The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2008-11-252 It Flce ,i Prepared 11/17/08 TOVA or ESTES PARIÂ© 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, November 25,2008 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 November 11, 2008 and Town Board Study Session dated November 11, 2008. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, November 6,2008. CVB 1. 2008-2009 Rooftop Rodeo Committee Appointments. Senior Center 1. Catering for All Occasions 2009 Food Services Contract. B. Utilities, November 13, 2008. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission, October 21, 2008 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority, October 22, 2008 and October 28, 2008 (acknowledgement only). 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. 3rd QUARTER SALES TAX REPORT. Finance Officer McFarland. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. I . . *0 f ./ 3. LIQUOR ITEMS 1. LIQUOR LICENSING: TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP - FROM GREAT DIVIDE RESTAURANT CORP. dba HUNTERS CHOP HOUSE TO HESS ENTERPRISES INC. dba HUNTERS CHOP HOUSE, 1690 BIG THOMPSON AVE., HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS 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. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 1. Lots 2 and 3, Stone Bridge Estates Subdivision, located in Section 2, Township 4 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Town of Estes Park, Colorado, Rock Castle Development Co./Applicant. 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. VESTING PERIOD EXTENSION 1. Streamside on Fall River Development Plan 05-05, Lot 1 of Streamside , Amended Plat, Curt Thompson/Applicant. Continued to the December 9,2008 meeting. 5. ACTION ITEMS: 1. PUBLIC HEARING - BIG BEAR ESTATES ANNEXATION - RESOLUTION #20-08 & ORDINANCE #16-08 - PUBLIC HEARING. Director Joseph Quasi-Judicial Hearing - decisions made must be based on the testimony and information presented at the hearing. 4 â€¢ Mayor - Open Public Hearing â€¢ Staff Report â€¢ Town Attorney White read Resolution #20-08 and Ordinance #16-08. â€¢ Public Testimony â€¢ Mayor - Close Public Hearing â€¢ Motion to Approve/Deny. 2. PUBLIC HEARING - 2009 BUDGET - ADOPTION. Finance Officer McFartand. A. Highway User's Trust Fund. B. Resolution #21-08 - Setting the Mill Levy. C. Resolution #22-08 - Adopting the 2008 Budget. D. Resolution #23-08 - Appropriating Sums of Money. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. . 3. ESTES PARK LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT 2009 OPERATING PLAN. Town Administrator Halburnt. 4. OPEN SPACE STUDY. Director Joseph. 5. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 6. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: 24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. - For discussion of a personnel matter; not involving any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees. Motion: I move the Town Board go into Executive Session- For the purpose of discussing a personnel matter; not involving any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees., under C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(f). 7. TOWN ADMINSTRATOR CONTRACT. Mayor Pinkham. 8. ADJOURN. MEETING CANCELLATION NOTICE: The Town Board meeting scheduled December 23,2008 has been cancelled. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. AfFN-N 71 Nuli.Ely, STUDY SESSION TOWN BOARD Tuesday, November 25,2008 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Room 202/203 170 MacGregor Ave. AGENDA 1. Fire District. 2. Miscellaneous. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. Town Board Meeting, November 25, 2008 (#16) Good evening, Being as how it's Thanksgiving, I will take this time to thank the members ofthis board for their service and dedication to our town. I also thank my fellow Americans, both past and present, who have established and defended a country that allows one of its citizens to stand here and criticize a majority tradition. You should know that my criticism of the Pledge is not entirely directed toward you personally but is also directed to the entire community that you represent. 4/Eee There was a wealthy man with many children who a,e equally smart and healthy. Picking at random, one of them was given every advantage; nannies, private schools, beautiful rooms, the best food and clothing, and after graduating from a renowned university, was given a new home and an executive position in the family business. A few of the children were treated modestly; adequate food and clothing, public schools, an average home and a laborers position in the family business. The rest were abused, deprived of any affection and then thrown out on the street where some of them died miserably before adulthood. When the children asked their father why, he explained that even though he doesn't show it, he loves them all equally and has a plan for them, and that he works in mysterious ways, and that they should be thankful for what they have, and that if they obey and worship him they will get their just rewards when they die. This Thursday, the chosen one will sit at a sumptuous feast and give thanks for the many blessings bestowed by the father when in fact his good fortune was just dumb luck. The next few will give thanks for what they have, knowing that it could have been worse and might get better, while the last will be thankful for having survived another day and for the promise of finally having what the older sibling will always enjoy; thus proving that a father can be cruel and still be worshiped. You may think the father in this parable is God, but instead it is the Israelites who, out of necessity, invented God to explain the unfair way things were, and to maintain social order. Theirs was a nation under God because the ruling king and clergy said it was and then claimed God's authority and highest blessing. America was founded on a different principle; one of liberty and freedom and equality. When the United States congress added 'under God' to the Pledge they re-established the old order which is unacceptable and un-American and is why I again ask that you be on the right side of history and stop reciting the 'under God' Pledge at our town board meetings. Thank you again, )0 4.- David Habecker bt- Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 11, 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 11th day of November, 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 Jerry Miller Also Present: Greg White, Town Attorney Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: Trustee Richard Homeier In recognition of Veteran's Day, Mayor Pinkham requested a moment of silence for those that have served our country. Following a moment of silence, 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. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETIRING ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY COMMISSIONERS. Mayor Pinkham presented Gerry Swank a Resolution of Respect recognizing his seventeen years of service to the community as an Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority. Mayor Pinkham presented Steve Lange on behalf of Paula Steige a Resolution of Respect recognizing her twelve years of service to the community as an Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority. PUBLIC COMMENT Jean Weaver/Town citizen stated Estes Park has the second oldest recycling center in the state. The center has been in operation since 1976. The center is dangerous and dirty. She would like to see a new facility that would accept cardboard and a facility Estes Park can be proud of. Mayor Pinkham stated the Town recognizes the need to continue discussions with the County and the private industry to address the issue. David Habecker/Town citizen stated this forum can not be used to promote religion. He noted one of the basic freedoms Americans have is the freedom from coercion, therefore, he requested the Board stop reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Jim Martinsen/Town citizen and League of Woman Voters representative expressed his disappointment that funds were not allocated in the proposed 2009 budget for a new recycling center. He requested a joint task force, including the Town, County and citizens, be formed to develop a comprehensive recycling program and a new facility. He stated the Town should pass an ordinance requiring curb-side recycling and implement a cardboard recycling program for the downtown businesses. Irene Little/Co-Chair for the League of Woman Voters Recycling Committee stated a letter of support was delivered to each of the Trustees expressing overwhelming Board of Trustees - November 11, 2008 - Page 2 support for a new recycling center. She commented the Town of Estes Park should have a recycling center comparable to the surrounding communities. Styrofoam continues to be a concern in our community and should be banned from commercial businesses in the community. She stated an new recycling guide has been prepared by the League and is available at the Library. Al Renner/Town citizen and downtown business owner read a statement signed by approximately 25 downtown business owners requesting the rejuvenation of the downtown benches and leaving the lights on the downtown trees during the evening from Mid May through Mid September. He stated spending a little money to enhance the experience would go along way. Annie Kidwell/Town citizen requested recycling bins next to each trash can downtown to make recycling easier for the visitors. BOARD COMMENTS Trustee Ericson stated 91% of the.180,000 registered voters in Larimer County cast a ballot in the recent General Election on November 4, 2008. He stated the Utility Committee meeting this month will tour the newly updated Mary's Lake Substation. He commented it was a pleasure to serve with both Gerry Swank and Paula Steige on the EPURA Board. Mayor Pinkham squelched the recent rumor that a proposed one-way of Elkhorn Avenue was the Mayor's idea and had already been approved. He stated staff has had discussions on the possibility of improving the downtown traffic flow; however, a plan has not been drafted and approved by the Town Board. Public input would be gathered prior to an consideration by the Board. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated October 28, 2008, Town Board Budget Study Session dated October 17, 2008 and October 24,2008. A. Bills. B. Committee Minutes - None. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Ericson) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 1. REAPPOINTMENT OF SARAH WALSH AND APPOINTMENT OF KAY KIRKMAN TO THE ESTES VALLEY PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT BOARD, 4-YR. TERM, DECEMBER 2012. Mayor Pinkham reviewed the backgrounds for the Library Board appointees. It was moved and seconded (BlackhursVEisenlauer) to approve the appointments of Sarah Walsh and Kay Kirkman to the Estes Valley Public Library District Board for 4-year terms expiring December 2012, and it passed unanimously. 2. RESOLUTION #19-08 APPOINTMENT OF THE LOCAL MARKETING BOARD. On November 4,2008 the electorate approved Issue 5D for the formation of the Local Marketing District; and therefore, pursuant to the IGA between the Town and Larimer County, five of the seven Board members are to be appointed by the Town. The attached Resolution would appoint the following members: Board of Trustees - November 11, 2008 - Page 3 Kathy Palmeri - 1 year Elizabeth Blanchard - 2 years Ken Larson - 2 years Cory Blackman - 3 years Scott Webermeier - 4 years Terms for each member were selected by the LMD Advisory Committee and are being recommended to the Town Board for consideration. Larimer County will appoint the remaining two members of the Board at an upcoming meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. It was moved and seconded (Miller/Blackhurst) to approve the Local Marketing District Board appointments as outlined above, and it passed unanimously. 3. PUBLIC HEARING - 2009 BUDGET. Finance Officer McFarland presented the proposed 2009 budget and reviewed changes and/or corrections made after the four budget study sessions held in October. The barn complex has been removed from the Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF), and therefore, decreased the transfer from the General Fund to the CRF by $385,000. The $1 million transfer proposed for the barn complex from Catastrophic Loss Fund (CLF) to the CRF would remain. The SOPA commitment of $217,125 reported as an expense during the budget study sessions has been properly accounted for as a footnote labeled a restricted/reserved fund balance. The purchase of the 2008 fire truck has been removed from the Vehicle Replacement Fund (VRF) and purchased from the Fire Services Fund as originally approved. The Mayor's contingency fund has been moved from the 101-9000 account to the Legislative 101-1100. He stated information from several investment sources has resulted in a decrease estimate on interest income across all accounts, totaling approximately $330,000 in 2009. Personnel costs have been adjusted as a result of the annual Compensation Study and final premium costs have been received for health and dental insurance. The estimated fund balance for 2009 has decreased from $3.5 million to $3.4 million; however, the fund balance remains at 30% and expenses at $31.7 million. Water Department charts have been revised to reflect a fund balance decrease because of an unexpected sewer tap cost of $330,000 for the improvements at the Mary's Lake Water Treatment Plant for 2008; however, fund balance ratios continue to meet the water loan requirements. Transfers from the General Fund have decreased as special revenue funds are estimated to generate 51% of their operating budget, up from 35% in 2008. The new health insurance plan removes the need to internalize the revenues and costs, and therefore, the costs would not appear in the Medical Fund. Mayor Pinkham questioned whether staff has developed a plan to address a potential decline in sales tax in 2009. He stated staff should develop a range for sales tax categories (lodging, retail, restaurant, etc.) with red, yellow and green levels. Town Administrator Halburnt stated staff has budgeted flat for 2009 based on the revised 2008 budget of $7.2 million. Department heads have identified items that can be delayed and purchased in the fourth quarter of 2009. The Board thanked staff for the improved process and for taking the time to answer questions. Mayor Pinkham suggested the Board engage the public earlier in the process during next year's budget study sessions. Patrick Cipolla/Town citizen stated the Town should forego merit and bonus pay during these economic times. Board of Trustees - November 11, 2008 - Page 4 David Habecker/Town citizen questioned if the new Public Information Officer was approved. He stated concern with the increased operational costs of the Building Department and the associated decrease in revenue. He questioned if other departments and districts pay the Town for dispatch services. He stated concern with wage creep with the increase cost of medical insurance. , All the fund balances across all departments should be kept to a minimum. He commented the state of the economy is an unknown; however, with tfie infusion of Federal money the resulting inflation would reduce the worth of the Town's cash reserves. He stated the Town should take advantage of the situation and spend as much as the Town can borrow and repay the loan with cheaper dollars in the future. This would show our Town citizens and visitor signs of optimism not pessimism. Gretchen Middledorf/Town citizen requested the Town continue to allocate funds for the Bond Park campfire sing-alongs. Mayor Pinkham stated the Board intends to review the capital improvement plan during the first quarter of 2009 and determine how to move forward with projects. The Board is trying to be frugal and meet the needs of our customers, infrastructure and safety for the citizens. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. â€¢ The Estes Park Local Marketing District would hold their first meeting on November 18th in room 130 at 3:00 p.m. to address an operating plan, a resolution to collect the 2% tax, elect officers, budget discussions and a transition plan. Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. William C. Pinkham, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 11, 2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in Rooms Room 130 in said Town of Estes Park on the 11 th day of November, 2008. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Ericson, Homeier, Levine and Miller Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk and Town Clerk Williamson Absent None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. Planner Shirk stated the Planning Department receives requests for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) approximately four to six times a year. Most requests come from those building larger homes that would like a guest house. In June 2006, the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment (EVBOA) reviewed an appeal to a staff decision regarding an ADU, as identified by staff. The applicant stated the design was not an ADU, but only a "wet bar." Staff disagreed because the design resulted in living space that could stand- alone as a separate household (cooking, bathing, sleeping facilities). The EVBOA agreed with staffs assessment, and directed staff to correct the "grey area" in the code as to the definition of a second dwelling. To research this issue, staff has: â€¢ Attended a Colorado APA sponsored training session; â€¢ Sponsored a session at the Mountain Resort Town Planners Conference; â€¢ Sent a request to the Colorado APA email "list serve" (received 27 responses from around the state); â€¢ Discussed with the building department, utility providers, Larimer County Health Department, and State Division of Water Resources; â€¢ Internet research (AARP, various municipalities); â€¢ Held several "focus group" discussions with local builders, designers, realtors, and Homeowners Associations; and, â€¢ Scheduled meetings with the Estes Park Housing Authority, Sunrise Rotary and League of Women's Voters. Planner Shirk stated the previous land use code allowed ADUs. During the adoption of the current Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) ADUs were allowed as long as the minimum lot size was exceeded by one third, i.e. 1.33 acres for a 1 acre zoning; integrated within the main dwelling; could not be rented; did not require architectural standards; and could be prohibited by neighborhood covenants. This was a compromise at the time for the County which did not allow ADUs. The County has changed its philosophy on this issue and does allow ADUs that are attached in any zoning district, any size and the units can not be rented separately from the principle dwelling. Staff research found the following common elements in ADU ordinances: â€¢ Owner occupancy required in one unit. â€¢ Long-term rentals usually allowed in one of the units, but not both. â€¢ Most allow ADU's as attached or detached. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - November 11, 2008 - Page 2 â€¢ Normal setbacks apply. â€¢ Only one ADU per lot. â€¢ Parking requirement. â€¢ Maximum size limit. â€¢ Orientation of entrance. â€¢ Design standards. In addition, ADU's can provide several benefits and serve many purposes: â€¢ Household sizes are getting smaller (average size in Estes Park is 2.2 persons, below the national average of 2.9). ADUs can help fill this niche in the housing market. â€¢ ADUs are a good way to provide seasonal employee housing dispersed throughout the community. â€¢ Provide housing near employment (reduce number of employees driving up from "the valley"). â€¢ Help reduce regulatory barriers that limit affordable housing opportunities. â€¢ Assist older homeowners in maintaining their independence by providing additional income to offset property taxes and the costs of home maintenance and repair. â€¢ Allow for "mother-in-law" suites (or, conversely, allow younger generation to move in with older generation). â€¢ Allow on-site property caretaker for second-home owners. â€¢ Provide guest quarters. â€¢ Implement policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan including growth management, housing issues and economic vitality. Staff has proposed ADUs be allowed in the single-family zoning districts; could be detached in zoning districts "E-1", "RE" and "RE-1"; could be rented separately, but not for less than 90 days; maximum size would be 49% of main dwelling, up to 1,000 square feet; architectural and site design standards would apply; a deed restriction would be required; and neighborhood covenants could prohibit ADUs. Planner Shirk stated staff has meet with focus groups including architects, builders and HOAs. Opposition to the proposed regulation has been heard from homeowners that are concerned with the potential change of character to the single-family neighborhoods. Planning Commission held a public hearing at their September meeting and this issue was continued. Once the Planning Commission makes a recommendation the item would move forward to the Town Board and the Board of County Commissioners for final approval. Discussion and questions followed: Are there density concerns; what problem is the Town trying to solve; if promoted correctly it could be beneficial for the community; the development code adopted in 2000 created urban sprawl and the proposed code change may ease the housing issues; staff should consider a special review process for ADUs; would the regulation address location on the property; and the character of the neighborhood should be a concern. Staff stated concerns are generally related to short-term rentals. Staff does not envision many property owners taking advantage of the ADU regulations. The regulations would address many issues, including continued growth within the fixed land area of the valley. Planning Commission continues to discuss whether or not the ADUs could be rented and has considered a special review process for all detached ADUs. Planner Shirk stated the proposed code language would require the ADU to be closer to the primary dwelling than the property line and require similar architecture. The current cdde restriction of eight unrelated individuals per household would remain for a property containing an ADU and the number of vehicles per lot would not increase. Staff has not received input from the County Commissioners to date. Attorney White commented that a considerable number of lots within the valley would not be eligible for an ADU as the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - November 11, 2008 - Page 3 lots are nonconforming as to lot size. Staff has recommended higher standards for detached ADUs Trustee Miller stated the ADUs encourage affordable housing and any legal lot should have the opportunity to have an ADU. He stated the approval of an ADU should be related to design and lot layout rather than lot size. VACATION RENTALS. Director Joseph reviewed past Town Board discussions in 2007 related to vacation rentals. The Town Board recommended staff present modifications to the regulations to allow vacation homes in all single-family zoning districts as a use-by-right. The current draft clarifies the distinction between vacation homes and B&Bs. A vacation home allows the rental to one party at a time with no services provided to the guests. The proposed code amendments clarify the standards and the terminology. The previous Board rejected the recommendation to set a minimum night stay for vacation homes and was not included in the draft. Trustee Miller questioned the format of the proposed amendments. He suggested the codes related to vacation homes be separated from the B&B regulations. Mayor ProTem Levine agreed. Trustee Blackhurst questioned why vacation homes are not allowed in the commercial zoning district and restricted to the upper level. Director Joseph stated previous direction was to limit commercial land to commercial uses. The Board requested staff review the potential for additional housing units in the commercial zoning district. The permitting of all B&Bs and vacation homes within the valley would allow staff the ability to track the use and address grandfathering concerns in the future. Trustee Blackhurst raised concerns over the current licensing requirements for vacation homes and the ability of large groups of vacation homes to operate under one license. He also raised concerns with regulations in the draft that are not enforceable and stated these types of regulations should not be included. Discussion followed related to B&Bs: The current regulations relegate the use to commercial properties and multi-family zoning district; and therefore, the true definition of a B&B does not really exist in Estes Park; the limit of eight guests in a B&B is associated with the definition set by the state; the definition of accessory dwelling units for a B&B is needed if you do not allow them in residential zoning district; B&Bs and vacation rentals are allowed one wall mounted sign; a sign in a residential neighborhood changes the character of the single-family neighborhood. A new draft of the proposed amendments would be presented to the Planning Commission at their next meeting. