The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2008-12-0941' ' a + P i'-6 1 1% A h Prepared 12/1/08 0 *Amended 12/5/08 9 vâ„¢\X/N 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, December 9,2008 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. Special Town Board Meeting Minutes dated November 17, 2008 and December 2, 2008, Town Board Minutes dated November 25, 2008 and Town Board Study Session dated November 25,2008. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, November 20,2008. B. Public Works, Special Meeting, November 20,2008. 1. Landscaping Study - $15,000. * 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment, October 7,2008 (acknowledgement only). 2. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. 1. 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. , ' 6 .il- .-I , ./. r i. 1. 1 I U Â· A. VESTING PERIOD EXTENSION te 1. Streams~ide on Fall River Development Plan 05-05, Lot 1 of Streamside Amended Plat, Curt Thompson/Applicant. B. SPECIAL REVIEW 1. Special Review 08-03, Circle of Friends Montessori School, Lot 1, Masonic Subdivision, John Kamprath and Kay Lawson/Applicants. 3. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ESTES PARK LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT 2009 BUDGET. Town Administrator Halburnt. 2. PUBLIC HEARING - FALL RIVER V - XI ANNEXATION - RESOLUTION #24-08 & ORDINANCE #17-08 - PUBLIC HEARING. Director Zurn. Quasi-Judicial Hearing - decisions made must be based on the testimony and information presented at the hearing. â€¢ Mayor - Open Public Hearing â€¢ Staff Report â€¢ Town Attorney White read Resolution #24-08 and Ordinance #17-08. â€¢ Public Testimony â€¢ Mayor - Close Public Hearing â€¢ Motion to Approve/Deny. 3. OPEN SPACE STUDY. Director Joseph. 4. 2008 BUDGET - SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET RESOLUTION #25-08. Finance Officer McFarland. 5. SUNRISE ROTARY LABOR DAY CRAFT FAIR. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson. 6. ORDINANCE #18-08, AMENDMENT TO THE MODEL TRAFFIC CODE, PARKING ALONG CRABAPPLE LANE. Director Zurn. 7. THIRD AMENDED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE LARIMER COUNTY EMERGENCY TELEPHONE AUTHORITY (LETA). Town Administrator Halburnt. 8. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR CONTRACT. Mayor ProTem Levine. 9. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 10.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, ' Cynthia Deats From: EP Administratioo [ir3045@estes.org] Sent: Monday, December 08,2008 2:34 PM TO: Cynthia Deats Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 0945. ST. TIME 12/08 14:24 PGS. 2 SEND DOCUMENT NAME TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 6672527 Greg White 5869561 KEPL 5869532 Trail Gazette 5861691 Channel 8 6353677 Reporter Herald 2247899 Coloradoan 5771590 EP News ERROR ----- 1 9 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 17, 2008 Minutes of a Special 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 17~h day of November, 2008. Meeting called to order by Mayor Pinkham. Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Chuck Levine Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer John Ericson Richard Homeier Jerry Miller Also Present: Greg White, Town Attorney Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: None 1. ACTION ITEMS: 1. LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT. Mayor Pinkham stated this meeting should clarify the Town's role as it relates to the Local Marketing District (LMD). The LMD will be officially sworn in on November 18, 2008 during their first official meeting. He reminded the Board that the Town Board and the LMD are two distinct boards and it is imperative the members act as Boards and not as individuals. Attorney White stated the LMD is a separate political body with members appointed by the Town Board and the Board of County Commissioners. The LMD Board has the obligation to fulfill their duties as outlined in the state statutes. The LMD must develop an Operating Plan and budget in order to levy the 2% lodging tax by January 1, 2009. The tax collected would remain with the LMD to fund marketing and advertising of Estes Park. The district is operating under the assumption the tax has passed; however, official results are not expected until November 21, 2008. If the tax fails, an additional election would be held in November 2009. Administrator Halburnt reviewed the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) regarding the transition period, which states the Town shall provide a staff member to act as administrator of the District. The Town has appointed Town Administrator Halburnt and Director Pickering to act in this role. The IGA also stated the Town Attorney would provide legal services to the LMD Board. Town Clerk Williamson would create agendas, packets and maintain official records. A member of the CVB will act as the recording secretary. Finance Officer McFarland would provide support related to budget, audit and banking. Town staff would aid the LMD Board in creating by-laws. Director Pickering has created a draft transition plan that would allow the LMD Board to review the CVB operations over the next year prior to developing an Operating Plan for 2010. Staff proposes allowing the LMD Board to develop and operated with no predetermined boundaries. The Town Board has agreed to fund CVB salaries for the initial term of the IGA. Board of Trustees - November 17, 2008 - Page 2 Trustee Blackhurst stated there are three key issues that have not be addressed: 1) Will the LMD manage the Visitor Center or other CVB functions other than marketing and advertising; 2) LMD would have access to funds other than the 2% lodging tax, i.e. stakeholder fees; 3) What CVB staff members would work with the LMD? He stated these issues have not been resolved and are necessary for the LMD to develop an Operating Plan. He commented the approved IGA between the Town and the County does not include payment of the CVB salaries for the initial five year term. He voice concern with transferring stakeholder fees of approximately $250,000 to the LMD, because