre-paid, certified mail, return receipt requested as follows: - EVFPD Town of Estes Park Attention: Board President Attention: Town Ad ministrator TBD P O Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Estes Park, CO 80517 20. Each party understands and agrees that the sums necessary to provide the services and pay the costs of this Agreement shall be subject to the annual budgetary process of each individual entity. The financial obligations of the parties shall not be deemed to be financial obligations under Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution. The parties shall have the right to terminate this Agreement in whole (but not in part) under the provisions of Paragraph 17 in the sole event that the party's board of directors or governing body fails to appropriate money sufficient for the continued performance of this Agreement. 21. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed a waiver of the defenses and limitations of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101, et. seq. C.R.S., nor deemed to confer any benefits to any person not a party to this Agreement. DRAFT - IGA FOR CONTINUING OPERATIONS - REV 4 DRAFT - IGA FOR CONTINUING OPERATIONS - REV 4 22. This Agreement represents the entire agreement of the parties and any amendment to this Agreement shall be in writing and executed by both parties hereto. The parties enter into this Agreement as separate and independent governmental entities and each shall maintain such status throughout the term of the Agreement. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado. - ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT By: ATTEST: - TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: ATTEST: DRAFT - IGA FOR CONTINUING OPERATIONS - REV 4 A-yoendix D *- Service Plan Overview â€¢ Introduction and overview â€¢ Proposed Fire Protection District will accomplish; â€¢ continued fire and rescue services uniformly and throughout the Estes Valley community â€¢ provide reliable and predictable resources for the fire department help to maintain the current ISO ratings and work to improve those ratings â€¢ provide long-range funding for additional apparatus and facilities â€¢ allow all eligible electors within the District to vote for approval of the District, the associated property tax levy, and the members of the Board of Directors â€¢ District will assume ownership and oversight management of the Fire Department â€¢ Fire Department and Volunteer Department will continue the existing level of operations Fire Department will continue to be stationed at the Dannels Fire Station â€¢ District will be funded by a combination of property tax revenues on taxable properties and by payments to the District from the Town General Fund for Fire Department expenses Name of District: Estes Valley Fire Protection District â€¢ Services fire suppression, prevention, and protection, and emergency medical, rescue, extraction, Haz-Mat, and dive-rescue services â€¢ Proposed tax levy: 1.95 mills No new facilities for the District to be constructed at this time â€¢ District does not antic*ate acquisition of new major apparatus in the immediate future â€¢ District encompasses 66.3 square miles, and the Town of Estes Park is wholly within the District â€¢ Population: current estimated year-round population of the District is approximately 10,000 â€¢ Estimates of assessed valuation: estimates of assessed property values for 2009 and 2010 are approximately $265 M and $269 M, respectively â€¢ Expected District revenue to be received in 2011: - $525,000 Â· Estimated initial administrative expenses for 2010: initial indebtedness not to exceed $40,000 â€¢ District will become financially viable in February 2011 after receipt of payment for Fire Department expenses from the Town for 2011 â€¢ District will repay the loans to the Town in accordance with the terms of the specific loan agreements Conclusions DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B SERVICE PLAN FOR THE ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 7 OCTOBER, 2008 PREPARED BY: ESTES VALLEY FIRE SERVICES TASK FORCE DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B INTRODUCTION The proposed Estes Valley Fire Protection District (the "District") is located in southwestern Larimer County. Geographically, the District is composed of a portion of unincorporated Larimer County and the Town of Estes Park (the "Town"). Currently, fire and rescue services are being provided to the District by the Estes Park Fire Department (the "Fire Department") and the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department (the "Volunteer Department"). The Volunteer Department is an organization of firefighters for the Fire Department. The proposed District is approximately 66 square miles in area and has a population of approximately 10,000. The population of the District significantly increases between May and October of each year by visitors drawn to the natural beauty and recreational opportunities of the Estes Valley and the Rocky Mountain National Park. In 2007 approximately 3 million persons visited-Rocky Mountain National Park. This influx of visitors adds substantially to the need for com petent and comprehensive fire and rescue services in the District. In accordance with Colorado statute (30-1-513.5, C.R.S.), the primary responsibility for fire, emergency and rescue services for the unincorporated portions of the Estes Valley rest with the Larimer County Sheriff's Office. However, the Larimer County Sheriff's Office does not have structural fire fighting capability, nor does it have resources available to provide fire and rescue services to the unincorporated Estes Valley in a timely manner. Historically the Larimer County Sheriffs Office, the Town of Estes Park and the Volunteer Department have had Mutual Aid Agreements giving the Volunteer Department authority to respond