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:05 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 6,2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 6th day of November 2008. Committee: Chair Levine, Trustees Eisenlauer and Miller Attending: Chair Levine, Trustees Eisenlauer and Miller Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Directors Pickering, Kilsdonk and Joseph, Managers Marsh and Mitchell, Special Events Coordinator Button and Deputy Clerk Deats Absent Manager Winslow Chair Levine called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. None CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU. 2009 ROOFTOP RODEO COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP AND OFFICERS - REQUEST APPROVAL. The Rodeo Committee Membership and Officers are approved by the Town Board twice a year to allow individuals who have met all requirements to become official members of the committee. Staff has provided a complete 2008-2009 membership listing with the following members being elected as officers: Howell Wright President Joyce Kitchen Vice President Michelle Purdy Secretary Steve Juedes Treasurer/Comptroller These individuals served as officers last year and provided the leadership necessary to produce an outstanding rodeo that was recognized by the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association (PRCA) as one of the top five small rodeos in the nation and nominated for the honor of best small rodeo of the year for 2008. In addition, John Jaros, Terry Larsen, and Michael Therrien have completed all requirements and are being recommended for membership. The Committee continues to see interest with people joining as interns as well as wanting to become active members. The Committee recommends approval of the 2009 Rooftop Rodeo Committee Membership and Officers. LABOR DAY CRAFTS FAIR - DISCUSSION Jane Schoen, representing Estes Valley Sunrise Rotary, informed the Committee that since the October Community Development meeting, the Club has made a decision to support the sponsorship of the Labor Day Arts and Crafts Show, which was previously sponsored by the Volunteer Fire Department and discontinued in 2007. By resurrecting the event, the Club sees an opportunity to raise over $28,000 annually for local non- profits and programs and estimates that increasing the size of the event and moving it to Stanley Fairgrounds could potentially double its fundraising potential. She stated that Sunrise Rotary conducted an informal survey of 59 businesses and found 5% of the respondents opposed to bringing the event back to Bond Park, with most of the opposition related to parking issues and the inability of local merchants to participate in the event. She stated that it is unclear whether the decline in sales tax revenue over RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development - November 6,2008 - Page 2 the past six years is directly related to Arts and Crafts events in Bond Park or the result of a bigger issue related to the quality, variety, and price of items in downtown shops. Town Administrator Halburnt applauded Sunrise Rotary's commitment to talk with business owners saying it is important for the Committee to hear comments from local merchants, and said that events designed to bring people to the area are a good thing since competition for retail sales keeps increasing. She informed the Committee that since the October meeting, an outside party contacted Special Events staff and indicated a desire to take back the crafts fair on behalf of the Volunteer Fire Department. Ms. Schoen said that when contacted by Sunrise Rotary, the Volunteer Fire Department expressed no interest in resuming sponsorship of the event, and questioned their ability to successfully bring the show back. Dir. Pickering equated the approval of arts and crafts shows in Bond Park to the crafting of economic policy which necessitates looking into the future to ensure protection of the local retail sector and the economy of downtown for the next twenty years. He said that current economic conditions may make it difficult for small businesses to borrow money in order to survive the winter months and questioned the logic of scheduling of events in Bond Park on three prime weekends providing avenues for leakage from our community when we should be keeping revenue in Town. Dir. Pickering favors special events scheduled during the shoulder season designed to entertain visitors and bring people to Town. Dan Via, owner of the Wild Spirits Gallery at 148 W. Elkhorn Avenue, realizes the benefit of arts and crafts shows as fundraising mechanisms for local non-profits and programs but believes that they do hurt downtown businesses. John Ericson, owner of Serendipity Trading Company at 117 E. Elkhorn Avenue, agreed that there are pros and cons to every event and suggested a formal survey of all local merchants be conducted on the topic. After discussion the Committee recommends a formal survey of local merchants be conducted to provide additional information to the Town Board when making a decision regarding Sunrise Rotary's request to re-establish a Labor Day Arts and Crafts Show in Bond Park. Public input will be sought at the Town Board meeting scheduled for December 9,2008. A Master Plan for Bond Park and its usage will be addressed at a later date. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Marketing Committee â€¢ Media Relations Mgr. Marsh reported that an insert promoting holiday activities in Estes Park will be included in the November 11th edition of the Boulder, Longmont, Greeley, Loveland, Fort Collins, and Cheyenne newspapers and is projected to reach 180,000 Front Range households. MUSEUM/SENIOR CENTER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. FOOD SERVICES CONTRACT - REQUEST APPROVAL. In August 2008, an ad hoc committee was established to examine the Senior Center food services program with the intention of preparing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for food service for 2009. The committee used data related to meal quality and food service expenses to develop an RFP that was advertised in newspapers in Loveland, Longmont, Estes Park, and posted on the Town's website. In addition, staff contacted numerous local vendors, fielded inquiries, and gave tours of the Senior Center to prospective vendors, resulting in the receipt of two proposals, one of which did not meet RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development - November 6,2008 - Page 3 specifications. The remaining proposal was from Catering for All Occasions (CAO), who has been the food service provider at the Senior Center since the privatization of food services on July 15, 2003, for $24,000. Following an interview process and negotiations, staff recommends retaining CAO as the food service provider under a three-year contract, renewable annually, for $22,400 each year. In general, the proposed food services contract with CAO is the same as in prior years with a change from a per meal subsidy to a flat fee for service of $22,400. Should funds not be appropriated for 2009, the Town may terminate this agreement as of December 31, 2008. The Committee recommends approval of the contract with Catering for All Occasions at a cost of $22,400 from account #217-5304-453-22-71 budgeted for 2009. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Museum Monthly Report â€¢ Senior Center Monthly Report COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Community Development Financial â€¢ Monthly Building Permit Summary Dir. Joseph stated that the department is beginning to see some slow down in building projects. There being no further business, Chair Levine adjourned the meeting at 9:15 a.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 13, 2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the UTILITIES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer Cgunty, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 13th day of November, 2008. Committee: Chairman Homeier, Trustees Blackhurst and Ericson Attending: Trustees Blackhurst and Ericson Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Director Goehring, Officer McFarland, Assistant Dir. Mangelsen and Clerk Williamson Absent: Trustee Homeier Chairman Homeier called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. None. LIGHT AND POWER. The improvements at the Mary's Lake Substation have been completed. To official signal the energizing of the new substation the Mayor and Trustees, Town Administrator and Deputy Town Administrator adjourned the meeting to attend a ribbon cutting and tour of the new Mary's Lake Substation. There being no further business, Trustee Blackhurst adjourned the meeting at 8:02 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission October 21, 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, Kitchen, Klink, and Tucker Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Town Attorney White, Public Works Director Zurn, Recording Secretary Thompson, Outgoing Recording Secretary Roederer Absent: Commissioner Grant, Commissioner Hull 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 September 16, 2008. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Klink) to approve the consent agenda, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. 3. UPDATE TO THE ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, APPENDIX TWO, RESOURCE INFORMATION This is a request by Director Joseph to adopt the updated Wildlife Habitat map, which was created by EDAW as part of the 2008 Estes Valley Habitat Assessment. Director Joseph stated this map is proposed to become a part of Chapter 7 of the Estes Valley Development Code. In the past year, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) made it clear they did not want to participate as a decision-making body, meaning we will need to determine how to make decisions without their input. EDAW assessed habitat throughout the Estes Valley and ranked habitat as critical, important, other valuable, and disturbed. This habitat is mapped on the Priorities for an Ecological Network map found in the Assessment and indicates those areas that may be adversely impacted by development. Site-specific confirmation of habitat is required. A process needs to be put in place as to when site-specific studies are triggered. The habitat guidelines include several factors for the study. Initially, the main objective will be to take a physical inventory at the site level, taking into consideration all vegetarian, riparian, wildlife, and raptors habitats. Second, a description of the populations of the wildlife species that live in that section of habitat would be compiled, including a qualitative description. Third, there would be an analysis of potential adverse post-development on-site impacts, and a list of the mitigation measures completed. Discussion would also take place concerning an implementation plan for the mitigation and subsequent probability of the success of such mitigation. A list of mitigation factors and subsequent plans for the mitigation would be the final objective in the study. Commissioner Kitchen stated that as proposed, a single-family residence being built on a lot that was zoned as Residential prior to 2000 would be exempted from the guidelines of this habitat plan. Director Joseph stated that staff is in the process of developing an outline for the basic content of the site-specific studies. After review of the impact area, it shall issue a finding as to whether or not the plan adequately addresses the adverse impact. Commissioner Klink stated there is the possibility that protected species that will need to be dealt with at some point. Director Joseph agreed there is connectivity between habitat and wildlife, and stressed that if you are successful in protecting the habitat, you are concurrently protecting the wildlife. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 October 21, 2008 Commissioner Tucker indicated that the purpose of the habitat plan has changed from enhancing particular habitats to minimizing the adverse impacts on 'habitats by development. If it cannot be minimized further, Tucker's opinion is that the Planning Commission should support it. If the studies bring forth a denial by the Commission, the applicant could appeal to the Town Board. Director Joseph stressed that zero impact and 100% mitigation is not the standard. Planner Chilcott questioned whether or not we want to define "significant adverse impact", and to state whether the impacts should be minimized to the "maximum extent feasible" or the "maximum extent practical", with feasible being a more stringent standard that places less weight on the economic impacts of the regulation and how it affects the development. She would like to see language added that the study area be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible to ensure that the affected species will survive the adverse impact. Director Joseph noted that there is not a way to take out the grey areas because of the natural systems we are working with. The Estes Valley Planning Commissioners, Larimer County Commissioners, and Town Board members are faced with making decisions that are going to rest on good-faith judgments based on the best information available. Commissioner Klink noted that from a practical point of view, this section would modify the limits of disturbance on a site. It was noted that mitigation may or may not include reduction of density. There was further discussion concerning educating the developers and potential property buyers in order to make them aware of potential impacts of wildlife habitat mitigation. The exception is a single-family home. If you buy a lot that is platted for single-family development, you will be able to build a single-family home. Other undeveloped areas have a level of uncertainty, where the size of the structure could also be a factor. Commissioner Amos said that generally speaking, the architects and developers are well- acquainted with the code and would be able to advise the future buyers of the review process. Public Comment and Discussion with Commissioners and Staff: Ron Norris/Town Resident and President of the Association for Responsible Development (ARD) referred to the letter that was sent in October 21, 2008, and distributed to the Board before the meeting. He believes the Habitat Assessment and draft regulations are a step in the right direction, but would appreciate more definition with "significant adverse impact". ARD supports riparian setbacks of fifty feet, as well as the process of using the new map as a starting point and site visits to decide if a wildlife conservation plan is required. ARD would also like to see provisions added to require preparation of a Wildlife Conservation Plan for all areas designated as "Important Habitat" in addition to those areas designated as "Critical Habitat". Important Habitat is defined in the study as rare or having sensitive resources, and ARD believes this must be included in the conservation study area since these habitats do not currently enjoy any type of special protection. ARD also suggested requiring the review of any wildlife conservation plans and mitigation plans by CDOW or other qualified, independent professionals. ARD recommends empowering staff to require conservation plans for property that falls under the third classification (Other Valuable Habitat) in the case of special circumstances. Also, ~ provisions should be added to explicitly allow denial based on negative impact. Finally, they suggest an annual audit be required to assess how well the code is working. Commissioner Klink thanked ARD for their diligent work on this topic. ARD expressed concern about raptor nesting areas and rare vegetation areas that may not trigger a conservation plan based on the proposed code revisions. Â· Director Joseph asked Mr. Norris for more sp6cifics about other "professionals", and stated that staff will continue to route items to those groups but are not certain as to what type of response they may or may not receive. Mr. Norris requested assurance that any outside comments would be taken into consideration by the decision-making group. Mark Elrod/Town Resident, is concerned about inaccuracies in hydrological mapping. One map shows a stream going through his property, which he believes is not accurate. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 October 21, 2008 According to the Habitat Assessment his property lays in one of the "high value habitat" areas by virtue of the stream going through it. It is his opinion that inaccurate maps are not, but should be corrected. Several comments were made by the Commissioners and Director Joseph indicating that site-specific studies will overrule the map. Director Joseph indicated that there are some stream channels above and on his property that contain riparian vegetation areas, though they may not be well-defined. Sandy Osterman/Town Resident, stressed that the definition of adverse impact is different for different people, especially the Planning Commissioners. She hopes that all the residents of the Estes Valley, along with the Planning Commissioners, realize the importance of the words as they write the code because it will have a lasting effect on all of the Estes Valley. This proposed change will need to be considered in the planning of today, tomorrow, and years into the future. All those involved should be reminded that these changes may affect the elk, which is the basis of much of the Estes Valley economy. . Johanna Darden/Town Resident, indicated concern about the removal of the phrase "prior to approval of any development application" in section G.4 of the code revision. She believes that the words "prior to approval of any development application" should be re- inserted at the end of the sentence. It is her opinion that any wildlife habitat plans should be submitted prior to approval of the application in order to be aware of the adverse impacts prior to development. Fred Mares/Town Resident, agrees with the comments made by ARD, and complimented the Planning Commission and Planner Chilcott on the work done thus far. Integration of this assessment with an open space plan will be a valuable tool for connectivity and linking of habitats. He agrees that more definition is needed to determine what triggers a habitat plan, and prefers to include "important habitat areas" as a trigger for a conservation plan. Mr. Mares stated that the Planning Commission needs to be able to have some specific options with enforcement provisions, one of which would be density. Finally, he questions whether or not this new code will give the Planning Commission the tools needed to be successful with its decisions. Director Joseph explained that the actual maps will be produced on ArcGIS so they will be easier to read. Criteria could be widened to include the important habitat. While critical habitat areas would automatically trigger a study, there could be unusual circumstances that converge on a site that could also trigger a study. Planner Chilcott sited the Elkhorn Lodge property as a good example in that is does not have any critical habitat according to the map, but the size of the property/development could impact the habitat.'Director Joseph,noted that the limits of disturbance criteria in the existing code would still be in effect and would come into play in these situations. Information gathered today will be reviewed at the staff level and a revised proposal will be presented at a future Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Amos) to CONTINUE the UPDATE TO THE ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, APPENDIX TWO, RESOURCE INFORMATION and the motion PASSED unanimously with two absent. 4. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK 12: a. WILDLIFE HABITAT PROTECTION-proposed changes to Â§7.8 Wildlife Habitat Protection, to provide review standards for land identified as critical wildlife habitat, require preparation of a wildlife habitat conservation plan for land identified as critical wildlife habitat, and provide for Planning Commission review of said conservation plan This agenda item was discussed concurrently with the update to the Comprehensive Plan con9eming the Wildlife Habitat Assessment. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 October 21, 2008 It was moved and seconded (KlinWAmos) to CONTINUE agenda item 4.a, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, BLOCK 12, proposed changes to Â§7.8 Wildlife Habitat Protection. The motion PASSED unanimously with two absent. b. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS-proposed changes to Â§5.2.B Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts, to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) within all single-family residential zoning districts except the R-1 district, to allow the lease of one unit, to allow detached units, and to adopt architectural standards for ADUs; also proposed changes to Â§13.3.3 Definition of Words, Terms and Phrases, to redefine the term Accessory Dwelling Unit Director Joseph is making this presentation today in the absence of Planner Shirk. We are neither expecting nor recommending action on the item today, but would appreciate public input while focusing on the incremental steps towards putting forth the final draft of the code change. The items discussed today should include minimum lot size for all types of ADUs (detached, attached, and integrated); allowances for ADUs (the current draft states they should be available for long-term residency); size limits of 49% of the principle dwelling or 1000 square feet, whichever is less; and finally whether or not the Commission should subject detached ADUs to a special review process and public hearing. Commissioner Klink stated that discussion in the study session revolved around using the actual lot size rather than zoning district due to the large number of non-conforming lots in different zoning districts, hoping this would lead to more consistent implementation of the regulation. Definitions of attached, detached, and integrated ADUs were explained. Public Comment and Discussion with Commissioners and Staff: Tom Ewing/Town Resident, believes the current ADU draft seems to overlap the current code concerning short-term rentals, bed & breakfasts, and vacation homes. An existing bed and breakfast and another structure being built on the property could present a problem if there is no clear definition of the code. He stated there are many non-conforming lots and questions if this is just a way to increase density in some areas. Greg Sievers/Town Resident, lives in an E-1 area (one acre minimum), and purchased specifically for that type of zoning. According to the proposed draft, all detached, attached, and integrated ADUs would be permitted, in E-1. He believes that allowing ADUs in E-1 , , areas would defeat the true purpose of zoning. The proper enforcement and support of the current code should take place prior to modifying a new code or absolving current offenders. Mr. Sievers proposes that any changes be quantified, and suggests a case-by- case basis rather than using the zoning map as the only tool. He thinks the current code is acceptable as long as it is enforced. Commis&ioner Klink indicated there is n6t a good feedback system in place to see if code enforcement is in place, and we rely on residents like Mr. Sievers to notify the code enforcement officer if codes are being violated. Sandy Lindquist/Town Resident, is concerned about the potential number of ADUs that would, in effect, change the zoning. These things are good ideas if they are pre-planned, but Ms. Lindquist is concerned about the worst-case scenario in existing developments. Ms. Lindquist thinks ADUs should be limited to lots over one acre (preferably 2.5 acres), and also thinks ADU approval should be site-specific and more defined than what is currently written. She stated property buyers in the area have a right to know and understand the zoning where they are buying, without expectation that it may change. Commissioner Amos stated that if the Planning Commission is leaning toward minimum lot sizes for detached ADUs, there would be restrictions in place to control quantities. He does not think there will be a lot of requests for ADUs if the code is approved, and believes that any new code could be more restrictive rather than less restrictive. Alan Miller/County Resident, opposes ADUs if. it would allow other residences to be built on individual lots in his neighborhood, as it would alter the neighborhood's character. He believes that his neighborhood is an elk migration route that could be adversely affected. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 October 21, 2008 Mr. Miller's concern with the current draft is the loss of control in the number of units that could be built in an area. A fundamental flaw would be the rental possibility, which would only encourage property owners to construct an ADU. A case-by-case basis would be appropriate if neighbors were allowed to comment. He believes that individual property owners should have the right to continue to live in an area as it is currently zoned. Director Joseph clarified the current code reads ADUs are allowed only if they are attached, occupied by non-paying guests and family members, and situated on lots that . have one-third more land area than the basic minimum land area for the zoning district. There is a provision that this proposal contemplates relaxing the land-area requirement, meaning more sites would qualify to build ADUs. While some people have compelling reasons to build an ADU, uncomfortable situations could arise when those owners want to sell the property. Todd Jirsa/Town Resident noted that the impetus of this proposal is based on "when a wet bar becomes a kitchen." He wonders how the character of the neighborhood will change if ADUs are allowed and the density increases. Mr. Jirsa also questions how new residents coming in to the areas via ADUs will affect vehicle traffic, foot paths, etc. Mr. Jirsa indicated that more feedback is needed, as well as better enforcement of the current code. George Hoffman/Town Resident, stated he thinks people should be able to expect their property will be used in the manner which it is zoned. He does not live in an area with a home owner's association and does not have any recourse if an ADU would be built in his neighborhood. There being no further public comment, it was suggested by Director Joseph to focus on some of the bulleted items that were mentioned at the beginning of the discussion. Commissioner Klink is concerned about code violations and subsequent enforcement. Director Joseph stated that the process is a slow one, and procedures are being followed according to policy. The Town of Estes Park now has a dedicated staff person that focuses on code enforcement, but the Commission still needs to be mindful of the enforceability of an issue. The majority of property owners request land-use regulation information for their particular property and voluntarily comply with the code. He believes that detached ADUs tend to have increased enforcement problems. In conclusion, each Commissioner gave their comments on the code options: Commissioner Klink - Prefers a 2.5 acre minimum lot size for detached ADUs, which would not be based on acreage per the zoning district but an actual 2.5 acres, possibly five acres. He recommends at least a one-acre actual lot size for attached and integrated units. He opposes the rental option. Commissioner Klink also believes there should be an absolute limit on size of 1,000 square feet or less. Finally, he would be willing to consider a review process for detached ADUs unless specific code is written. Commissioner Amos - Supports detached buildings, but today's comments and concerns are valid and he believes there may be more than the average (one per thousand) ADUs built in the Estes Valley area. He supports Commissioner Klink's proposal on the specific lot sizes. He would recommend to Home Owners Associations to put controls in place concerning ADUs. Commissioner Amos would prefer long-term rentals, if any, and also supports a 1000 square-foot limit on detached units. He would prefer attached rather than detached, with no size restrictions on the lot size for attached ADUs. Finally, he supports a review process. Commissioner Tucker asked for clarification from Director Joseph about the initial purpose of ADUs, and wondered if we could change the current code to allow attached ADUs to house care-givers, family, in-laws, etc. while using existing driveways and utilities. Director Joseph noted the current code addresses that need, although an expansion of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 October 21, 2008 the current living space would probably be more practical. There is a local need for employee housing, making attached units impractical. Commissioner Tucker - Supports a 2.5 acre minimum lot size for detached units, and one-acre lot size for attached ADUs. If the path is leaditig to multi-family housing, then he supports the current code, which allows detached 'units only in those areas currently zoned for multi-family residences. Commissioner Tucker supports being able to rent detached ADUs on lots 2.5 acres and larger due to the difficulty of enforcement, while ADUs on one-acre lots should not be allowed as rentals. He supports implementing the , review component for now, but would also support removing it later on if it proved to be unnecessary. Commissioner Kitchen - Agrees with the aforementioned lot sizes and subsequent ADU types. She prefers to see ADUs limited to less than 1000 square feet, and would support rentals if the size of the family unit was enforced. Commissioner Kitchen strongly opposes using a percentage of the principle dwelling as a guide to determining the size of the ADU. Finally, she supports the review process to allow neighbor comment. Director Joseph stated that the proposed draft contemplates keeping the family (household) limit in place on a per-parcel basis. This would be in effect even on lots 2.5 acres or larger. In the current and proposed code, some ADUs would be prohibited based on the current size of the family living in the principal dwelling. Commissioner Eisenlauer - Agrees with the size suggestions of the lots, as well as the ADU square footage recommendations of 1000 square feet or less. He would appreciate a review if a good process can be drafted. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Amos) to CONTINUE agenda item 4.b, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS-proposed changes to Â§5.2.B Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts, to the November meeting. The motion PASSED unanimously with two absent. Staff would like to nominate two Commissioners to serve on an Open Space Committee. This committee will interview the corGultants who are proposing to do the work on the open space study. It was moved and seconded (Amos/Klink) to NOMINATE Commissioners Tucker and Kitchen to serve on the Open Space Committee interview team. The motion PASSED unanimously with two absent. 5. STAFF REPORTS a. STAFF-LEVEL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 08-06, YMCA OF THE ROCKIES CRAFT & DESIGN BUILDING This report was postponed until the November meeting due to the absence of Planner Shirk. b. STAFF-LEVEL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 08-07, YMCA OF THE ROCKIES LEGETT CHRISTIAN CENTER This report was postponed until the November meeting due to the absence of Planner Shirk. c. MARY'S MEADOW DEVELOPMENT PLAN UPDATE Director Joseph reported on the approved plan for Mary's Meadow, a co-housing development located between Mary's Lake Road and the Mary's Lake Lodge. The owner's original intent was to build co-housing units with common kitchens, living areas, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 October 21, 2008 etc. However, support for this proposal lacked community interest. Planner Chilcott indicated in the co-housing scenario, fewer cars would be on-site due to the community nature of the project; therefore, the approval includes fewer than the minimum number of required parking spaces and an area set aside where the community could meet. The proposed plan modifies the duplexes from the original plan and replacing them with four four-plexes. The current proposal has different footprints and floor plans, but the changes are within the original parameters of the approval. Today's report is an update for the development because building permits are due to be issued for two of the buildings. The first phase will have the quota of 2.25 vehicles spaces per unit. As they continue to build, the site will need to be monitored to ensure the developers do not have more units than required parking spaces per unit. It would be expected for the developer to comply with all current regulations concerning parking and if it is modified, they would be required to discuss the matter with the Planning Commission. Chair Eisenlauer adjourned the meeting at 4:15 p.m. Ike Eisenlauer, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 22,2008 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 22nd day of October, 2008. Commissioners: Chairman Newsom, Commissioners Cope, Halburnt, Little, Martinsen, White and Wilcocks Attending: Chairman Newsom, Commissioners Cope, Halburnt, Martinsen, White, and Wilcocks Also Attending: EPURA Dir. Smith and Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent Commissioner Little Chairman Newsom called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. COMMUNITY COMMENTS. None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS. None MINUTES. The minutes of the regular meeting held September 17,2008, were approved. STANLEY STEAMER MUSEUM - DISCUSSION. John Cullen, owner of the Stanley Hotel, made a presentation to the Commissioners related to the renovation of the Stanley Carriage House. The existing building is not structurally sound and would require extensive renovation including the addition of a foundation. Mr. Cullen proposes the building be restored to serve as the Stanley Steamer Museum which would accommodate a history center, a restoration bay, a media area, and space for four operating Stanley Steamers to be used to give rides around the Stanley Hotel property. Mr. Cullen estimates that it will cost approximately $700,000 for the museum to become operational and is requesting that EPURA pay construction costs estimated at $400,000 for the renovation, with the Stanley Hotel subsidizing and supporting the operating costs at $300,000. The renovation of the structure, which is not on the historic register, would be functional, not fancy, and preserve the character of F.O. Stanley's garage. He stated that the opening of the museum in May 2009 would tie in with the 100th anniversary of the Stanley Hotel and be a unique attraction that would bring people to Estes Park. Discussion followed and is summarized: what type of agreement would exist between the Stanley Hotel and EPURA; long term lease of 25-50 years with payback provisions if museum failed; the museum would be operated by a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization; parking for the facility; the Carriage House is within old URA boundaries; and have EPURA's structural engineer evaluate the building. Chairman Newsom thanked Mr. Cullen for his presentation and said the Commissioners would review his request and proceed with prioritizing future projects with Town Board input. UPDATE - LAWSUIT RELATED TO THE ABOLISHMENT OF EPURA. Dir. Smith informed the Commissioners that Atty. Paul Benedetti was unable to be present at the meeting to speak about the lawsuit involving EPURA and the Town of Estes Park due to illness, but would be available at a later date to address this issue. Commissioner Cope expressed dissatisfaction with the involvement of EPURA in the lawsuit, stating EPURA was brought into the suit without discussion or consultation with the Commissioners, and that he has issues with the citizen's being denied a right to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - October 22,2008 - Page 2 vote in regard to the existence of EPURA. Commissioner Halbumt stated that voters are not being denied the right to vote but that Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) do not provide for the establishment of an urban renewal authority (URA) by a vote of the people, but a vote of the electorate can be sought for the abolishment of a URA. By state statute, EPURA can be, and was, established by the Town Board. The Commissioners requested that a special meeting be scheduled for the purpose of having EPURA Atty. Benedetti and Town Atty. White address the topic of the lawsuit. PARK THEATER MALL PROJECT - DISCUSSION. The Commissioners invited Sharon Seeley, owner of Park Theater Mall, to attend the regular meeting to assure her satisfaction with the condition of her property following bompletion of repairs to the north wall of Fall River earlier this year. Mrs. Seeley stated that vegetation along the south river wall was damaged and not returned to its original condition resulting in erosion and noxious weeds taking root. In addition, she stated that machinery damaged the entry tiles at the Park Theatre and requested $1,500 reimbursement for one-half of the cost of legal fees associated with a written agreement that was drafted in regard to the project. Chair Newsom stated that Heath Construction will be back on site within the next few weeks and will address Mrs. Seeley's concerns at that time. It was moved and seconded (Cope/Wilcocks) to reimburse $1,500 to Mrs. Seeley for one-half the cost of attorney fees related to the project, and it passed unanimously. PROPOSED EPURA EASEMENT MODIFICATION - DISCUSSION. Kevin Schwery, owner of properly located at 240 E. Elkhorn Avenue, approached the Board to request modification of a 19-foot easement located at the east side of his property that provides access to a private parking lot behind his building. In the future, Mr. Schwery intends to develop the land currently used for parking and proposes to reduce the size of the easement from 19-feet to 10-feet to create public access to the Riverwalk. The proposed walkway will be much safer for pedestrians than the current driveway located next to the building. Mr. Schwery spoke with staff in the Community Development Department who agrees that a 10-foot easement will be adequate to accommodate foot-traffic from Elkhorn Avenue to the Riverwalk. It was moved and , seconded (Cope/Martinsen) to approve the easement modification request to reduce the easement width from 19-feet to 10-feet contingent upon approval by the Town of Estes Park, and it passed unanimously. Mr. Schwery made an informal request that, at some point in the future, the Commissioners consider providing funding assistance for the construction of this Riverwalk access. ELECTION OF VICE CHAfRMAN. Chairman Newsom opened the floor to nominations for Vice Chairman and Commissioner White nominated Commissioner Wilcocks. Commissioner Martinsen seconded the motion and as there were no other nominations, Chairman Newsom declared the nominations closed. The motion passed unanimously, with Commissioner Wilcocks abstaining. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. 1. Financial Reports - Finance Officer McFarland projects that $1.3 million, less the cost of the CVB signage, repair work at Wiest, and legal fees, will be in reserve at the end of the year. 2. CVB Siqnaqe - Stones have been selected and the signs should be installed on Highway 34 and Highway 36 by the end of the year. Staff will prepare a press release related to the installation. Total cost of the project is expected to be approximately $40,000. 3. Budget - Dir. Smith stated that draft budgets have been distributed to the Commissioners for review. The EPURA budget contains three funds: the General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, and Debt Service Fund. The 2009 budget includes $200,000 of operating money from the Town of Estes Park, $1.3 million, less expenditures through the remainder of 2008, and no debt service at this RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - October 22,2008 - Page 3 time. The budget will be advertised as required for adoption at the November regular EPURA meeting. 4. Larimer County Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) - The IGA with Larimer County related to the continuation of EPURA has been agreed upon, but there is still a question whether or not the IGA is necessary. Staff will discuss this topic with Atty. Benedetti. MISCELLANEOUS. Chairman Newsom appointed a task force to further study a variety of fagade improvement programs and provide information to the full commission to assist in setting priorities for upcoming projects. Commissioner Martinsen will lead the task force with Commissioners White and Wilcox participating. Whereupon, Chairman Newsom adjourned the regular meeting at 10:00 a.