it would increase the transfer from the General Fund to the CVB for operations and negate a portion of the $850,000 for infrastructure improvements. Board discussion followed: LMD should focus on marketing and advertising over the next five years and leave sales, customer service and the visitor services with the_ CVB; LMD should take over the functions of the current Marketing Committee; the Board should not over define the functions of the LMD Board and provide the LMD with latitude to develop a plan to include the functions and staff needed to complete the task; LMD Board should not be burdened with employees; and current operations at the CVB should be discussed during the review of the Operating Plan. Ken Larson/LMD Member commented the Board does not have a point of view or a direction. The Board would like to have the opportunity to develop a plan to market the Town. The Board has expressed no interest in managing staff. The newly established Board's main goal in 2009 would be the establishment of an operating plan, budget and determining the resources needed to complete the plan in 2010. He stated it is too earlier in the process for the Board to determine if additional funds would be needed and what significant steps could be accomplished with additional funding. Mr. Larson recommended the two Boards meet during the development of the Operating Plan to ensure the LMD has buy in from the Town Board prior to November. Trustee Blackhurst stated the Board never approved transferring the approximately $250,000 in stakeholder fees to the LMD. He commented the visitors guide continues to be a self supporting document that should not be an expense of the LMD. The Town should reinvest the approximately $850,000 spent on marketing on infrastructure. The Board agreed to allow the LMD Board to develop an Operating Plan and a budget with out overburdening the Board with restrictions and providing them a broad scope to work within. The Town would continue to provide support for the first year and perhaps longer if needed and pay the salaries of the CVB staff. Administrator Halburnt questioned whether or not the LMD Board would retain revenues from services rendered. The Board stated the question was premature and should be discussed later. 2. ADJOURN. Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:25 p.m. William C. Pinkham, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 2,2008 Minutes of a Special 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 2nd day of December, 2008. Meeting called to order by Mayor Pinkham. Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Chuck Levine Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer John Ericson Richard Homeier Jerry Miller Also Present: Greg White, Town Attorney Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. 1. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: It was moved and seconded (Levine/Eisenlauer) the Town Board enter 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), and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 4:34 p.m. Mayor Pinkham reconvened the meeting to open session at 5:25 p.m. 2. TOWN ADMINSTRATOR CONTRACT. It was moved and seconded (Homeier/Miller) authorized Mayor Pinkham and Trustee Eisenlauer to finalize negotiations with Town Administrator Halburnt for a three year contract, and it passed unanimously. 3. ADJOURN. Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m. William C. Pinkham, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 25,2008 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 25th day of November, 2008. Meeting called to order by Mayor Pinkham. Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Chuck Levine Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer John Ericson Richard Homeier Jerry Miller Also Present: Greg White, Town Attorney Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENTATION. Mayor Pinkham recognized the members of the Fire District Task Force for their efforts in developing an approach for the formation of a valley wide Fire District. The following members were presented with a Certificate of Appreciation: Don Widrig, Jim Austin, Bob Dekker, Sue Doylen, Will Finch, Bruce Johnson, Frank Theis, Bill Van Horn, Scott Dorman, Lowell Richardson and Dorla Eisenlauer. PUBLIC COMMENT. David Habecker/Town citizen thanked the members of the Board for their service and dedication to the Town. He also thanked the fellow Americans, both past and present, for establishing and defending our country in order to allow one of its citizens to stand and criticize the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. He requested the Board refrain from stating the Pledge before Town Board meetings. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. Mayor ProTem Levine announced the cancellation of the December 23,2008 Town Board meeting. 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. Board of Trustees - November 25,2008 - Page 2 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). It was moved and seconded (Levine/Eisenlauer) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS. 1. 3rd Quarter Sales Tax Report. Finance Officer McFarland stated third quarter sales tax is up 1.47% from 2007 and just ahead of the revised budget of $7.23 million. He stated despite the encouraging news, there is significant room for caution. Sales tax collections are significantly ahead of the three year average; however, the growth rate of -1.03% over the past 12 months is the first time negative growth has been demonstrated since 2005. Forecasting methods for sales tax through 2008 have established sales tax should come in at $7.15 - $7.26 million. The Town Board and staff have adopted a conservative stance during the budget process and reserves continue to be maintained to either weather an economic downturn or take advantage of an economic opportunity. 