to fire and rescue incidents in the unincorporated Estes Valley. More recently these entities have entered into an agreement (IGA dated 17 September 2007) authorizing the Fire Department and the Volunteer Department to respond automatically to fire and rescue incidents within the unincorporated portion of Larimer County in the Estes Valley. This IGA also authorized the Town to recover all expenses incurred for responses beyond the Town boundaries, and it authorized the Town to enter into Service Fee agreements with property owners. The Fire Department, a municipal department of the Town, and the Volunteer Department are funded from a combination of monies provided by the Town, the Service Fee collected by the Town to provide fire and rescue services to the unincorporated Estes Valley, and fund raising activities of the Volunteer Department. In 2005, the Town contributed $420,000 and the Volunteer Department contributed $145,500 from grants and $35,800 through fund raising for operation of the Fire Department and the Volunteer Department. In 2008, to date, the Town has committed $921,000 from the Town General Fund to the Fire Department and the optional Service Fee program has raised an additional $175,000. Given the demands for fire fighting and training, the firefighters of the Volunteer Department should not be expected to continue to perform significant fund raising activities. The requirement for revenues for the Fire Department from the Town's general fund has been increasing significantly in recent years and contributions to the Volunteer Department have been decreasing. DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B 2 DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B Also, the Volunteer Department continues to experience substantial growth in the number of responses, and the vehicles and apparatus should be replaced at an accelerated rate due to age and obsolescence in order to conform to Insurance Services Office (ISO) and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards, and administrative costs of the Fire Department continue to rise. The Service Fee was implemented in 2008 to help defray costs for responses beyond the Town boundaries into the unincorporated Estes Valley. Increased development in the Town and the District has led to the Volunteer Department straining to meet the demand for fire and rescue services protection. Dependence on voluntary contributions from -- residents of the unincorporated Estes Valley does not ensure an equitable allocation of the costs of fire protection among the benefitted properties, nor does it permit long range planning for equipment maintenance and replacement. The increases in firefighter training and in emergency calls is creating risks of delayed response, as well as placing significant hardship on the volunteers and their families, businesses and employers. Recruitment of new volunteer firefighters is becoming more difficult due to the increased demands on members of the Volunteer Depa rtment. Continued population growth-will increase these risks. The property owners in the unincorporated portions of the Estes Valley pay no property taxes for operations of the Fire Department or the Volunteer Department, They can not vote for Trustees of the Town, and the Fire Department is a Town municipal department. For these reasons the property owners and residents of the unincorporated sections of the Estes Valley have no voice concerning the level of fire and rescue services, even though many members of the Volunteer Department reside in the Valley, and they respond to all fire and rescue calls equally. Historically, fire and rescue services in Colorado outside of the major cities (Denver, Colorado Springs, Aurora, Boulder, et al.) are provided by fire protection districts funded by revenues from ad valorem property tax. The unincorporated portions of Larimer County, to be included in the proposed District, are the only developed portions of Larimer County not currently funding fire services through ad valorem property taxes or fixed-fee donations. All other developed sections of Larimer County receive their fire services through entities funded by ad valorem property taxes, fixed-fee donations, or a combination of tax supported city and fire district funding such as for Fort Collins and surrounding areas (Poudre Valley Fire Authority), and surrounding of Loveland (Loveland Rural Fire Protection District). Recognizing the need for a more equitable and consistent method of funding the Fire Department, Estes Valley residents, in 2004 and again in 2006, introduced initiatives to establish fire protection districts in the Estes Valley. The eligible voters did not approve either of these initiatives, however the need still exists. In order to continue to provide competent and com prehensive fire and rescue services to the District, additional and reliable revenue sources must be established. It is desirable and advantageous to eliminate the optional Service Fee, to eliminate the need for firefighter participation in fund raising activities, and to establish a method of tax-based funding for the Fire Department and the Volunteer Department that would be shared both by the property owners throughout the Valley and by the Town Government. DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B 3 DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B In early 2008, the Town of Estes Park appointed eleven Estes Valley residents to a task force, the Estes Valley Fire Services Task Force. The objective of the task force was to develop a fair and equitable plan for continued funding of the Fire Department so that it could continue to serve all Estes Valley residents equally. After several months of study and consideration of numerous options and citizen input, the task force recommended the establishment of a single, inclusive fire protection district serving the