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 28,2008 Minutes of a Special 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 28th day of October, 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, Atty. Benedetti, Atty. White and Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent None Chairman Newsom called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. LAWSUIT RELATED TO THE ABOLISHMENT OF EPURA - DISCUSSION. Atty. Paul Benedetti identified an urban renewal authority as a separate corporate body with unique powers and duties under Colorado law. State statutes give EPURA the ability to work with the private sector to bring about positive effects within the community that the Town is unable to accomplish by itself. The continuation of EPURA was recently approved by the Town Board of Trustees, and EPURA has a duty and responsibility to carry out the recently approved plan and to maintain its involvement in public/private redevelopment projects. He stated that by rules of civil procedure, and at the court's request (following a request by the Town Board in its reply brief of August 29,2008,) EPURA became a necessary party to the lawsuit that has been filed against the Town of Estes Park by Bill Van Horn for the rejection of paperwork related to a proposed initiated ordinance to 1. abolish EPU RA, and 2. prevent the Town of Estes Park from re-establishing an urban renewal authority in the future. He stated EPURA is obligated to defend the lawsuit and insure that the court understands all the ramifications of such an ordinance. He stated that issues related to handling existing tax increment financing (TIF) monies, contractual agreements, and Tabor questions all must be addressed leaving no choice but to defend the lawsuit. Atty. Benedetti said that previous legal decisions handed down from appellate courts in the State of Colorado rule that certain duties cannot be delegated from a Town Board or City Council to the electorate, and it is his legal opinion that applies to this issue. Discussion on the following topics ensued: legal question related to the right of the plaintiff to circulate petitions and political question related to the public's right to vote; support the general principle of the public's right to vote; cannot abolish and walk away from contracts and statutory duties; EPURA Board was not informed before being brought into suit; EPURA brought into lawsuit by virtue of brief; the court involved EPURA as a necessary party to the litigation; the Town Board and Commissioners should be vigorous in defense of EPURA; comes down to usurping Town's statutory authority in this case; not about the right to vote, but what can be voted on; not legal to vote on an issue there is no legal right to vote on; and if the ordinance goes forward and passes EPURA may find itself in court to defend the viability of the URA, its contracts, and other people's rights. Town Attorney Greg White stated that the Town and EPURA are two totally separate bodies and that it is his responsibility to brief and advise the Town Board on legal issues, which he has done. He said that citizens have a right to petition, but that the first initiated ordinance received by the Town Clerk has serious flaws and was denied for several reasons including that it contained more than one subject; that, in his RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - October 28,2008 - Page 2 opinion, it is not legal for the electorate to vote on the establishment of a URA; and, if approved by voters the ordinance required EPURA to immediately cease operations which cannot be done due to contractual obligations and public funding. He stated that politically this may not be something the EPURA Commissioners want to face, but that legally they must. Additional topics of discussion included: it is the Commissioners' job to defend EPURA; the abolishment of EPURA would have many ramifications that the public does not understand; put Commissioners into an educational role to inform public about EPURA; Town is not inhibiting or discouraging a vote if appropriate initiative is submitted. It was moved (Cope) that any filings made to the court include a statement that EPURA supports the public's right to vote, and the motion died for lack of a second. STANLEY STEAMER MUSEUM PROPOSAL - DISCUSSION. John Cullen, owner of the Stanley Hotel, reviewed revisions to the original proposal he had presented to the Commissioners which included defining responsibilities and segregating capital and risks with no operational liability to the Town of Estes Park or EPURA for the museum, modifications and clarifications to the design structure of the project, and identifying supporters of the museum. Mr. Cullen stated that television personality and car enthusiast, Jay Leno, has expressed interest in the museum and that he intends to meet with representatives of the entertainer to discuss his support of the project. Chairman Newsom pointed out items to address during discussion including a timeline for the project; Mr. Cullen's request for $100,000 from the CVB budget for advertising for the museum; and noted pending lawsuits exist between the Town of Estes Park and the Stanley Hotel. Mr. Cullen said that a decision to support the project is needed from EPURA and the Town Board no later than December 1, 2008, in order to meet project deadlines. Dir. Pickering addressed the Commissioners and stated that the CVB is responsible for marketing Estes Park as a destination for the greater good of all business owners, not to subsidize individual businesses or projects. He said that $100,000 is a large portion of the CVB budget and that to set a precedent of providing sales tax dollars to an individual business would be unfair. The Commissioners discussed the following: opportunity for people to ride in Stanley Steamer is unique and currently unavailable; include information about the Stanley Steamer Museum on the CVB website's list of activities; Carriage House is located within the old EPURA boundaries; EPURA has entered into public/private partnership in the past when redeveloping Bob's Amoco property; concerns about the structural viability of the Carriage House; information related to finances and report from structural engineer needed to make recommendation to the Town Board; if Local Marketing District is successful at the polls, revenue will be available beginning January 2010; it is important for the timing of the project to coincide with the 100th anniversary of the Stanley Hotel to draw national attention; The Stanley Hotel's contribution of a $300,000 line of credit will provide for cash flow rather than actual cash put into project; and if funding from CVB is not available, monies from grants and foundations will be pursued. Dir. Smith summarized that a request is before the Board for $400,000 for remodeling of the Stanley Carriage House to house the Stanley Steamer Automobile Museum. He stated that the Commissioners must set priorities to determine if the project is the best allocation of remaining EPURA resources and that the Town Board will make the final decision as the expenditure exceeds $100,000. It was moved and seconded (Cope/Martinsen) that Town Administrator Halburnt and EPURA Dir. Smith seek financial, engineering, legal, and Town building inspector reports and recommendations on the proposal made by Mr. Cullen as soon as possible to be provided to the EPURA Commissioners and the Town RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - October 28,2008 - Page 3 Board so that a recommendation on the project can be made, and it passed unanimously. Commissioner Wilcocks inquired into the status of the 501(c)(3) organization that will be formed to operate the museum. Mr. Cullen stated that it has not yet been created. Commissioner Wilcocks stated that in the event the project is recommended for approval, a contract outlining responsibilities, leases, money commitments and obligations must be agreed to before moving forward. Whereupon, Chairman Newsom adjourned the special meeting at 10:17 a.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk Finance Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt Fronn: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer Date: November 25th, 2008 Subject: Third quarter 2008 sales tax Background Attached please find the report on sales tax progress through the third quarter of 2008. Documentation 3rd Q 08 REPORT. 3rd quarter sales tax for 2008 was 1.47% better than 2007. For the year, we are 1.4% behind 2007, 0.91% ahead of the revised budget, and 1.46% behind the original budget. This (the 3rd quarter) is a fairly impressive performance coming after a second quarter that was 9.88% worse than 2007. Due to the increase in the 3rd quarter, we are still not technically in a recession (as defined as 2 consecutive down quarters). Despite this encouraging news, there is significant room for caution. The "Sales tax vs Budget" graph demonstrates sales tax performance vs. both the original and revised budgets. Optimally the actual data would fall to the LEFT of the budget lines (ahead of budget). The graph is also representative of the year being 81% complete from a financial standpoint (75% from a calendar basis). The Standard Deviation graph shows that, through the 2nd quarter, 2008 sales tax were right around average for 2005-07. Adding the 3rd quarter's performance shows that sales tax collections are now significantly ahead of the 3-yr average. The "(thru) 34 Quarter Sector Comparisons" (Jan - Sep) graph provides interesting detail. The food category is outpacing the other categories and taking up a larger and larger percentage of total sales tax. It is a broad-based increase coming equally from the grocery and restaurant sub-sectors. Construction is also up, after a moderate decline over the last several years. The remaining categories have given ground. The final graph ("Sales Tax Trends") shows sales tax growth patterns on a 12-month moving average basis. The maroon line shows a growth rate of -1.03% over the last 12 months. This is the first time negative growth has been demonstrated since 2005. Since 2001, growth has at times dropped to as low as -2.5% and then bounced. It will be interesting to see what happens this time. The blue line is a measure of an average month's revenues. It is still above the trend-line, but declined from $607k/mo in the 1St quarter to $592k/mo in the 2nd quarter. Due to the solid third quarter, the line has rebounded slightly to $596k for the Oct 07 - Sep 08 period. The long term trend of the blue line is still up, but the shorter term (as demonstrated by the arrow and maroon line), is now down. Forecasting thoughts We employ several methods of forecasting sales tax short and long term. The longer term models call for sales tax for 2008 to fall into the $7.15 - $7.22m - $7.26m range. Interestingly, the short term forecasting tool is pointing to a flat to slightly better October than 2007. Bear in mind that the presented information is lagging - we're looking at the economy through September 30. At that point, the equity markets had dropped 21% for 2008. In the last 90 days, that total has doubled to a drop of 42% (as of 11/18/08). It will be interesting to see to what degree that manifests itself in Estes Park economy and sales tax data. , In accordance with local/national available and anecdotal data, the Town Board and Staff have adopted a conservative stance during the budget proceedings. Reserves are being maintained so that the Town can either 1) weather an economic downturn and/or 2) take advantage of economic opportunities as they present themselves. Action steps requested None. â€¢ page 2 Sales Tax Report: 3rd Q 2008 330!JJO aoueu!3 - pueVeBOIAI aA01S 0 00 . Sa es Tax Facts 3RD Q 2008 complete. +1.47% vs 2007. Â· Traditionally 81% of fiscal year. '(LUOOD'LS) 133pnq leu!3!JO JO %6L laBpnq leu!0!Jo pull.laq %917.I .(LUEE-z Ls) 133pnq pas!Aai Jo %-[ 75% of calendar; :lussess Alluarn) SanuaAabl 000'SL$. = % Pazlenuue uv 1 49* > \73 0 %\ 30 4% 4 Â£ 36 m. 4*a!; & 3% *I 990%: 4.46 4** % 1 C J fv ( 1 *4 4%02*te % 2 44 *At? U - /0 , 6.4 4 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 t O 0 0 O t O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 *k.*<iâ‚¬ - (D LID * â‚¬n 66 e â‚¬A lenjOV - 9001 186png- 8001 la6pne pas!Aetj - Dea N 100 des Bnv inf Jdv JEIN qej uer SALES TAX VS BUDGET(S) 9/6- 25 1, i ? 3. :41 0 $ $8,000,000 .Â« y 000'000'ZE 000'000'LS 000'000'Â£$ 4*4 44?0*83 41 f 44Â» 11 W .R Â» \ '*%- *}3 4.?0 *44 144: I.# 09 0*14 ~ 94*9,1 .'. 4164 <C 2-8 6 0 2 ,0 7 4 1 Ilt' 44- 78, ~:~*p: ~ l*,& at: ./ 139*- N. 14 > 0 Z =6 O . *f ' iNk 1. er, gif -5 \41 C J . / 14%491 T et a 1 'n P*%917 t *2; OÂ·" . 0 Â©321 60. 424 * Â· 4,: aÂ».d e.*W\X, fu 11 2 *ki C CO STAN DARD DEVIATION OF SALES TAX - 3RD Q S7,977,353 $6,807,903 ZOE'*58'5$ ES*'899'5$ $9,000,000 5 ~ $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 000'000'9$ 000'000'*$ 000'000'Â£$ 000'000'Z$ 000'000'LE des Sng g4m2 (3/Ft 00%@z' O 0 Lu 1- O D 14 fil 'ver~.. 440: -TM .' 0*...L 4%Â¥Â¢U - T - f iT 2+4;0 ~ 4%2 32 5 32 32 32 0 32 4 9 Lf) O 0 0 0 O CO CD el Al Â·AOM JAÂ¥ Jo NID % OIN ZI .0 M O 1 1 1 -4 - Â»Cl' <n zit 30 -~8- 6 1 %3 tr. t/t ,J 0-6 0 / t/ 6 1, 92(1 / b 1/ %26 6- V 6 1, 4 _ 002-r do 6 0-\ k-/ 1 - 06> <t' 02> 22 1 1 O. - 4 022 - '03'' 46.9- f 0 0 2 04 0 0 0 0 0 2/2 2 1 â‚¬A 3UIOJUI 7007 = $7 71]VI 20% $595,884 - 15% %01 - %01- - %<I- - %0Z- '08 B = $7.40 08RB = 157.2 %Â£0'1- = JON 'ON El 80-loquialdes SALES TAX TRENDS September-08 12 Mo Rev. $7,150,610 ~ (go Oul ZI) JEOU!7 - COAVOIN ZI) 18@U!7 - % OUI ZI- OAV OIN El 43 6 yip $600,000 $500,000 000'00Â£$ 000'001$ 000'001$ Town Clerk's Office Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: November 19, 2008 Subject: Liquor-License Transfer - Hunters Chophouse Background: Hess Enterprises Inc. dba Hunters Chophouse located at 1690 Big Thompson Ave. is requesting a transfer of the Hotel and Restaurant liquor license held 6y The Great Divide Restaurant dba Hunters Chophouse that expires on July 30, 2009. A temporary liquor license was issued on October 9,2008. Hess Enterprises Inc. has submitted all necessary paperwork and fees. The new owners are aware of the requirement to complete T. I.P.S. training. Budget NA Action: Staff recommends approval of the Transfer of Ownership Application filed by Hess Enterprises Inc. 1 April 2003 PROCEDURE FOR TRANSFER OF LIQUOR LICENSE TOWN CLERK. Will present the application and confirm the following: B The application was filed October 9,2008 E The Town has received all necessary fees and hearing costs. 0 The applicant is filing as a Corporation . 0 There is a police report with regard to the investigation of the applicants. 0 Status of T.I.P.S. Training: X Unscheduled Completed Pending Confirmation MOTION: I move the Transfer Application filed by Hess Enterprises Inc. , doing business as Hunter's Chophduse for a Hotel & Restaurant License be approved/denied. OR 8404 (05/17/07) Page 1 21 DEPARTMENT USE ONLY COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION DENVER CO 80261 COLORADO LIQUOR RETAIL LICENSE APPLICATION C] NEW LICENSE N TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP U LICENSE RENEWAL Â· ALL ANSWERS MUST BE PRINTED IN BLACK INK OR TYPEWRITTEN APPLICANT MUST CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX(ES) LOCAL LICENSE FEE $ Â· APPLICANT SHOULD OBTAIN A COPY OF THE COLORADO LIQUOR AND BEER CODE(Call 303-370-2165) 1. Applicant is applying as a - Individual il Corporation E Limited Uability Company U Partnership (includes Limited Liability and Husband and Wife Partnerships) [3 Association or Other 2. Applicant If an LLC, name of LLC; if partnership, at least 2 partner's names; if corporation, name of corporation Fein Number Hess Enterprises Inc. 26-3485461 2a. Trade Name of Establishment (DBA) State Sales Tax No. Business Telephone Hunters Chophouse 92- (75910 970-586-6926 3. Address of Premises (specify exact location of premises) 1690 Big Thompson Ave City County State ZIP Code Estes Park Larimer CO 80517 4. Mailing Address (Number and Street) City or Town State ZIP Code 1690 Big Thompson Ave Estes Park CO 80517 5. If the premises currently have a liquor or beer license, you MUST answer the following questions: Present Trade Name of Establishment (DBA) Present State Ucense No. Present Class of License Present Expiration Date Hunters Chophouse 'ic-'Upli -0000 )3 V ji 9 -10 -1001 UAB SECTION A NONREFUNDABLE APPLICATION FEES UAB SECTION B (CONT.) UQUOR UCEN5E FEES 2300 E] Application Fee for New License . ............................ $1,025.00 1985 Z Resort Complex License (City). $500.00 2302 U Application Fee for New License - 1986 Resort Complex Ucense (County)............................ $500.00 = w/Concurrent Review................................ ............ $1,125 00 1988 Add Related Facility to Resort Complex... $ 75.00 X Total ~1~ ~ Application Fee for Transfer ......,............................... $1,025.00 1990 Z Club License (City) ........ ........ .. $308.75 Application Fee for Transfer - 1991 Club Ucense (County) ...... .... $308.75 w/Concurrent Review................................................. $1,125.00 2010 _ Tavern License (City) $500.00 UAB SECION B LIQUOR UCENSEFEES 2011 - Tavern License (County) ................. . $500.00 2012 _ Manager Registration - Tavern. ............. $ 75.00 1905 0 Retail Gaming Tavern License (City).. ................ $500.00 .. $308.75 1906 C] Retail Gaming Tavem License (County)....................... $500.00 2020 3 Arts License (City)........ 2021 Z Arts Ucense (County) . $308.75 1940 0 Retail Liquor Store License (City) .............. .............. $227.50 1941 D Retail Liquor Store Ucense (County) ..........................,. $312.50 2030 - Racetrack License (City) ... .... $500.00 2031 Racetrack License (County) . .. $500.00 1950 0 Uquor Licensed Drugstore (City) .................................. $227.50 = 2040 Optional Premises License (City) ....... . $500.00 1951 C] Liquor Licensed Drugstore (County) .. ....................... $312.50 = 2041 _ Optional Premises License (County) .. . $500.00 1960 0 Beer and Wine License (City) ...........,..,.................... . $351.25 2045 Vintners Restaurant Ucense (City) .......... $750.00 1961 [El Beer and Wine License (County) ..... ......................... $436.25 = 1970 E Hotel and Restaurant License (City)......... .............. $500.00 2046 _ Vintners Restaurant License (County). . $750.00 2220 Add Optional Premises to H&R . $100.00 X Total 1971 0 Hotel and Restaurant Ucense (County).... $500.00 = 2370 Master File Location Fee . . $ 25.00 X Total _ 1975 0 Brew Pub License (City) ..... ...................,.. $750.00 1976 U Brew Pub License (County) ........................................ $750.00 2375" Master File Background . $250.00 X Total _ 1980 D Hotel and Restaurant License w/opt premises (City).... $500.00 1981 CJ Hotel and Restaurant Ucense w/opt premises (County) $500.00 1983 CJ Manager Registration - H& R....................................... $ 75.00 DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE - FOR DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE USE ONLY LIABILITY INFORMATION License Issued Through County City Industry Type License Account Number Liability Date (Expiration Date) FROM TO State City County Managers Reg --750 (999) 2180-100 (999) 2190-100 (999) -750 (999) C//h Fund New License Ca:h Fund TranÂ®fer License TOTAL 2300-100 2310-100 (999) (999) $ . DR 8404 (05/17/07) Page 3 6. Is the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company, or officers, stock- Yes No holders or directors if a corporation) or manager under the age of twenty-one years? 00 7. Has the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager if a limited liability company; or officers, stockholders or directors if a corporation) or manager ever (in Colorado or any other state); (a) been denied an alcohol beverage license? 00 (b) had an alcohol beverage license suspended or revoked? 00 (c) had interest in another entity that had an alcohol beverage license suspended or revoked? m 0 If you answered yes to 7a, b or c, explain in detail on a separate sheet 8. Has a liquor license application (same license class), that was located within 500 feet of the proposed premises, been denied within the preceding two years? If "yes," explain in detail. 00 9. Are the premises to be licensed within 500 feet of any public or private school that meets compulsory education requirements of Colorado law, or the principal campus of any college, university or seminary? Elil 10. Has a liquor or beer license ever been issued to the applicant (including any of the partners, if a partnership; members or manager il a limited liability company; or officers, stockholders or directors if a corporation)? If yes, identify the name of the business and list any current or former financial interest in said business induding any loans to or from a licensee. 00 11. Does the Applicant, as listed on line 2 of this application, have legal possession of the premises for at least 1 year from the date that this license will be issued by virtue of ownership, lease or other arrangement? 0 Ownership Q) Lease m Other (Explain in Dptail) em a. If leased, list name of landlord and tenant, and date of expiration, EXACTLY as they appear on the lease: Landtord Tenant Expires L MoLAWBA ,*AUOGR- Hess Enterprises Inc. ZON Attach a diagram ana ouu,tic or designate the area to be licensed (including dimensions) which shows the bars, brewery, walls, partitions, entrances, exits and what each room shall be utilized for in this business. This diagram should be no larger than 8 1/2" X 11". (Doesnt have to be to scale) 12. Who, besides the owners listed in this application (including persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies), will loan or give money, inventory, furniture or equipment to or for use in this business; or who will receive money from this business. Attach a separate sheet if necessary. NAME DATE OF BIRTH FEIN OR SSN INTEREST None Attach copies of all notes and security instruments, and any written agreement, or details of any oral agreement, by which any person (including partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies, etc.) will share in the profit or gross proceeds of this establishment, and any agreement relating to the business which is contingent or conditional in any way by volume, profit, sales, giving of advice or consultation. 13/ Optional Premises or Hotel and Restaurant Licenses with Optional Premises Yes No Has a local ordinance or resolution authorizing optional premises been adopted? 00 Number of separate Optional Premises areas req, Iesterl (See License Fee Chart) 14. Liquor Licensed Drug Store applicants, answer the following: Yes No (a) Does the applicant for a Liquor Ucensed Drug Store have a license issued by the Colorado Board of Pharmacy? COPY MUST BE ATTACHED. 00 15. Club Liquor Ucense applicants answer the following and attach: (a) Is the applicant organization operated solely for a national, social, fraternal, patriotic, political or athletic purpose and 00 not for pecuniary gain? (b) Is the applicant organization a regularly chartered branch, lodge or chapter of a national organization which is 00 operated solely for the object of a patriotic or fraternal organization or society. but not for pecuniary gain? (c) How long has the club been incorporated? (d) How long has applicant occupied the premises (Three years required) to be licensed as a club? (Three years required) 16. Brew-Pub License or Vintner Restaurant Applicants answer the following: (a) Has the applicant received or applied for a Federal Permit? 00 (Copy of permit or application must be attached) } Date of Birth 17a. Name of Manager (for all on-premises applicants) Z/477 /0 53 (If this is an application for a Hotel, Restaurant or Tavern License, the manager must also submit an Individual History Record (DR 8404-1). -~ 17b. Does this manager act as the manager of, or have a financial interest in, any other liquor Yes No licensed establishment in the State of Colorado? If yes, provide name, type of license and account number. 0 0 18. Tax DIstraint Information. Does the applicant or any other person listed on this application and including its partners, officers, Yes No directors, stockholders, members (LLC) or managing members (LLC) and any other persons with a 10% or greater financial interest 0 0 in the applicant currently have an outstanding tax distraint issued to them by the Colorado Department of Revenue? If yes, provide an explanation and include copies of any payment agreements. DR 8404 (05/17/07) Page 4 19. If applicant is a corporation, partnership, association or limited liability company, applicant must list ALL OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, GENERAL PARTNERS, AND MANAGING MEMBERS. In addition applicant must list any stockholders, partners, or members with OWNER- SHIP OF 10% OR MORE IN THE APPLICANT. ALL PERSONS LISTED BELOW must also attach form DR 8404-I (Individual History record), and submit finger print cards to their local licensing authority. NAME HOME ADDRESS, CITY & STATE DOB POSITION % OWNED* Don Hess 8530 Velvet Antler Way, PeyGn, Colo. 80831 ~ Owner 100% *If total ownership percentage disdosed here does not total 100% applicant must check this box O Applicant affirms that no individual other than these disclosed herein, owns 10% or more of the applicant Additional Documents to be submitted by type of entity ~ CORPORATION ~ Cert. of Incorp. El Cert. of Good Standing (if more than 2 yrs. old) ~ Cert. of Auth. (it a foreign corp.) E PARTNERSHIP El Partnership Agreement (General or Limited) ~ Husband and Wife partnership (no written agreement) U LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY U Articles of Organization E Cert. of Authority (if foreign company) U Operating Agrmt. E ASSOCIATION OR OTHER Attach copy of agreements creating association or relationship between the parties Registered Agent (if applicable) Address for Service OATH> OF APPLICANT I declare under penalty of perjury in the second degree that this application and all attachments are true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge. I also acknowledge that it is my responsibility and the responsibility of my agents and employees to comply with the provisions of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Code which affect my license. Authorized'Bignatuce, Title Date PJA111 Â¢ Owner 10/08/2008 REPORT AND APPROVAL OF LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY (CITWCOUNTY) Date application filed with local autholity Date of local authority hearing (for new license applicants; cannot be less than 30 days from date of application 12-47-311 (1)) C.R.S. 101 1 i \ 1 Â·as i 0Â¥ I /9/or THE LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY HEREBY AFFIRMS: Yes No That each person required to file DR 8404-1 (Individual History Record) has: E Been fingerprinted. ....................... . -2 E 2 Been subject to background investigation, including NCIC/CCIC check for outstanding warrants O 0 That the local authority has conducted, or intends to conduct, an inspection of the proposed premises to ensure that the applicant is in compliance with, and aware of, liquor code provisions affecting their class of license. 0 U (Check One) 2 Date of Inspection or Anticipated Date 0 Upon approval of state licensing authority. The foregoing application has been examined; and the premises, business to be conducted, and character of the applicant are satisfactory. We do reportthat such license, if granted, will meetthe reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desiresof the ad4lt inhabitant* and will comply with the provisions of Title 12, Article 46 or 47, C.R.S. THEREFORE, THIS APPUCATION IS APPROVED. Local Licensing Authority for Telephone Number U TOWN, CITY ~ COUNTY Signature Title Date Signature (attest) Title Date LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT DIVISION 1Vt L./ 0 1 D b 1--1~,~-/ vu i i . 1.1 I 1 1-, 1.F ./ 1 1881 PIERCE STREET RM 108A INDIVIDUAL FINGERPRINT DENVER CO 80261 CARDS OBTAINED FROM THE INDIVIDUAL HISTORY RECORDÂ«ICE DEPARTMENT To be completed by each individual applicant, all general partners of a partnership, and limited partners owning 10% (or more) of a partnership; all officers and directors of a corporation, and stockholders of a corporation owning 10% (or more) of the s of such corporation; all limited liability company MANAGING members, and officers or other limited liability company m s with a 10% (or more) ownership interest in such company and all managers of a Hotel and Restaurant or a Tavem License. NOTICE: This individual history record provides basic information which is necessary for the licensing authority investigation. All questions must be answered in their entirety or your application may be delayed or not processed. EVERY answer you give will be checked for its truthfulness. A deliberate falsehood or omission will jeopardize the application as such falsehood within itself constitutes evidence regarding the character of the applicant. 1. Name of Business j ~ ,+Â«brs Chophoese 2. Your Full Name (last fift. middle) 3. List any other names you have used. HESS , IDONAub g . 4. Mailing address (if different from residence) Home Telephone 1 6 9 0 3161-Homps oN Ave Â· -1\9 499 - 6 199 . 5. List all residence addresses below. Include current and previous addresses for the past five years. STREET AND NUMBER CITY, STATE, ZIP FROM TO Current 56'30 \Jelvet A-viti er \Alc~.u~ P,ajto,11 CO %0'0\ 1-u,~e 06 f RESâ‚¬AJ*F Previous 6 1 1 51- 33 2-Am '3 2 3 2 5. Co l 209 1 S 19 94 :3-u Â£ â‚¬ 06 6. List all current and former employers or businesses engaged in within the last five years (Attach separate sheet if necessary) NAME OF EMPLOYER ADDRESS (STREET, NUMBER, CITY, STATE, ZIP) POSITION HELD FROM TO L-\6-HT#loose P 5635 I.Ni]) f.Ace C 5 (209'6 OLO,lec- 1899 S 7. List the name(s) of relatives working in or holding a financial interest in the Colorado alcohol beverage industry. NAME OF RELATIVE RELATIONSHIP TO YOU POSITION HELD NAME OF LICENSEE R 8. Have you ever applied for, held, or had an interest in a State of Colorado Liquor or Beer License, or loaned money, furniture or fixtures, equipment or inventory, to any liquor or beer licensee? If yes, answer in detail. C]Yes 0[ No 9. Have you ever received a violation notice suspension or revocation, for a liquor law violation, or have you applied for or been denied a liquor or beer license anywhere in the U.S.? If yes, explain in detail. U Yes %No or 00 you nave ally cnarges per'laing-1 Include arrests for DUI and DWAI. (If yes, explain in detail.) U Yes &M*No 11. Are you currently under probation (supervised or unsupervised), parole, or completing the requirements of a deferred sentence? (if yes, explain in detail.) O Yes [*~40 12. Have you ever had any STATE issued licenses suspended, revoked, or denied including a drivers license? (If yes, explain in detail.) EJ Yes ~No PERSONAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION Unless otherwise provided by law in 24-72-204 C.R.S., information provided below will be treated as CONFIDENTIAL. Colorado liquor licensing authorities require the following personal information in order to determine your suitability for licensure pursuant to 12-47-307 C.R.S. ' 13a. Date of Birth b. Social Security Number SSN c. Place of Birth d. U.S. Citizen? i Ilill ~ M 143\12 \ \ , 6 3 - 04s m No e. If Naturalized, State where f. When g. Name of District Court 1 h. Naturalization Certificate Number i. Date of Certification j. If an Alien, Give Alien's Registration Card Number k. Permanent Residence Card Number 1: Height m. Weight n. Hair Color o. Eye Color p. Sex q. Race r. Do *pu have a current Driver's Licâ‚¬122,ILiga.gi~,a~UltBr and state 6 GE 210 22 92. (Â¥\ CA U NA- ENo '1~ 14. Financial Information. a. Total purchase price $ 3.63, 5 0 0 (if buying an existing business) or investment being made by the applying entity, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, other $ b. List the total amount of your investment in this husiness including any notes, loans, cash, services or equipment, operating capital, stock purchases and fees paid $ ~ â‚¬. /7N c. Provide details of Investment. You must account for the sources of ALL cash (how acquired). Attach a separate sheet if needed. : Cash, Services or Equipment Source:Name of Bank; Account Type and Number Amount ~ 1 05/; ~ed? r ~Frt//12 e r frifÂ·At 0% Sonk . Mt}In# - 6 - 195 ete 1 1 d. Loan Information (attach copies of all notes or loans) Name of Lender and Account Number Address Term Security Amount // ic/ocuu Mill'ohi P. 0,0 *61% â‚¬945 fork to 5 9/5 1%2 5 076 . 15. Give name of bank where business account will be maintained; Account Name and Account Number: and the name or names of persons authorized to draw thereon. 4 - 5.43 el n \<5 - A-Ic =A== ~ lonculd 6 - tle 5*6-Â· Ama victÂ« 1 Cur I Oath of Applicant I re under penalty of perjury in the second degree that this application and all attachments are true, correct, and complete to the best of owledge. ' Authorized Signature ,/0 NOP Title , Date A'Ofi OLA) mi/ 10 -9 -09 TOWN oF G~ES PAR-IÂ© November 3,2008 ~PUFÂ·.i~,56*1&'# VAdministration r :?219 RAS <.9/.-4Â·f.j<31 *Â·A.Town "Administr#tor'{ Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk 15 ./ . ~ 42'4 r., i" 4 &:,Town Clerk,Â·*' 71 Town of Estes Park 4 2 Â·Â· 1..' 2 i Estes Park, CO 80517 - Â¢.Community ': > - ~Development.*.. ~ f ~...Planning/Zoning * RE: Hess Enterprises, Inc. - Hunter's Chop House it-' Building Hess, Donald E. 6- ..1. ~ i.Convention and<. 1Visitor Bureau r...1 1 4 E'Finance .... Il A *, f.0. Box 1747 - ~- Human ResoitiZes , Dear Ms. Williamson: :Â· 4ire , A check of the Estes Park Police Department local records on the above-named t i r ~ person and business was conducted. There are no reports naming the individual 4Museum or the business listed in the past year. *. 200 Fourth St. ,Police ~ P.O. Box 1287 Sincerely, 2 9 y Public Works Fleet Parks Wes Kufeld Streets Chief of Police, Estes Park Police Department Senior Center 220 Fourth St. #. LUtilities f IT Light and Power e Water 170 MACGREGOR AVE. I RO. BOX 1200 I ESTES PARK, CO 80517 I PH. 970-586-3551 I www.estes.org Ur-2 /Â¤9*7.3 ',1/ pjft'rk Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halbumt From: David Shirk, Planner 4 Date: December 9,2008 Subject: Stone Bridge Estates Improvement Agreement Background. On August 21, 2007, the Estes Valley Planning Commission approved the Stone Bridge Estates development plan, which provided approval to build twenty-four residential units on property zoned for multi-family development. Approval of that development plan included restoration of vegetation along Fish Creek, which has been subject to erosion. The applicant plans to develop the east side of Fish Creek, and the Town owns property located along the west side of Fish Creek. The purpose of this Improvement Agreement is to provide for certain improvements that will be constructed and maintained on Town property. The specific improvement is to allow a pedestrian bridge from the proposed development across Fish Creek to provide a connection to the existing trail. The proposed Improvement Agreement has been prepared by the Town Attorney, and is presented to the Town Board for their review and approval. Budget. N/A Action. Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed Improvement Agreement. Final, 10-16-08 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IMPROVEMENTS TO FISH CREEK AT STONE BRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS THIS AGREEMENT, made the /4 26day of ~Â© 02-FbA ~8 8-T- 2008, by and between the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, a Municipal Corporation (the "Town") and Rock Castle Development Company, Inc. a Colorado Corporation (the "Developer"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Developer owns the real property (the "Developer's Property") located within the Town of Estes Park, described as follows: LOTS 2 and 3, Stone Bridge Estates Subdivision, located in Section 2, Township 4 North, Range 73 West of the 64 p.M., Town of Estes Park, State of Colorado. WHEREAS, the Town owns the real property (the "Town Property") contiguous to the Developer's Property; and WHEREAS, the Developer has filed and received approval of Development Plan 07-09 from the Estes Valley Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Development Plan provides for the Developer to improve the condition o f Fish Creek whose centerline is the boundary between the Developer' s Property and the Town Property including, but not limited to, establishment of natural Ant communities and wildlife habitat, and the option to construct a private pedestrian bridge (the "Bridge") across Fish Creek to provide a private pedestrian access connection from the Developer's Property to the Hike and Bike Trail located on the Town's Property (collectively the "Improvements"); and WHEREAS, some of the Improvements will be constructed and maintained on Town Property; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to set forth the terms and conditions of the design, construction and maintenance of the Improvements in this separate Development Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE RECITATIONS AND THE COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Developer agrees to design, build and maintain the Improvements. The specific description of the Improvements, their location, and phasing of the construction are set forth in the Fish Creek Enhancement Plan for Stone Bridge Estates (the "Plan") attached hereto as 1 Final, 10-16-08 Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. Developer agrees to furnish all equipment, labor, and material necessary to complete the Improvements and perform the work thereon in a good and workmanlike manner. Developer shall be responsible for paying all costs of design, construction, and maintenance of the Improvements. The design of the portion of the Improvements located on the Town Property shall be approved in writing by the Town prior to any construction of the Improvements on Town Property. Following completion of construction of the portion of the Improvements on Town property, the Developer shall provide the Town with an executed Affidavit stating that all costs incurred for design and construction of the Improvements have been paid in full by Developer. 2. The Improvements set forth in Development Plan 07-09 shall be phased as set forth in the Plan. Construction and completion of the Improvements shall be as follows: PHASE.1 Landscaping. All landscaping for the portion of the Improvements located on Phase 1 and on the Town's Property contiguous to Phase 1 shall be completed prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for any unit in Phase 1. PHASE 2 Landscaping. All landscaping for the portion of the Improvements located on Phase 2 and on the Town's Property contiguous to Phase 2 shall be completed prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for any unit in Phase 2. PHASE 3 (a) The Bridge. The Bridge, ifbuilt, shall be completed and accepted by the Town prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for any unit in Phase 3. (b) Landscaping. All landscaping for the portion of the Improvements located on Phase 3 and on the Town's Property contiguous to Phase 3 shall be completed prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for any unit in Phase 3. In the event that Developer shall not be able to finish any of the landscaping in any of the above Phases prior to the request for the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy as specifically set forth above, Developer may utilize the provisions of Section 7.5.C.3 of the Estes Valley Development Code. t., 2 Final, 10-16-08 3. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has issued a provisional letter o f map revision (CLOMR) dated March 28,2008 to the Town of Estes Park. The Developer shall be responsible for completing and filing all of the required documentation, as- built plans, and certifications to enable FEMA to initiate a revision to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) to Larimer County, Colorado. Developer shall be responsible for paying all fees required by FEMA for this process. The Town shall cooperate with the Developer in its request to FEMA. All documentation and certification required by FEMA shall be filed and fees paid prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy on any unit in Phase 3 of the Project. 4. Developer shall enter into the Town's Standard Improvement Agreement regarding construction of all other public infrastructure improvements on Developer's Property. The cost of the Improvements shall not be included within the terms and conditions of the Standard Improvement Agreement. 5. The Developer shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits. The Town shall cooperate with Developer in obtaining any necessary permits. However, this cooperation shall not require the Town to pay any funds for obtaining said permit. All costs of the obtained permit shall be the responsibility of Developer. Developer shall comply with all the terms and conditions o f all permits. The Town shall waive that portion of the grading pennit fee specifically associated with the Improvements. 6. The Town hereby grants to the Developer a Temporary Construction and Access Easement to that portion of the Town's Property upon which the Improvements are to be constructed and installed. Access to the Town's Property shall be limited to the construction and installation of the Improvements. Upon completion ofthe Improvements and acceptance ofthe same by the Town on the Town's Property, Developer shall not have a right to access to Town's Property other than pursuant to Paragraph's 6 &7 below. 7. Upon completion and acceptance of the Improvements in writing by the Town, the Developer shall be responsible for maintenance of all of the Improvements on Developer's Property, the Bridge, and the pedestrian access from the Bridge to the Town's Hike and Bike Trail. The Town shall be responsible for maintenance of the other portions of the Improvements on the Town's Property following completion and acceptance. 8. As shown on the approved Development Plan and in accordance with Paragraph 10, Developer shall construct the Bridge, including access from the Bridge to the Town's Hike and Bike Trail, across Fish Creek in the approximate location of the property line dividing Lots 2 and 3 of Developer's Property. Said Bridge shall provide a private pedestrian access from Developer's Property to the Town's Hike and Bike Trail located on the Town's Property. The Town shall grant a Temporary Construction and Permanent Easement for that portion of the Bridge, its abutments, and access that are located on Town Property. The Town shall also grant a private access easement across that portion of the Town Property from the western terminous of the Bridge to the Hike and Bike Trail. ' C i 3 Final, 10-16-08 9. Prior to the commencement of the construction of the Bridge, the plans and specifications shall be reviewed by the Town Public Works Department and shall be approved in writing by the Town Public Works Director. Developer shall construct the Bridge and the access to the Hike and Bike Trail and complete the same prior to the issuance of any Certificate o f Occupancy in Phase 3. 10. Developer shall have the option, in its sole discretion, not to construct the Bridge and appurtenant private access from Developer's Property to the Town's Hike and Bike Trail. Developer shall exercise this option on or before the application for the first Certificate of Occupancy in Phase 2. Developer shall exercise the option by giving written notice to the Town's Community Development Director. In the event that Developer exercises this option, Developer shall be relieved of all its obligations to construct the Bridge and appurtenant access, and the Town shall be relieved of all its obligations to provide any temporary or permanent easements for the Bridge and appurtenant access. Upon exercise of this option not to construct the Bridge and appurtenant access, Developer shall deliver construction plans to the Community Development Director providing a pedestrian non-motorized trail along the south portion of Lot 3 of the Development for pedestrian and non-motorized access to the Town's Hike and Bike Trail. Said access shall include a permanent access easement for a public pedestrian and non- motorized trail along the southern boundary of Lot 3. Developer shall receive written approval from the Community Development Director o f this public pedestrian and non-motorized trail prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any unit in Phase 2. The trail shall be constructed by Developer and accepted by the Town prior to the issuance of the last Certificate of Occupancy for a unit in Phase 2. 11. The Town shall not, nor shall any officer, agent, or employee thereof, be liable or responsible for any accident, loss or damage related to the Improvements and/or Developer's work specified in this Agreement, nor shall the Town, nor any officer, agent or employee thereof, be liable for any persons or property injured by said work. Developer hereby agrees to indemnity and hold harmless the Town, and any of its officers, agents and employees against any losses, claims, damages or liabilities to which the Town or any of its o fficers, agents or employees may become subject, because of any losses, claims, damages or liabilities (or actions in respect thereof) that arise out of, or are based upon, any acts or omissions in the performance of the obligations o f Developer, as hereinbefore stated. Furthermore, the Developer shall reimburse the Town for any and all legal or other expenses reasonably incurred by the Town in connection with investigating or defending any such loss or claim. 12. At the time of execution of this Development Agreement, there are two separate lawsuits in the Colorado Court of Appeals in which Fish Creek Water Association Inc., Plaintiff, has appealed two decisions by the District Court in Larimer County, Colorado dismissing the two lawsuits filed by Plaintiff which requested reversal o f the approval of the Development by Larimer County and/or the Town. The two cases are docketed in the Colorado Court of Appeals as follows: Fish Creek Water Association, Inc., Appellant vs. Larimer County Board of Commissioners, Appellees; Case No. 2008CA607 4 Final, 10-16-08 Fish Creek Water Association, Inc., Appellant vs. Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Van Horn Trust, and Rock Castle Development Company, Appellees; Case No. 2008CA1367 Developer understands and agrees that the Colorado Court o f Appeals, in either or both of the above two cases may render a decision that requires either the Town or Larimer County to rescind, nullify, terminate, cancel or amend the approved Development Plan and/or any permit or approval issued by Larimer County and/or the Town for development on the Property including, but not limited to, building permits, Certificate of Occupancies, or grading permits. The Developer hereby waives any claim against the Town and/or Larimer County for any claim, damage and/or cause of action arising out ofor as a result ofthe issuance of any development permit by Larimer County and/or the Town which is rescinded, nullified, terminated, canceled or amended due to a decision by the Court of Appeals. A Court of Appeal decision shall include any decision by the Larimer County District Court rendered as a result of a remand to the Larimer County District Court pursuant to the decision of the Court of Appeals. Developer understands and agrees that it is proceeding with the development o f the Property including, but not limited to, requesting and receiving development permits from Larimer County and/or the Town with full knowledge that a decision in either or both of these cases may nullify, restrict, impair, terminate or rescind its development of the Property. 