Estes Valley including the town. Further, the recommendation included shared funding through a combination of low ad valorem taxes on all taxable properties in the District and a part of the sales tax revenues collected by the Town. This plan should be implemented as soon as practical, beginning with submitting to the eligible electort the question of formation of a fire protection district along with all necessary ad valorem property tax mill levy approvals and election of Directors at a special election in November 2009. The proposed Fire Protection District will accomplish the following: 1. Assure continued fire and rescue servicesÂ· uniformly and throughout the Town and the Estes Valley, 2. Assure continued fire and rescue services to all residents and visitors without the possibility of property owners or visitors being assessed actual expenses for fire and rescue responses, 3. Provide reliable and predictable resources for the continued operation and growth of the Estes Park Fire Department and the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department, 4. Help to maintain the current ISO ratings and provide resources necessary for possible improvements of those ratings for the properties within the District, 5. Provide long-range funding for additional fire fighting and rescue apparatus and for facilities, and 6. Allow all eligible electors within the District (residents, and registered Colorado voters owning taxable property within the District, and their spouses) to vote for approval of the District, the associated property tax levy, and the members of the Board of Directors who will administer the District. DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B 4 DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B DISTRICT OPERATIONAL PLAN OVERVIEW The District will assume ownership and oversight management of the Fire Department from the Town. The Fire Department and the Volunteer Department will continue the existing level of operations and will continue to be stationed at the Dannels Fire Station which will be leased to the District by the Town. The District will be funded by a combination of property tax revenues on taxable properties in the District, and by payments to the District from the Town General Fund for Fire Department expenses. NAME OF THE DISTRICT The proposed fire protection district will be named the Estes Valley Fire Protection District, herein referred to as the "District". DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED SERVICES The principal services to be provided by the Fire Department and the Volunteer Department will continue to be fire suppression, prevention, and protection, and emergency medical, rescue, extraction, Haz- Mat, and dive-rescue services within the boundaries of the District. The District will encourage fire mitigation and suppression, defensible zones, and wildfire prevention within the District, and will provide relevant information to property owners within the District. FINANCIAL PLAN The proposed tax levy for the District is 1.95 mills. Attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and incorporated herein, are the first year and second year financial plans for services to be provided by the District. After voter approval and court certification of the District in 2009, the District will not receive ad valorem property tax revenues until during the second quarter of calendar year 2011. The Distrid will be unable to assume financial responsibility for the Fire Department until 2011, approximately 15 to 18 months following voter approval of the District. Therefore, the financial plan shown herein is a two year plan, for 2010 and 2011. FACILITIES TO BE CONSTRUCTED No new facilities for the District will be constructed at this time. Thus no engineering or architectural services or plans are submitted with this service plan. It is contemplated that the District shall, in the future, consider the construction of additional facilities at locations within the District based on service needs and the DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B 5 DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B distances from the Dannels Fire Station which is within the Town of Estes Park. Such facilities would be located so as to minimize fire and rescue services response times to outlying properties within the District. MAP AND BOUNDARIES The boundaries of the District encompass a 66.3 square mile area approaching or bounded by Rocky Mountain National Park on the west, Allenspark Fire Protection District on the south, Big Elk Volunteer Fire Department and the Pinewood Springs Fire Protection District on the southeast, United States Government property (Arapaho / Roosevelt National Forest) on the east, Loveland Rural Fire Protection District on the northeast, and the Glen Haven Volunteer Fire Departnent on the north. The Town of Estes Park covers an area of approximately 6 square miles wholly within the District. A map of the District and the legal description of the District are attached hereto as "Exhibit B" and " Exhibit C," and are incorporated herein by reference.