13. This Development Agreement shall be recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado. 14. Upon the default of any of the provisions of this Development Agreement by either party, the parties agree that this Development Agreement may be specifically enforced by any party or any party may proceed in any other matter authorized by law for breach of a contract. In addition, the Town may: (a) Proceed in any manner described in the Estes Valley Development Code or State statutes for a violation o f this Development Agreement. (b) Withhold any building permits, Certificate of Occupancy, and/or any other development permits for the Property. The remedies set forth herein are cumulative and the election to use one shall not preclude the use of another. 15. This Development Agreement and the terms, conditions and covenants contained herein shall be deemed to complement and shall be used in addition to the conditions and requirements ofthe Estes Valley Development Code, the terms and conditions of the Final Plat, the terms and conditions ofthe approval ofthe Development Plan, and other applicable laws, rules and regulations. 5 Final, 10-16-08 16. This Development Agreement is intended to provide for the orderly construction and maintenance of the Improvements on Developer's Property and the Town's Property. This Development Agreement shall be a servitude running with Developer's Property. Owners of Developer's Property or any portion of Developer's Property who obtain title subsequent to the date o f this Development Agreement, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees shall comply with the terms hereof. In the event Developer transfers title to the Developer's Property, Developer shall be released from liability under this Development Agreement with respect to any breach o f the terms and conditions o f this Development Agreement occurring after the date of any such transfer o f interest. In such event, the succeeding property owner(s) shall be bound by the terms o f this Development Agreement. 17. The Developer shall cause altlenders, lienholders or other persons or entities who have any interest in Developer's Property to subordinate their interest to this Development Agreement. 18. If any part, terms, or provisions of this Development Agreement are held by a court to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, such illegality or unenforceability will not affect the validity o f any other part, terms, or provision and the rights of the parties will be construed as if the part, terms, or provision was never part of this Development Agreement. 19. This Development Agreement may be amended by mutual consent of the Town and the Developer provided such amendment is in writing. 20. This Development Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado with venue in the District Court of Larimer County. 21. Any notice required or permitted by this Development Agreement will be deemed effective when personally deliver in writing or three (3) days after notice is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service, postage prepaid, certified, and return receipt requested, and addressed as follows: Town o f Estes Park Rock Castle Development Company, Inc. Attn: Town Administrator Attn: Robert Koehler, President P O Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 AGREED TO and signed by the parties this day of ,2008 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, 6 Final, 10-16-08 By: Bill Pinkham, Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT was acknowledged before me this day of , 2008, by Bill Pinkham, as Mayor of the Town of Estes Park, a municipal corporation established under the laws of the state of Colorado. Witness my hand and official seal. (SEAL) Notary Public My Commission expires: 7 Final, 10-16-08 ROCK CASTLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. By: UffÂ« Robert Koehler; President STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LAZINEK ) "nt The foregoing DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT was acknowledged before me this 14 day of AOJEÂ»2Â£2- , 2008, by Robert Koehler, as President of Rock Castle Development Company, Inc., a corporation established under the laws of the state of Colorado. Witness my hand and official seal. 9041 . Â·.9!k g ... NOTAR Y: NotaryhÂ£TE' rl â€¢ â€¢ El i -0- : 'A I Â»'Â·. PUBLIC / i 4:1Â·. My Commission expires: 9.f 07: Ad*F 8 GREGORY A. WHITE Attorney at Law North Park Place 1423 West 29th Street 970/667-5310 Loveland, Colorado 80538 Fax 970/667-252 November 17, 2008 DAVE SHIRK, PLANNER II COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT TOWN OF ESTES PARK PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 Re: Development Agreement Improvements to Fish Creek at Stone Bridge Condominiunis j Dear Mr. Shirk: Enclosed please find a partially executed Development Agreement between Rock Castle Development Company and the Town of Estes Park. This Development Agreement needs to be approved by the Town Board. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Vpfluty Yol~Pr I /2 Li-/1 Grego~A. White 1 GAW/:dr C f f o emo Date: November 19, 2008 TO: Mayor Pinkham and the Board of Trustees From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney RE: Big Bear Estates Annexation The petition for the annexation of Big Bear Estates Addition to the Town of Estes Park was executed by Carol Zahourek, Jerry Zahourek and Valeria Zahourek on May 14, 2008. The annexation petition was the standard annexation petition. Section 15 of the annexation petition states as follows: 'The undersigned and the Town may enter into an annexation agreement prior to or contemporaneously with the effective date of this annexation, which agreement shall be additional conditions as effective as if set forth in this petition." The annexation petition for the annexation of Big Bear Estates Addition was part of a larger development project that included the Big Bear Estates Addition and the Elkhorn Lodge Property. The development proposal included requests for rezoning, subdivision and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) application by the owners and the contract purchasers/developers of the property. After input from the Staff, I prepared a draft annexation agreement which addressed development issues on the Big Bear Estates annexation including, but not limited to, timing of development, responsibility for public improvements including what is known as the western bypass. The draft annexation agreement also included rights, restrictions and obligations with regard to the PUD development on the Elkhorn Lodge property. From the beginning of the review of the entire development proposal, it was always contemplated by Staff, the developer and the Zahourek's, that an annexation agreement would be approved as part of the overall approval of the annexation of the Big Bear Estates Addition, and approval of the PUD on the Elkhorn Lodge property. The proposed rezoning, preliminary and final subdivision plats and PUD proposal for the Elkhorn Lodge property and the Big Bear Estates Addition have been withdrawn by the applicant. Section 31-12-107 (1)(e) C.R.S. provides that no person signing a petition for annexation shall be permitted to withdraw his signature from the petition after the petition has been filed with the Town Clerk except as such right of withdrawal is set forth in the petition. The annexation petition for Big Bear Estates Addition does not contain any right of withdrawal. Due to the fact that the petition is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Municipal Annexation Act, the Board of Trustees is required to make a determination ~ whether or not to annex the property. The decision of the Town Board is solely within its ~ discretion, and the Town Board is not required to annex the property. Although the annexation petition does not contain a specific right to withdraw the petition, the annexation petition does contemplate that an annexation agreement acceptable to both the Town and the property owners would be approved as pad of the annexation of the property. The Town Staff also advised the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the Town Board at previous public hearings on the rezoning, subdivision and PUD proposals concerning the entire development that an annexation agreement would be required and a part of the documents governing the development of the property. The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled in the case of The Town of Superior vs. Midcities Company, 933 P. 2nd 596 (Colorado 1997) that although an annexation petition did not include a specific right for withdrawal, if it is understood by the parties that an annexation agreement will be approved, a municipality's efforts to affect the annexation without such agreement is clearly contrary to the understanding of the parties. The facts of that case are strikingly similar to this case with regard to the fact that an annexation agreement was always contemplated between the Town of Superior and the petitioning landowner. The annexation agreement would address development issues on the property following annexation. The Supreme Court went on to state as follows: 'The fact that Midcities Company's petition did not expressly require the annexation agreement as a condition precedent to annexation does not control the result here. The actions and statements of the town officials before the Board and in the record below support the trial court's findings that, in this annexation proceeding, the municipality and the landowner voluntarily agreed to such a conditidn. By subjecting the annexation to a condition that a development agreement would be entered into prior to the actual annexation, Superior limited its discfetion. If the parties fail to agree upon conditions to annexation, annexation cannot take place without the landowner's consent to annexation and the municipality's willingness to waive such conditions." The Supreme Court went on to conclude as follows: "In sum, we conclude that annexation is a consensual process which permits a municipality and a landowner to condition annexation upon the completion of a land development or annexation agreement before annexation may take place. Unless the landowner consents to this annexation, it is my opinion that the Town Board would abuse its discretion and exceed its authority under the Municipal Annexation Act by annexing the property. 2* RESOLUTION NO. 20-08 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, in accordance with Section 31-12-110, C.R.S., hereby finds that with regard to the proposed annexation of the following described area, that the requirements of the applicable parts of Sections 31-12- 104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., have been met; that an election is not required under Section 31-12-107(2), C.R.S.; and that no additional terms and conditions are to be imposed on the annexation. The area eligible for annexation known as "BIG BEAR ESTATES ADDITION" to the Town of Estes Park is as follows: Beginning at the Center Quarter Corner of Said Section 26, monumented by a 2" aluminum cap flush in concrete PLS #6499; thence along the westerly line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 26 NOOÂ°43'22'W 1329.83', more or less, to the Center-North sixteenth corner of said Section 26, monumented by a 2" metal cap PLS #6499 on a #6 rebar; thence along the northerly line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 26 S89Â°49'30"E 1311.23', more or less, to a point half way to the North Sixteenth corner common to Sections 25 and 26, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M.,said North Sixteenth corner monumented by a 1 1/6" metal cap #6499 on a #6 rebar; thence along the easterly line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 26 SOOÂ° 57'47"E 1330.18', more or less, to the Center-East sixteenth corner of said Section 26, monumented by a 2" Aluminum cap #6499 on a 1" pipe; thence along the southerly line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 26 N89Â°48'50"W 1316.81', more or less, to the point of beginning. Containing 40.11 acres, more or less. DATED this day of ,2008. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 16-08 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS BIG BEAR ESTATES ADDITION BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. That a Petition for Annexation, together with four (4) copies of the plat of said area as required by law, was filed with the Board of Trustees on the 3001 day of April, 2008 by the landowners of one hundred percent (100%) of the area and owning one hundred percent (100%) of the area, excluding public streets and alleys of the area hereinafter described. The Board, by Resolution at its regular meeting on the 2701 day of Mav, 2008, accepted said Petition and found and determined that the provisions of Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S., were met; and the Board further determined that the Town Board should consider the annexation plat on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Building for the purposes of determining that the proposed annexation complies with the applicable provisions of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., and is considered eligible for annexation. Consideration of the annexation by the Town Board was postponed to September 23,2008 to allow all other land use issues to be resolved. Section 2. That the Notice of said hearing was given and published as provided in Section 31-12-108(2), C.R.S. Section 3. That the hearing was held pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-12- 109, C.R.S., on the 23rd day of September, 2008. Section 4. That following said hearing, the Board of Trustees adopted a Resolution determining that the proposed annexation met the requirements of the applicable parts of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.; that an election was not required under Section 31-12-107(2), C.R.S.; and that no additional terms or conditions are to be imposed upon said annexation. Section 5. That the annexation of the following described area designated as BIG BEAR ESTATES ADDITION to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, is hereby approved: Beginning at the Center Quarter Corner of Said Section 26, monumented by a 2" aluminum cap flush in concrete PLS #6499; thence along the westerly line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 26 NOOÂ°43'22'W 1329.83', more or less, to the Center-North sixteenth corner of said Section 26, monumented by a 2" metal cap PLS #6499 on a #6 rebar; thence along the northerly line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 26 S89Â°49'30"E 1311.23', more or less, to a point half way to the North Sixteenth corner common to Sections 25 and 26, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., said North Sixteenth corner monumented by a 1 M" metal cap #6499 on a #6 rebar; thence along the easterly line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 26 SOOÂ° 57'47"E 1330.18', more or less, to the Center-East sixteenth corner of said Section 26, monumented by a 2" Aluminum cap #6499 on a 1" pipe; thence along the southerly line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 26 N89Â°48'50'W 1316.81', more or less, to the point of beginning. Containing 40.11 acres, more or less. Section 6. The Town of Estes Park, Colorado, hereby consents, pursuant to Section 37-45-126(3.6) C.R.S., to the inclusion of lands described above into the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Municipal SubDistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Section 7. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF ,2008. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2008 and ~ published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2008, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk Page 1 ofl Jackie Williamson From: Bob Joseph Sent: Tuesday, November 25,2008 8:59 AM To: Jacqueline Halburnt; Jackie Williamson Subject: FW: annexation email or fax From: jerry zahourek [mailto:jz@elkhornlodge.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 25,2008 8:42 AM To: Bob Joseph Subject: Re: annexation email or fax Hi Bob: sorry but the annexation note slipped my mind. Please advise the Trustees that the Elkhorn Lodge owners prefer to postpone any further annexation considerations at this time. We have several prospects interested in the development of the Elkhorn properties and it is in interest of all concerned to consider annexation at a future date. Thank you, Jerry Zahourek representing Zahourek Conservatory LLC. ----- Original Message ----- From: Bob Joseph To: jerry zahourek Sent: Tuesday, November 25,2008 8:29 AM Subject: annexation email or fax Jerry, Please send me an email or fax today confirming your intent on the annexation. My fax is 586-0249. Thanks, Bob Joseph 11/25/2008 - e.%1 I * J 1111 TOWN*Of {ST{f PARK MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Trustees FROM: Steve MeFarland, Finance Officer DATE: November 25,2008 SUBJECT: Highway Users Trust Fund Public Hearing, 2009 Budget, November 25,200Â§ Colorado budget law requires a public hearing be conducted to discuss how the Highway Users Trust Fund revenues are proposed to be expended in the ensuing fiscal year. The following are the proposals that are included in the 2009 Town of Estes Park budget: 2009 1. Estimated Revenues: $210,699 2. Estimated Expenditures: a. STIP overlay - $395,000 b. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, guardrail, Snow removal, plow blades 131,000 c. Vehicles/equipment usage - 120,000 d. Traffic control = 16,700 $662,700 In addition, expenditures for snow plowing, street maintenance, or any other expenditures directly related to streets are allowable uses of Trust Fund revenue in the event that any of the above-listed projects are not constructed or come in considerably less than budget. P.O. BOX 1200 â€¢ 170 MACGREGOR AVENUE â€¢ ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 PHONE: 970-586-5331 â€¢ FAX 970-577-3573 www.estesnet.com RESOLUTION TO SET MILL LEVIES NO. 21-08 A RESOLUTION LEVYING PROPERTY TAXES FOR THE YEAR 2007 TO HELP DEFRAY THE COSTS OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO FOR THE 2009 BUDGET YEAR. WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park will adopt the annual budget in accordance with the Local Government Budget Law on November 25, 2008; and WHEREAS, the amount of money necessary to balance the budget for general operating expense is $308,946; and WHEREAS, the net valuation for assessment for the Town of Estes Park as certified by the County Assessor is $179,777,120. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That for the purpose meeting all general operating expenses of the Town of Estes Park during the 2009 budget year, there is hereby levied a tax of 1.718 mills upon each dollar of the total valuation for assessment of all taxable property within the Town for the year 2009. The 1.718 mills is a temporary reduction of the original 1.822 mills due to property tax increase spending limits of 5.5% per C.R.S. 29-1-301. That the Town Clerk is herby authorized and directed to immediately certify to the County Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado, the mill levies for the Town of Estes Park as hereinabove determined and set. ADOPTED this 25th day of November, 2008. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk RESOLUTION TO ADOPT BUDGET NO. 22-08 A RESOLUTION SUMMARIZING EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE FOR EACH FUND, AND ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO FOR THE BUDGET YEAR BEGINNING ON THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, 2009, AND ENDING ON THE LAST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009. WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has appointed Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator, to prepare and submit a proposed budget to the Governing Body at the proper time; and WHEREAS, upon due and proper notice, published in accordance with the law, said proposed budget was open for inspection by the public at a designated place, a public hearing was held on November 11, 2008, and interested taxpayers were given the opportunity to file or register any objections to the proposed budget; and WHEREAS, whatever increases may have been made in the expenditures, like increases were added to the revenues so that the budget remains in balance, as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THAT: That the attached budget, as submitted, and summarized by fund, is hereby approved and adopted as the budget of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2009, and shall be signed by the Mayor and Town Clerk and made a part of the public records of the Town of Estes Park. ADOPTED this 25th day of November, 2008. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk FUND LISTING FOR SUMMARIZING REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR EACH FUND FOR 2009 Community Conservation Open General Reinvestment Museum Trust Senior Space Fund # 101 204 207 211 217 220 RESOURCES Unappropriated Surpluses $3,990,266 $1,393,837 $46,332 $106,575 $7,181 $280,629 Revenue sources 9,694,760 27,000 61,838 34,300 49,720 241,000 Transfers In 1,092,260 1,500,000 244,950 0 155,804 0 Property Taxes (not ind above) 309,000 0 0 0 0.0 Total Revenues 11,096,020 1,527,000 306,788 34,300 205,524 241,000 EXPENDITURES Current Operating Expense 7,707,267 0 331,324 42,000 212,153 32,371 Capital Outlay 533,100 0 19,600 43,500 0 179,000 Transfers Out 3,405,754 0 0 0 0 0 Debt Service 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 11,646,121 0 350,924 85,500 212,153 211,371 Remaining Surplus $3,440,165 $2,920,837 $2,196 $55,375 $552 $310,258 Convention & Visitors Fire Building Light & Bureau Services Authority Power Water Catastrophic Fund # 222 229 419 502 503 605 RESOURCES Unappropriated Surpluses $83,807 $132,839 $0 $5268,237 $2,848,766 $2,401,425 Revenue sources 1,082,160 187,500 92,840 11,880,026 3,506,481 36,000 Transfers In 1,870,000 435,000 0 0 0 0 Property Taxes (not incl above) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 2,952,160 622,500 92,840 11,880,026 3,506,481 36.000 EXPENDITURES Current Operating Expense 3,007,443 642,819 $0 $9,933,367 $2,771,696 $0 Capital Outlay 5,000 70,000 0 2,242,500 910,734 0 Transfers Out 0 0 0 982,161 110,099 1.000,000 Debt Service 0 0 92,840 746,008 513,638 0 Total 3,012,443 712,819 $92,840 $13,904,036 $4,306,167 $1,000,000 Remaining Surplus $23,524 $42,520 $0 $3,244,227 $2,049,080 $1,437,425 Medical Information Vehicle Insurance Fleet Systems Replacement Fire Pension Police Pension Theater Fund # 606 612 625 635 709 710 716 RESOURCES Unappropriated Surpluses $400,889 $274,482 $77,205 $1,562,073 $1,138,253 $1,004 $434,332 Revenue sources 13,660 273,800 458,669 564,880 154,605 1,667 9,000 Transfers In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Property Taxes (not incl above) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 13,660 273,800 458,669 564,880 154,605 t,667 9,000 EXPENDITURES Current Operating Expense $99,915 $285,337 $442,337 $0 $127,940 $2,565 $21,000 Capital Outlay 0 49.000 56,500 391,000 0 0 0 Transfers Out 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Debt Service 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total $99,915 $334,337 $498,837 $391,000 $127,940 $2,565 $21,000 Remaining Surplus $314,634 $213,945 $37,037 $1,735,953 $1,164,918 $106 $422,332 RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE SUMS OF MONEY NO. 23-08 A RESOLUTION ADJUSTING APPROPRIATIONS TO THE VARIOUS FUNDS AND SPENDING AGENCIES IN THE AMOUNTS AND FOR THE PURPOSES AS SET FORTH BELOW FOR THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO FOR THE BUDGET YEAR BEGINNING ON THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY 2009, AND ENDING ON THE LAST DAY OF DECEMBER 2009. WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has adopted the annual budget in accordance with the Local Government Budget Law on November 25, 2008; and WHEREAS, over the course of the fiscal year ending December 31, 2009, the estimates included in the adopted budget have been revised to more accurately represent the actual revenues and expenditures necessary to operate the government; and WHEREAS, it is not only required by law, but also necessary to appropriate the revenues provided in the budget to and for the purposes described below, so as not to impair the operations of the Town of Estes Park. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the following attached sums are hereby appropriated from the revenue of each fund, to each fund, for the purposes stated. ADOPTED this 25th day of November, 2008. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk ./ 000 0% M 000- 0 82 3 29 20Â° - 000 b 0 rob - 4 0 â‚¬9000 en C 0 000 R 00000 Â©2 5. el tr; 00 - em g g -32 w 0 C 2 2 00 . 32 n q 7 <3 01 ~ 250 50 >h O 00 :@ 1 g A 5000 gN EC) ~. ID ' 1231 0 - == 20002 2 g ceo NO $ 0005 CO 64 E N -u O 0 0 N 00 000 3 6 @21 - 2 U m 21 U m 3.2 0 32 0 m 20 2 0 981 6 .2 ZE- *t .4 ENCM- * 5134 4 0 -O * 3 .2 W .3. ~E r! 3 1 9 .4 1% 8 1 2 00=* &2 4 ounE-E- JOR@41 uo!suod 00!lod uo.!suod 01!d lue=oeldow stuoishs jouum 1 000' I 1$ 595'1$ 0*6'LEI $ Â£Â£'ll*$ Â£Â£'583$ 5 I 6'66$ osupdx3 SU!jel@d 000' I Z$ 5957$ 0*6'LZIS 000'I69$ LÂ£8'86t,$ Â£Â£'17Â£Â£$ GI6'66$ Larimer County ating Expenses $7,707,267 $212,15 $32,371 000'000'I 660'OI I 000.000' I $ L9I '90Â£'t,$ 9Â£0'* 6'Â£ I $ 0*876$ 6I8'ZIL$ Et,f'ZIO'Â£$ $11,646,121 $350,924 $212,153 $211,37 FUND LISTING FOR APPROPRIATING SUMS OF MONEY FOR 2009 BUDGET M Senior Fund # 217 131EAA 20!114 969'ILL'Z$ I8'Zt'9$ Et*'LOO'Â£$ sosuodx3 *Â£L'0I6 009'EfE'Z 00'OL 000'5 8Â£9'EI 9 t,8'Z6 Community Conservation 533,100 19,600 43,50 010!4'A UO!}euuojuI 000'I6Â£ 09'95 00'6f General Reinvestn-~~ 3,405,754 Convention & Visitors 1no SJOJS UPDATED BUDGET SHEETS PRESENTED NOVEMBER 25,2008 Water Fund ' $ Enterprise Fund, #503 Town of Estes Park - 2009 Budget SCOPE OF SERVICES Services: Order/purchase/lease water, contract review, eosements, planning and forecasting, ougmentation plan, watershed management, report to River Commissioner, produce water for public, water plant and distribution system maintenance, maintoin water moins and fire hydrants, customer billing, meter maintenance, maintain backflow prevention program, troubleshoot customer PSI and volume problems, locate water mains and service lines, maintain system maps Records management: CDOH reports, EPA reports, operations and historical data State required personnel: Class A wateroperotors, Class 3 distribution system operators, Certified backnow prevention technician Original Budget Revised Budget Budget 2007 2008 2008 2009 OPERAnNG REVENUES Charges for Services $2,577,482 $3,276,554 $3,276,554 $3,425,231 Miscellaneous 59,567 11,676 32,847 10,250 Total Revenues 2,637,049 3,288,230 3,309,401 3,435,481 OPERAnNG EXPENSES Source of Supply 123,362 160,560 160,560 160,561 Purification Personnel 489,999 281,434 269,854 288,317 Operations and Maintenance incl above 324,206 370,395 407,743 Distribution Personnel 748,197 566,058 552,296 606,613 Operations and Maintenance inclabove 270,388 334,979 417,794 Customer Accounts Personnel 322,499 154,697 136,831 164,172 Operations and Maintenance inclabove 183,773 190,796 189,141 Administration/General Personnel 500,805 123,066 123,196 138,676 Operations and Maintenance ind above 758,961 1,047,759 398,679 Capital inclabove 4,977,577 6,091,150 910,734 Depreciation 473,394 0 0 0 TOTAL OPERAANG EXPENSES 2,658,256 7,800,720 9,277,816 3,682,430 change from prior year -10% 193% 249% -60% OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) (21,207) (4,512,490) (5,968,415) (246,949) NON OPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES) loan proceeds 0 4,900,000 5,465,000 0 Investment income 229,686 140,000 121,000 71,000 Debt service payments 0 (740,111) (521,681) (513,638) Interest expense (loans) (68,381) inclabove inclabove inclabove TOTAL NON OPERAnNG REVENUES (EXPENSES) 161,305 4,299,889 5,064,319 (442,638) NET INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE CAPITAL 140,098 (212,601) (904,096) (689,587) CONTRIBUTIONS AND TRANSFERS Rollovers O (361,261) 0 0 Capital Contributions 688,403 0 0 0 Transfers Out (97,261) (99,221) (99,221) (110,099) CHANGE IN AVAILABLE FUNDS 731,240 (673,083) (1,003,317) (799,686) Rollover adjustment 0 361,261 0 0 AVAILABLE FUNDS*, Beginning, as Restated 3,120,843 2,793,830 3,852,083 2,848,766 AVAILABLE FUNDS*, Ending 3,852,083 2,482,008 2,848,766 2,049,080 Water Fund Enterprise Fund, #503 Town of Estes Park - 2009 Budget SCOPE OF SERVICES Services: Order/purchase/lease water, contract review, eosements, planning and forecasting, ougmentotion plan, watershed management, report to River Commissioner, produce waterfor public, water plant and distribution system maintenance, maintain water mains and fire hydronts, customer billing, meter maintenance, maintain backflow prevention program, troubleshoot customer PS! and volume problems, locate water moins and service lines, maintain system maps Records monagement: COOH reports, EPA reports, operations and historical data Stote required personnel: Class A water operotors, Class 3 distribution system operators, Certified backflow prevention technician Original Budget Revised Budget Budget 2007 2008 2008 2009 *Fund availability is calculated as *net current assets less inventories", (source: audited financial statements, page 6 for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007). Amounts for 2007 ending balance are current assets ($4,453,762) less current liabilities ($491,365) less inventories ($110,314) for a fund balance of $3,852,083. * EPHA loan, repayment due June 2010. $348,943 of fund balance is in form of Note Receivable from EPHA COVERAGE DATA est est est est Total Fixed (depreciable) Assets $20,733,060 $25,710,637 $26,824,210 $27,734,944 Target: 25% of (Personnel + 0&M) Target: 2% of Total Fixed (depreciable) Assets 25% of (Personnel and O&M) 546,216 705,786 796,667 692,924 2% of Total Fixed (depreciable) Assets 414,661 514,213 536,484 554,699 Ending Fund balance - targets 2,891,206 1,262,010 1,515,615 801,457 1 Aggregate Fund Ratio Target 4.01 2.03 2.14 1.64 Ratio = Fund availability / (sum of targets) Debt service coverage ratio 9.97 1.49 1.43 1.43 Bond covenant requirements 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 iRatio for 2008 removes $500,000 from numerator (engineering fees in 0&M related to capital project) General The Black and Veatch Financial Plan recommended 2.9% annual rate increases beginning 2005 through 2008. Annual surplus projected beginning in 2007. The rate increases result in an estimated $2.0 million+ fund balance in 2008. Revenue none Expenditures Summary of expenditure types Source of Supply 123,362 160,560 160,560 160,561 Personnel 2,061,500 1,125,255 1,082,177 1,197,778 Operations and Maintenance inclabove 1,537,328 1,943,929 1,413,357 Capital inclabove 4,977,577 6,091,150 910,734 Depreciation 473,394 0 0 0 Debt Service Â· 68,381 740,111 521,681 513,638 Transfers out (to General Fund) 97,261 99,221 99,221 110,099 Rollovers (2007 into 2008) 0 361,261 0 0 2,823,898 9,001,313 9,898,718 4,306,167 Personnel Director of Utilities 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 Assistant to Utilities Director 0.20 0.20 O.20 0.20 Water Superintendent 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Assistant Water Superintendent 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Water Fund Enterprise Fund, #503 Town of Estes Park - 2009 Budget SCOPE OF SERVICES Services: Order/purchase/lease water, contract review, easements, planning and forecasting, augmentation plan, watershed management, report to River Commissioner, produce water for public, water plant and distribution system maintenance, maintain water mains and fire hydrants, customer billing, meter maintenance, maintain backDow prevention program, troubleshoot customer PSI and volume problems, locate water mains and service lines, maintain system maps Records management: CDOH reports, EPA reports, operations and historical data Stote required personnel: Class A water operators, Closs 3 distribution system operators, Certified backflow prevention technician Original Budget Revised Budget Budget 2007 2008 2008 2009 Water Plant Operators 4.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 Water Quality Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Part time Lab Technician 0.50 0.70 0.70 1.00 Municipal Service Worker 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Seasonal meter calibration (2) 1.20 1.20 0.62 0.62 Cross Connection Control Sp. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Executive Assistant 0.30 0.15 0.07 0.07 Electrical Engineer 0.20 0.20 0.20 Human Resource Manager 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.08 Payroll Technician 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.14 Finance Officer 0.24 0.21 0.21 0.19 Accounting Manager 0.24 0.21 0.21 0.19 Accountant 1 0.24 0.21 0.21 0.19 Accounts Pay/Util bill Spec 0.49 0.46 0.46 0.46 Administrative Clerk 0.38 0.63 0.63 0.63 Town Administrator 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 Deputy Town Administrator 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 Town Clerk 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 Deputy Town Clerk 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 Secretary 111 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.00 Public Information Officer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 Purification Lab testing 32,188 52,054 52,054 35,260 Buildings 993 23,500 23,500 43,000 Equipment/machinery 6,880 25,800 20,800 26,800 Chemicals 100,264 100,000 115,000 125,000 Utilities 83,616 86,258 101,437 134,193 Distribution Buildings (Big T Chem '08-09, Fall River '09 bldg removal) 18,485 54,022 54,022 102,500 Vehicles maintenance and upkeep 56,877 52,000 56,946 57,173 Water system 71,170 46,000 46,000 72,350 Water hydrant 9 9,300 9,300 0 Pump 16,500 8,028 18,400 18,400 3,950 Customer Service Lines 4,488 1,500 1,500 Future vehicle replacement 0 51,682 51,682 49,300 Other equipment/machinery 10,727 11,250 11,250 11,350 Data processing equipment 10,370 22,100 22,100 38,600 Utilities 15,472 15,442 15,740 15,866 Customer accounts IT Services 4,519 0 0 0 L&P - meter reading 34,037 33,000 33,000 34,000 Meters 139,326 125,000 127,700 125,000 A&G Engineering . 136,504 500,000 795,089 108,500 , 07/08 - MLWF Expand/upgrade (10%/yr) Water Fund Enterprise Fund, #503 Town of Estes Park - 2009 Budget SCOPE OF SERVICES Services: Order/purchase/lease water, contract review, easements, planning and forecasting, augmentation plan, watershed management, report to River Commissioner, produce water for public, water plant and distribution system maintenance, maintain water mains and fire hydrants, customer billing, meter maintenance, maintain backflow prevention program, troubleshoot customer PSI and volume problems, locate water moins and service lines, maintain system maps Records management: CDOH reports, EPA reports, operations and historical data Stote required personnel: Class A water operators, Class 3 distribution system operators, Certified backflow prevention technician Original Budget Revised Budget Budget 2007 2008 2008 2009 Legal 13,858 10,250 11,250 10,532 lT Services 16,738 19,686 22,883 24,710 Property rental 40,988 45,814 45,814 43,991 Maintenance contracts 21,096 7,736 7,929 8,499 Education/training 13,258 17,500 17,500 21,700 Payment in Lieu of Tax (2.5% Urban Revenue) 41,091 40,954 40,954 45,789 Franchise Fee (3.0% Urban Revenue) 49,309 49,145 49,145 60,002 Transfers General Fund (4.0% of sales, less bulk water, in 2009) 97,261 99,221 99,221 110,099 Vehicle Replacement (moved to future vehicle purchases in '08) 15,077 0 0 0 112,338 99,221 99,221 110,099 Debt Service 1990 Series A Colorado Water Resources, 2006 rate 4.40% 0 203,519 203,519 180,000 Final maturity 2010, 4.85% coupon 1997B Series A Colorado Water Resources, 2006 Rate 4.75% 0 95,774 95,774 90,000 Final maturity 2011, 4.75% rate j New bond/loan 0 179,707 42,433 194,345 Interest on old bonds 68,381 49,293 68,381 479,000 341,726 513,638 Capital Building remodeling 6,802 4,719,182 5,995,767 345,234 08 - Marys Lake WTF Expansion/treatment modification Security equipment 0 7 500 7,500 8,500 Data processing equipment 17,400 0 0 Communication equipment 587 37,000 48,988 17,000 Purification equipment 20,623 13,895 13,895 69,000 Trucks 64,872 0 0 0 2008 truck moved to vehicle replacement Water system 216,521 200,000 25,000 140,000 Tap fees - MLWTP 0 0 0 331,000 Total capital 326,805 4,977,577 6,091,150 910,734 . Town of Estes Park Detail budget information Water 503-7000-580 Capital 2009 Account Account Name Budget Number Justification 345,234 32-22 ML WTF Expansion/modification 8,500 32-22 Security equipment 17,000 33-36 Communicatioin equipment - base 34,000 33-36 UHF radio conversion 20,000 33-40 TOC analyzer/auto sample 15,000 33-40 UPS for lab equipment (incubator) 140,000 35-54 2009 Looping project 331,000 35-54 Tap fees - UTSD/ML WTF Capital Equipment 910,734 Administration Memo To: Honorable Mayor Bill Pinkham and Board of Trustees From: Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Date: November 21, 2008 Subject: LMD Operating Plan Background Voters in the November 2009 election approved the formation of a Local Marketing District and a 2% lodging tax funding mechanism. Several steps have been taken to ensure the lodging tax will be collected beginning in 2009 and to form the LMD Board, including: 1. The Town and County send the notification letters to the Department of Revenue on November 7,2008 to request tax collection beginning in 2009. 2. Five LMD Directors were appointed by resolution of the Town Board on November 11, 2008 and appointment of two Directors by the Board of County Commissioners on November 17, 2008. 3. An organizational meeting of the LMD Board was held November 18, 2008. The LMD Board appointed a Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Treasurer/Secretary. They also approved their Operating Plan and a Resolution levying the 2% lodging tax. Action We are asking the Town Board to approve the LMD's 2009 Operating Plan. The Board of County Commissioners will also approve the Operating Plan at its meeting today. This action is required according to the IGA, Section IX.H., "Prior to the levying of a marketing and promotions tax or provision of services, the town and County shall approve an operating plan for the district." The LMD Board will approve its 2009 Operating Budget on December 2,2008. The Budget will then need to be approved by the Town Board at its December 9,2008 meeting. Our next step will be to forward all certifications to the Department of Revenue in order to officially impose the 2% marketing and promotion tax. ESTES PARK LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT OPERATING PLAN 2009 INTRODUCTION The Estes Park Local Marketing District was formed pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Local Marketing District Act, Section 29-25-101 et seq. C.R.S. and the terms and conditions of the Intergovernmental Agreement effective August 26,2008 between the Town of Estes Park, Colorado and the Board of County Commissioners, Larimer County, Colorado ("the IGA"). Pursuant to the provisions of Section 29-25-105 (6) C.R.S. the establishment of the District was approved by a majority of its registered electors voting at the general election of November 4, 2008. Also, at said election, a majority of the electors authorized the levying of a 2% marketing and promotion tax for the District. The Act and the IGA provide that an Operating Plan shall be formulated by the District and approved by both the Town of Estes Park and the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado prior to the provision of any services by the District or the levying of the marketing and promotion tax. This Operating Plan is for the period November 18, 2008 through December 31, 2009. ORGANIZATION The District Board shall adopt by-laws, hire any necessary consultants or service providers on a contract basis including, but not limited to, accounting, and administrative assistance. The Board will develop an Operating Plan for 2010 which Operating Plan shall detail the activities, services and funding of the District for 2010. Ennployees The District may hire an administrative employee in 2009. Budget Attached hereto is the proposed Budget for 2009. The District shall only pay those expenses as set forth in the Budget necessary to carry out the terms and conditions of this Operating Plan in 2009. The District Board shall adopt the 2009 Budget prior to December 31, 2008. Adopted this 18 TH of November, 2008. f;j LUX r; - / -\N---L/Tv M, J L*7 -- Chairman --MY-be: ESTES PARK LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT 2009 BUDGET 12 , Budget f A. REVENUE 2009 1. Sales Taxes $1,000,000 2. Interest $1,495 3. Cash on Hand as of January 1St $0 4. Miscellaneous Revenues $0 $1,001,495 TOTAL 1 EXPENDITURES Budget B. EXPENDITURES 2009 4 1. Operating Supplies $2,000 2. Administration $20,000 3. Audit $2,500 4. Legal or Consultant Fees $20,000 5. Board Fees $0 9. Organizational Expenses* $163,000 10. Election $24,000 11. Miscellaneous $2,000 12. Contingent $50,000 TOTAL $243,500 Emergency Reserve Fund Per TABOR, 3% of Expenditures Must be maintained in Fund Balance $7,305 *Advertising production and design $38,500 Visitors guide production $116,500 Early travel shows requiring registration in 2009 $2,000 Printing stakeholder services brochures and forms $1,000 Board Reimbursements $5,000 2 MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: 11-19-08 Subject: Engage Conservation Partners for Preparation ofthe Estes Valley Open Space Plan Background: Following publication of a Request for Proposals (attached) for preparation of the Estes Valley Open Space Plan, fifteen proposals were received. A short list of five o f the best qualified consultant teams was interviewed on November 7. The interview panel consisted of two planning commissioners, two trustees, one staff person from Larimer County and one staff from Estes Park. The five consultant teams interviewed were Trust for Public Lands, Conservation Partners, EDAW, Greenplay and Shapins. The estimated cost of services for the base proposals ranged from $39,339 to $42,465. The interview and selection process carefully considered the value of services (scope), public engagement process, background and qualifications of key personnel, and recent related experience with projects of similar scope and context. The interview/selection panel recommends the Conservation Partners team. This team consists of Marty Zeller (Conservation Partners) and Carol Adams (Studio Terra), with computer graphics and GIS analysis from CTM (Computer Terrain Mapping). This team brings impressive experience with many Open Space planning efforts throughout Colorado, notably: Telluride, Vail, Routt County, Loveland, and South Platte River Corridor. Budget Impact: $39,339 Recommendation: Accept the proposal from Conservation Partners (attached) November 18,2008 To: Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 A policy o f Conservation Partners, Inc. is to enter into an agreement for its services and to provide the client with a scope of work summary. This Letter Agreement therefore, is entered into between Conservation Partners, Inc. and the Town of Estes Park, (hereinafter referred to as "Client"). It is understood that Conservation Partners, Inc. has a consultant team composed of the additional firms of StudioTerra and Computer Terrain Mapping, Inc. Together they comprise the consultant team. I. Scope of Work The Scope of Work to be performed by Conservation Partners, Inc. and its subconsultants in connection with this agreement is as follows: Estes Valley Open Space Plan The following scope of services describes the process, tasks and products that would be undertaken and produced through this project. Task 1: Start-Up Work-Session Following a conference call with Town staff to establish an agenda, a work-session will be held in Estes Park between the Consultant Team and Town of Estes Park representatives. The Town's represelitatives may include staff, planning commission representatives and others that are knowledgeable about natural resources, trails and open lands. The purpose of the start-up meeting is to review the scope of work and project expectations, identify the Town's representative(s) that will oversee the project, review important open space values that have been identified and mapped by the community and discuss priority systems used in other jurisdictions to select projects for action and funding. It is expected that this meeting will identify key community open space values and discuss information and inventory maps available to depict these values or characteristics. The work session will establish a common understanding of community open space values, mapping resources that indicate these and potential criteria that might be used in an evaluation system. The Consultant Team will spend the remainder of the day viewing key open space areas and gaining an understanding of natural resource, development, trail, scenic and, recreational issues that a protection system must address to be successful. In addition, the Consultant Team will spend as much as another day finishing up visits to key areas and meeting with the Town and key partners such and the Estes Valley Land Trust, Estes Valley Recreation and Park District and federal agencies. Town staff shall provide the Consultant Team with background reports and map files that define open space lands that are important to the community, financial information from previous open space transactions and documents relating to the scope of work that were identified in the initial conference call. All mapping that is turned over to the Consultant Team shall be in a digital form or file. Products: Agenda for Work Session and Summary of Work Session Task 2: Produce Materials for First Public Meeting The Consultant Team will produce an agenda and materials to be utilized in the first public meeting. The Consultant Team will undertake a (computerized) existing conditions inventory using available GIS data along with an in-depth visual analy to map critical scenic resources. The inventory will depict open space values tha community has previously defined as important. These will include at least the following: 1. Wildlife Habitat / Ecological Resources: The recently completed Habitat Assessment will provide the mapping foundation. Important wildlife habitat and corridors connecting these areas will be considered. 