-- - ESTIMATE OF POPULATION The current estimated year round population of the District is approximately 10,000. The population of the Estes Valley, as determined by the U.S. Census in 2000, was 8,889. The population of the Town in 2005, as determined by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs, was 5,720 which was an increase of 307 over the year 2000 population. This population increases significantly during the summer vacation season (May through October) of each year, and with the seasonal influx of property owners visiting their vacation properties. ESTIMATE OF ASSESSED PROPERTY VALUES The estimates of assessed property values for the District for 2008, 2009, and 2010 are approximately $273,000,000, $265,000,000 and $269,000,000, respectively. The first year that property taxes can be collected by the County Assessor for the District will be based on valuations of 2010, payable in 2011. DESCRIPTION OF ESTIMATED COST OF LEGAL SERVICES, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INITIAL PROPOSED INDEBTEDNESS AND OTHER MAJOR EXPENSES The District contemplates an initial indebtedness of TBD, included in Exhibit A, to provide for organizational expenses, legal services and basic operational and administrative expenses for the District . The intergovernmental agreements between the Town and the District, attached hereto, establish the following financial conditions for startup of the District: DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B 6 DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B 1. The Town will loan funds to the District for legal and administrative expenses from the time of court certification of the District, in 2009, until such time as tax revenues are available to the Distrid in 2011. 2. Beginning in 2011 the Town will make payments to the District for support of the Fire Department and the Volunteer Fire Department totaling an amount based on a fixed percentage of sales tax revenues collected by the Town for each calendar year. 3. Beginning with the payments from the Town and the receipt of tax revenues, estimated to substantially begin in the second quarter of 2011, the District will have adequate funds available to meet all obligations for operations of the Fire Department and the Volunteer Department as well as District legal and administrative expenses. 4. The District will repay the loans to-the-Town in accordance with the terms of the specific loan agreements. EQUIPMENT TO BE ACQUIRED The District does not anticipate the acquisition of new fire equipment or other apparatus in the immediate futu re. In order to meet futu re fire and rescue service needs throughout the District, it is contemplated that the District shall, in the future acquire fire protection and rescue services equipment and apparatus to be stationed in the District facilities. RELATIONSHIPS WITH ADJACENT DISTRICTS AND DEPARTMENTS It is the intent of the proposed District to provide services to properties throughout the Estes Valley and - extending to the adjacent fire protection districts and fire departments. It is also the intent of the District to establish and maintain mutually satisfactory common boundaries with the adjacent districts and departments. In the event that an adjacent district or department shows interest in changes in the common boundaries or combining of services, the District may enter good faith discussions with that district or department. Because the District has ongoing financial agreements with the Town of Estes Park through an IGA, the Town must be a third party to any such discussions. CONCLUSION The organization of the Estes Valley Fire Protection District should be approved for the following reasons: 1. There is sufficient need for continuing operations of the Fire Department as evidenced by the existence of the Estes Park Fire Department for over 101 years. The growing population of DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B 7 DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B approximately 10,000 and the continuing commercial and residential growth demonstrates a continuing and growing need for services. 2. Continuation of dependence on the Town as the primary and dominantsource of revenues for fire and rescue services throughout the Estes Valley is placing an increasingly troublesome burden on the Town's resources. The existing fire and rescue services must have a potentially growing and more consistent source of revenues that is based on resources of all of the Estes Valley. Without the formation of the District, available funding in the futurd will become insufficient to assure the continuation of the level of protections and services now provided. 3. With a more fair and equitable combination of revenue sources, the Fire Department and the Volunteer department will be better situated to serve the future requirements of the District. -, 4. The current and projected assessed. valuations of the properties within the District are sufficient and the sales tax receipts of the Town are sufficient that together, even with expected regressions in 2009, the modest tax levy and a small portion of the sales tax revenues in combination will be sufficient to meet the continuing revenue needs of the Fire Department. Additionally the District will have sufficient funds from property taxes to repay, within a few years, the loans for initial operations. 5. The proposed mill levy is the lowest for fire protection and rescue services in Larimer County. EXHIBITS AND ATTACHMENTS EXHIBIT A Financial Plan EXHIBIT B Map of the Proposed District EXHIBIT C Legal Description of the Boundaries of the Proposed District EXHIBIT D Intergovernmental Agreement for the Transition Period between the Town of Estes Park and the Estes Valley Fire Protection District EXHIBIT E Intergovernmental Agreement for Continuing Operations between the Town of Estes Park and the Estes Valley Fire Protection District EXHIBIT F Intergovernmental Agreement between Larimer County and the Estes Valley Fire Protection District DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B 8 DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B EXHIBIT A FINANCIAL PLAN YEAR 2010 ESTIMATED BUDGET FOR ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT TABLE A-1,2010 DISTRICT REVENUE item revenue general property taxes $0 specific ownership taxes $0 Town of Estes Park contribution to fire $0 department interest $0 miscellaneous income $0 borrowed funds $40,000 total revenues $40,000 TABLE A-2, 2010 DISTRICT EXPENDITURES item expenditures Fire Department expenditures for full year $O Fire Protection District overhead & internal $30,830 operations (see detailed budget) District contingencies & reserves * $9,170 County Assessor property tax colledion fee, $0 2% (charged in 2010 for 2009 taxes) total expenditures $40,000 * Reserves will be necessary for funding of essential expenses in January and February of 2011 prior to the District becoming financially viable. DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B 9 DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B YEAR 2010 TABLE A-3, DISTRICT OVERHEAD AND INTERNAL OPERATIONS EXPENSES item expenses personnel; directors & staff $5,580 special district membership fees $1,700 legal fees $5,000 insurance $5,000 accounting & audits $5,000 office supplies $500 fire education materials - $0 office rental & utilities $0 postage & printing $300 bank & miscellaneous fees $250 first year office equipment & startup expenses $7,500 overhead contingencies $0 payment on loans, with interest $0 total expenses $30,830 DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B 10 DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B YEAR 2011 ESTIMATED BUDG ET FOR ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT TABLE A-4, 2011 DISTRICT REVENUE item revenue general property taxes $525,200 specific ownership taxes $0 Town of Estes Park contribution to fire $549,700 department interest $0 miscellaneous income $0 borrowed funds $0 total revenues $1,074,900 TABLE A-5, 2011 DISTRICT EXPENDITURES item expenditures Fire Department expenditures for full year $911,800 - (see detail budget; page 12) - Fire Protection District overhead & internal $69,500 operations (see detailed budget; page 13) District contingencies & reserves $83,100 County Assessor property tax collection fee, $10,500 2% (charged in 2011 for 2010 taxes) total expenditures $1,074,900 DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B 11 DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B YEAR 2011 TABLE A-6, DISTRICT OVERHEAD AND INTERNAL OPERATIONS EXPENDITURES item expenditures personnel; directors & staff $9,240 special district membership fees $1,700 legal fees $15,000 insurance $10,000 accounting & audits $7,500 office supplies , $800 fire education materials $1,500 office rental & utilities $0 postage & printing $2,500 bank & miscellaneous fees $250 overhead contingencies $7,010 payment on loans, with interest $14,000 total expenditures $69,500 DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B 12 DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B YEAR 2011 TABLE A-7, FIRE DEPARTM ENT OPERATIONS EXPENDITURES item expenditures personnel; salaried staff $293,000 personnel; part-time staff $71,000 incentives for volunteer firefighters $42,000 operations & maintenance $190,000 capital equipment & capital reserves $166,900 firefighter's pension $97,100 department / firefighter equipment funds $51,799 lease of Dannels Fire Station $ 1 total expenditures $911,800 EXHIBIT B MAP OF THE PROPOSED DISTRICT - The map in the figure on the next page shows the boundaries of the District as a red line following the perimeter of the District and it shows major roads and highways in the District. It also shows the survey sections listed in the legal description. Lands within the Rocky Mountain National Park are shown lightly colored. DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B 13 DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B 1 5 9 . 2 1% 0 4 1- 6 02 3 * 21 _ W : 1/11 E /:15 3 n 200~ LIlli )0 3 8 1 10 5 0 0 w> * 3 6 9 ED o W 4. 8 .1 - 6 2 0 0 o R -1 .C 2 - 44 2 v (Â£> : \- 3 0 2 n r 1 3 07 3 8 W 1 4 11&# IN~ 0 O 0 3 0 / Ul R .0 5 00 3 8 =3 0 0 O = 1 Â¢6 .44 - 2 CL 6.-' 2 8 g o 6 k 9 6 0 33/ Â· 0 W CO 0 0 1 25 .4- 44 >- O 0 g g f DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B 14 DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B EXHIBIT C LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED DISTRICT The proposed District includes all of the properties located within Larimer County, Colorado and bounded as described below: Beginning at the Northwest corner of the Southeast quarter-quarter section of Section 6, Township 5 North, Range 72 West of the 6th P. M., thence East to the Northeast corner of the second quarter-quarter section of Section 4, Township 5 North, Range 72 West, thence North to the Northwest corner of the Southeast quarter section of said Section 4, thence East along the Center section line to the Northeast corner of the Southeast quarter section, Section 1, Township 5 North, Range 72 West, thence South along the East section line, Range 72 West to the Southeast corner of Section 36, Township 5 North, Range 72 West, thence East along the North section line to the Northeast corner of Section 1, Township 4 North, Range 72 West, thence South along the East section line, Range 72 West, to the Southeast corner of Section 13, Township 4 North, Range 72 West, thence West along the South section lines to the Southwest corner of Section 13, Township 4 North, Range 72 West, thence North along the West section line of said section to the Southeast Corner of Section 11, Township 4 North, Range 72 West, thence west along the South section line of said Sedion 11 and Section 10, Township 4 North, Range 72 West, to the East Boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park; thence along the East boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park to the point of beginning. EXHIBIT D INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK AND THE ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT (See attachment) EXHIBIT E INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR CONTINUING OPERATIONS BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK AND THE ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT (See Attachment) EXHIBIT F INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY AND THE ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT (Draft not available) DRAFT - SERVICE PLAN - REV B 15