2. Recreational Resources: Factors such as trail connectivity, trailheads, regional destinations, parks, recreation potential and proximity to existing public lands will be considered. 3. Visual Resources: The Consultant Team will analyze critical viewsheds and map areas important to skyline views - areas where ridgeline development could compromise scenic quality. In addition, a map will be prepared that incorporates the Town's Ridgeline Protection Areas and includes slope mapping to delineate highly visible hillsides. Depending on data availability and perceived importance, other resources, such as historical/archaeological resources and areas important to watershed health may also be mapped. These inventory maps will be used to begin the discussion with the community about confirming those values and potentially identifying other values that are important that could be part of a criteria system. In addition, these will be overlain on the computer to produce a composite map as a way of discussing an open space Concept Plan. A set of sample criteria identifying objective ways to determine the lands with the highest public values will be developed and sent to the Town for review. Finally, a list of optional land protection techniques will be developed for presentation at the public meeting. These will run the gamut from voluntary to regulatory, incentives to cluster zoning requirements, acquisition of partial interests to full fee acquisition but will emphasize that there are a variety of options that can be tailored to specific landowner situations. Experience in other communities indicates that having a menu of options works most effectively since landowner situations vary greatly. Products: Agenda, individual resource maps, draft composite map and materials for First Public Meeting Task 3: Public Meeting #1 The goal o f the first public meeting is ambitious. It is to engage the community in a discussion of three critical elements of the Open Space Plan: 1. Confirmation of key open space values and resources to be protected and initial definition of Open Space Framework or Concept Plan 2. Translation of the identified values into a set of draft criteria that will be used to objectively evaluate potential open space projects, and 3. Educating the community on the full range of land protection techniques that will be refined and utilized in the plan. The majority ofthe first public meeting will be spent on confirming important open space values, those values that may have greater community significance and the initial identification of an Open Space Framework plan. In addition, we will discuss the community open land protection tools available to protect these lands. Having worked onÂ·many successful open land plans we know that it is critical to present the protection techniques up front so that people begin to think how they might be applied to important lands. We may want participants to rate the criteria and techniques so that we get a sense of those that they feel will be most productive and appropriate for community culture. The key to success of this meeting will be good facilitation and opportunities for engagement. We will need to discuss whether we break into smaller groups at key points. Our objective would be to complete the meeting in two hours, with the first hour focused on the values and Concept Plan and the remainder divided into introducing the other two subjects. Products: Summary of Public Meeting and Results of Evaluations of Criteria and Techniques Task 4: Analysis of Public Comment and Preparationfor Public Meeting #2 Following the Public Meeting, the Consultant Team will have a conference call with the Town to review the summary and discuss next steps. The Consultant Team will prepare a memorandum that summarizes community open space values and priorities, an initial Open Space Concept Plan, criteria to be used to identify priority projects with high community values and a draft menu of techniques that the community could employ to protect priority lands. Public input on the importance of individual open space resources or values will assist the Town and Consultant Team in determining whether some of the open space values should be weighted greater than others. Based on this discussion, the Consultant Team may want to develop a weighted composite resource map for review. Such a map will highlight areas where multiple resources occur and where resources of highest concern occur so that there is a clear depiction of areas that contain the highest open space values. Once the composite resource map is complete, a computerized parcel-level analysis will be undertaken that will ultimately rank parcels based on their open space value. If desired, this analysis can be constrained by a number ofparameters such as a minimum 4 acreage requirement or contiguity with other parcels with open space values. If a high level of information is desired, this analysis can result in a table of parcels, ranked by the value of the individual resources occurring on the property along with its composite or cumulative resource value. The Town will have provided sufficient information on funding sources and the land use regulatory system for the Consultant Team to make a series of recommendations on how to employ these for open space protection for the Town's consideration. We understand that the Town is receiving approximately $250,000/year from the Larimer County Open Space allocation. We expect that the Town will be interested in ways to increase and leverage these funds as effectively as possible. Preparations will be made for the second public meeting including summary materials from the first meeting and new materials for consideration. Products: Summary memo of recommendations from the first public meeting, composite resource map, spreadsheet and map with ranked parcels, memorandum on funding and land use options for consideration by the Town and development of materials and maps for use in public meeting #2. Task 5: Public Meeting #2- Draft Open Space Concept Plan, Land Protection Criteria and Protection Options; begin Funding Discussion The first hal f of this public meeting will walk participants through the community open space values, composite resource map, draft Concept Plan, draft criteria for prioritizing open space lands and the menu of techniques to be employed by the community (and its Larimer County, land trust and other partners). We will confirm and add to these draft products based on community response. The last part of the meeting will discuss community-funding options. We will discuss funding options and willingness to pay issues and may want to use response forms to gauge interest in various options. The objective of the exercise will be to frame the funding issues so that they are based on community understanding and input. Products: Memorandum summarizing public meeting comments. Task 6: Create Draft Open Space Plan Based on the input from the public meeting, the Consultant Team will have a conference call with the Town to review results of Public Meeting #2 and identify elements of the preferred plan, tools and funding options. Based on this input the Consultant Team will develop a draft plan (maps and narrative) in electronic format. This will be distributed to the Town for review and comment. A second conference call with the Consulting Team will review comments from the Town. These will be agreed upon and incorporated into a final set o f plans, graphics and narrative to be used at the next public meeting. The Consultant Team will prepare a set of illustrative materials for presentation at the final public meeting. Based on the Town's objectives this may contain an Action Plan describing key steps in the implementation process. Products: Create draft plan and edit based on Town comments, illustrative materials prepared for Public Meeting #3 that describe the elements and recommendations of the draft plan. Task 7: Public Meeting 113-Review of Draft Plan and Implementation Documents A public meeting will be held to present the key elements of the draft plan and to obtain public input on the plan's products and recommendations. The Consultant Team will present each of the elements of the plan and solicit comment from the community. Products: Summary of Public comments. Task 8. Complete Final Open Space Plan including Implementation Strategies The Consulting Team will complete the refinements to the plans and documents and return these to the Town in a set of computer files. A conference call will be held to review the final documents and plans and any final changes shall be identified. The Consultant Team shall put the final documents together in a form identified in consultation with the Town. The final deliverables shall include computer files of the narrative document, plan and maps that the County can use for reproduction. We assume revisions to the maps and documents will be minor at this point. Products: Summary of Public comments; Final Open Space Plan and maps on a computer file capable o f printing. Fees and Expenses The following chart identifies the fee estimates for the project, organized by task. We are willing to have the total proj ect cost be the lump sum, not to exceed amount identified below. Fees would be billed on an hourly basis up to a maximum specified per task. Reimbursable expenses such as phone, travel, lodging, etc. have been calculated at 7% of total fees. Invoices for work performed will be sent out at the end ofthe month and are due and payable upon receipt. The project will commence on or about December 1,2008 and final products will be due on June 1, 2009, if not earlier completed. Task Fee 1. Start-Up & Work Session $6,420 2. Material Preparation PM #1 $5,275 3. Public Meeting #1 $3,120 4. Analysis and Preparation PM #2 $5,800 5. Public Meeting #2 $2,760 6. Draft Plan $6,570 7. Public Meeting #3 $2,760 8. Create Final Plan $4,060 Subtotal Fees $36,765 Expenses $2,574 TOTAL ESTIMATE $39,339 II. Fees and Expenses All services to be performed hereunder shall be performed pursuant to the fee schedule identified in Article I. Invoices will be mailed from Conservation Partners, Inc.'s office at the beginning of each ihonth, beginning January, 2009 and continuing through the contract period. Not withstanding the foregoing, all expenses, taxes, materials and other charges such as, but not limited to, travel, photography, telephones and printing expenses incurred by Conservation Partners, Inc. on behalf of Client and not specifically delineated in scope of work to be performed hereunder by Conservation Partners, Inc. shall be billed at Conservation Partners, Inc.'s cost plus ten percent (10%) for handling. The parties understand and agree that Conservation Partners, Inc. acts as consultant and project manager and not as a general contractor, general partner, joint venturer, or limited partner. III. Contract Provisions A. The compensation due Conservation Partners, Inc. for the work to be performed hereunder shall be set forth in Article I, above. The parties understand and agree that all work not specifically delineated within the scope of work described herein shall be billed on a time and materials basis, and shall be in addition to any budget, bid, or maximum price agreement for the above described scope of work. Wherever practical, changes, additions, or modifications to the scope of work shall be authorized by written change request; however, the absence of such a written change order shall not act as a bar to payment of fees due Conservation Partners, Inc. hereunder, provided the change was in fact approved and ordered by the Client. B. All fees, commissions, product charges and expenses billed shall be due within thirty (30) days of the date ofbilling. Interest on unpaid or late bills shall accrue at 1 3/4 percent interest per month (21.0% A.P.R.). Client agrees that all statements not objected to in writing within thirty (30) days o f receipt are agreed to be final and binding upon the parties as to the amounts due, the adequacy of Conservation Partners, Inc.'s performance and the value of the services provided to Client. C. Conservation Partners, Inc. may request a retainer from all clients prior to performing any services. The retainer is a payment deposit that will be applied to the final invoice as appropriate. D. Conservation Partners, Inc. has the sole and exclusive right to ownership and use of the plans prepared by the design team under the Copyright Act of 1976. Drawings and specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property o f Conservation Partners, Inc. whether the project for which they are made is executed or not. .. The client shall be permitted to retain copies, including reproducible copies of drawings and specifications for information and reference in connection with the Client's use and occupancy of the project. The drawings and specifications shall not be used by the Client on another project, or for completion of this project by others, provided Conservation Partners, Inc. is not in default under this agreement, except by agreement in writing with appropriate compensation. E. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary which requires safekeeping of documents or obligates Conservation Partners, Inc. to safekeep or provide documents to Client, Conservation Partners, Inc. shall not be responsible or liable for any direct, actual or consequential damages which occur as the result of its inability to produce such documents by reason of the casualty, destruction or loss of documents held by Conservation Partners, Inc. unless such casualty, destruction or loss shall be the result of the intentional and wrongful act or the gross negligence of Conservation Partners, Inc. F. Should the project be published in a book, magazine, newspaper, or publication for public circulation, or ifajob sign is erected, Conservation Partners, Inc. should be listed as the planner/landscape architect. In addition, this contract represents non-exclusive approval by the Client for publication of the project by Conservation Partners, Inc. G. If any provision of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be deemed separate and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. H. If the project is suspended or abandoned, in whole or in part, for a period o f ninety (90) days or more, or upon instruction by Client to Conservation Partners, Inc. to suspend activity on the project, Conservation Partners, Inc. shall be compensated for all services performed together with all reimbursable expenses due and the contract shall be deemed terminated. If the project is resumed after such suspension the Agreement between Client and Conservation Partners, Inc. shall be renegotiated prior to resumption of work by Conservation Partners, Inc. For purposes of this Agreement, the term "suspension" or "abandonment" shall mean substantial discontinuance of labor, work, services, and furnishings for a ninety (90) day period or written instruction by Client to suspend substantially all project activities. I. Conservation Partners, Inc. reserves the right to raise hourly rates at its own discretion during the course of this project. Any such increases, however, will not result in an increase in the total fees identified in this proposal. J. If any provision of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be deemed separate and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. K. In the event of a default of any provision of this Agreement, after ten (10) days notice to cure is delivered, this Contract shall be deemed terminated by the nondefaulting party by reason o f default. For purpose hereof, any failure to pay sums due under Paragraph 2, above, for a period o f ninety (90) days shall be deemed justifiable grounds for declaration of a default. Moreover, Conservation Partners, Inc.'s failure to substantially perform under this Agreement shall be deemed justifiable grounds for declaration of default. In addition, either party may terminate this agreement with or without cause upon thirty (30) days written notice by either party. L. Work by Illegal Aliens Prohibited. This paragraph shall apply to all Contractors and Subcontractors whose performance of work under this Agreement does not involve the delivery of a specific end product other than reports that are merely incidental to the performance of said work. Contractor hereby certifies that, as of the date of this Agreement, it does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien and that Contractor has participated or attempted to participate in the E-Verify Program or Department Program as defined in C.R.S. Â§8-17.5-101(1) ("Program") in order to confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment to perform work under this Agreement. Contractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Agreement or enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to certify to Contractor that the subcontractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Agreement. Contractor hereby certifies that it has confirmed the employment eligibility ofall employees who are newly hired for employment to perform work under this Agreement, through participation in the Program and, if Contractor is not accepted into the Program prior to entering into this Agreement, that Contractor shall apply to participate in the Program every three (3) months until Contractor is accepted or this Agreement has been completed, whichever is earlier. Contractor is prohibited from using the Program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening ofjob applicants while this Agreement is being performed. If Contractor obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under this Agreement knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien, Contractor shall be required to: Notify the subcontractor and the Town within three (3) days that Contractor has actual knowledge that the subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal alien; and Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor i f within three (3) days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this subparagraph the subcontractor does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien; except that Contractor shall not terminate the contract with the subcontractor if during such three (3) days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. Contractor shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado Department of tabor and Employment ("Department") made in the course of an investigation that the Department is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in C.R.S. Article 17.5. If Contractor violates this paragraph, the Town may terminate this Agreement for cause. If this Agreement is so terminated, Consultant shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the Town. M. Laws of the State of Colorado and Denver County, Colorado shall control any proceedings arising in the transaction described herein. N. This agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their assigns and successors in interest. 0. This agreement supersedes all prior agreements o f the parties and shall not be amended except by written agreement signed by each party. Conservation Partners, Inc. By: Marty Zeller, President Date Approved By Client: Town of Estes Park By: Date / Request for Proposal: Estes Valley Open Space Plan (Estes Park, Colorado) Purpose: To prepare an open space inventory and analysis for a 32 square mile area comprising the Estes Valley Planning Area and to develop a plan for prioritization, protection and acquisition of open space in the Estes Valley. Scope of work: â€¢ Inventory and prioritize existing open space based on scenic values, wildlife habitat values, and recreation/trails opportunities. The Town of Estes Park has recently completed the Estes Valley Habitat Assessment. This report will inform the open space analysis, in particular, as regards to wildlife habitat priorities and connectivity. The Town will provide an up to date inventory of all existing public and private open space in the Estes Valley in GIS format (shape file). â€¢ Public engagement and consensus building. Public engagement will be important to ensure the study accurately identifies the widely held community values and expectations related to open space in the Estes Valley. â€¢ Develop a plan to protect the highest priority open space. This plan should thoroughly explore a range of tools and options for open space preservation including funding mechanisms for purchase of land or easements, land use regulatory standards, cluster subdivision design standards, site planning design guidelines, etc. â€¢ Study public trail connectivity, constraints and opportunities. Non-motorized public trail use should be considered to ensure that the open-space study includes trail connectivity in the prioritization o f open space. Opportunities to expand or connect existing trails, or enhance the setting of trails should be identified. The Town of Estes Park will provide an up to date inventory of all existing public trails and trail easements in a GIS format. Time frames: Proposals are due Oct. 10,2008. The study should be completed no later than six months from award of contract and notice to proceed. Please provide a work outline and calendar, estimate of lump sum cost, statement of qualifications and examples of similar work products and related re ferences. Contact: Bob Joseph AICP/ASLA Community Development Director, Town of Estes Park 970-577-3725 bioseph@estes.org The Town of Estes Park issues the following information as an addendum to the RFP for the Estes Valley Open Space Study: The anticipated budget range for this study is from $20,000 to $40,000. Consideration of additional services and work products beyond this budget range will be given to any Proposal that specifically itemizes the additional services and associated additional costs. Award of the Contract and notice to proceed is expected Oct. 28,2008. Town staff will be responsible for securing public meeting space, placing public notices and other meeting setup tasks for all public engagement meetings.