3. LIQUOR ITEMS: 1. LIQUOR LICENSING: TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP - FROM GREAT DIVIDE RESTAURANT CORP. dba HUNTERS CHOPHOUSE TO HESS ENTERPRISES INC. dba HUNTERS CHOPHOUSE, 1690 BIG THOMPSON AVE., HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson reviewed the application stating all necessary paperwork had been received. Mr. Hess purchased the restaurant from the previous owner in October 2008 and has been operating the business with a temporary liquor license. Trustee Homeier informed the applicant the Town takes liquor licenses seriously and has a zero tolerance. It was moved and seconded (Homeier/Levine) the Transfer of Ownership Application filed by Hess Enterprises Inc. dba HUNTERS CHOPHOUSE, be approved, and it passed unanimously. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA: Mayor Pinkham opened a Public Hearing for all Consent Agenda Items and hearing none he closed the public hearing. 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. It was moved and seconded (Miller/Blackhurst) to approve the Planning Consent Agenda, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: 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. ./ Board of Trustees - November 25,2008 - Page 3 Mayor Pinkham opened a Public Hearing and hearing none he closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Ericson) to continue the Vesting Period Extension for Development Plan 05-05 to the December 9, 2008 meeting and it passed unanimously. 5. ACTION ITEMS: 1. BIG BEAR ESTATES ANNEXATION. Director Joseph stated the property owner has requested the property not be annexed at this time. Attorney White stated the annexation of the property was in conjunction with a larger development project that included the Big Bear Estates Addition and the Elkhorn Lodge that has been withdrawn by the developer. The Mayor opened the public hearing and hearing no comment closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded (BlackhursUHomeier) to deny the Big Bear Estates Annexation, and it passed unanimously. 2 PUBLIC HEARING - 2009 BUDGET - ADOPTION. Mayor Pinkham opened the public hearing, and Finance Officer McFarland reviewed the budget process. He discussed how the revenues are proposed to be expended in the ensuing fiscal year for the Highway User's Trust Fund. The following Resolutions were also presented: A. Resolution #21-08 - Setting the Mill Levy (1.715 mills for 2009) - A temporary reduction in the mill levy from 1.822 mills to 1.715 mills is required for 2009 due to property tax increase spending limits of 5.5% per C.R.S. 29-1-301. B. Resolution #22-08 - Adopting the 2009 Budget. C. Resolution #23-08 - Appropriating Sums of Money. Trustee Homeier commented the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Town and EPURA expires December 31, 2008, and therefore, funds budgeted to support EPURA should not be expended until the Board approves a new IGA. He expressed concern that the budget process was not conservative enough, and the merit increase should be eliminated for the employees. Funds are being spent on operations rather than capital projects. He stated the Town should not be spending down fund balances during uncertain economic times. Administrator Halburnt stated staff budgeted for 2009 with a 30% General Fund balance and Special Review Funds with a balance of 5% or less as a framework. David Habecker/Town citizen stated the original property mill levy was passed by the electorate to pay for snow plowing and not for any other services such as the funding of the Fire Department. He commented he was not scared of the current economic downturn and encouraged the Town Board to move forward with proposed projects. He stated if everyone holds back the country may face a depression. There being no further testimony, Mayor Pinkham closed the public hearing, and it was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) the Highway Users Trust Fund and Resolutions 21-08, 22-08 and 23-08 be approved, and it passed unanimously. Mayor Pinkham and the Board of Trustees thanked staff for their efforts during the budget process. 3. ESTES PARK LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT 2009 OPERATING PLAN. Town Administrator Halburnt stated voters approved the formation of a Local Marketing District (LMD) and a 2% lodging tax at the General Election in , Board of Trustees - November 25,2008 - Page 4 November. The Town and the Larimer Board of County Commissioner must approve the Operating Plan of the LMD as required by the IGA in order to levy the new tax and begin collections in January of 2009. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Blackhurst) to approve the 2009 Operating Plan for the Estes Park Local Marketing District, and it passed unanimously. 4. OPEN SPACE STUDY. Director Joseph stated the Estes Valley Planning Commission, Larimer County Board of County Commissioners and the Town Board held a joint meeting earlier this year to discuss many growth related issues and set in motion action items, including most notably a wildlife study that has been completed. The wildlife plan laid the foundation for the creation of an open space plan. Therefore, staff prepared an RFP for an Estes Valley Open Space Plan and received 15 proposals. An interview panel consisting of two Planning Commissioners, two Trustees, the Open Lands Manager for Larimer County and Director Joseph interviewed the top five proposals. The estimated cost for services ranged from $39,339 to $42,465. The interview team 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. Conservation Partners has been recommended by the selection panel at a cost of $39,339. Discussion followed amongst the Board and has been summarized: the Town needs an inventory of open space and study the issue prior to developing a plan; the process appears to leave out the key players, the Town, County and the Planning Commission; the project should be split into two parts with a study completed and presented to all parties and if all agree, move forward with a plan; public input should be gathered prior to developing a plan; a sub- committee would be appropriate to aid in the development of the plan; the scope of work provides information instead of seeking information; the assumption from the scope of work is a plan adopted by the Town Board with protection techniques and procurement methods for open space; a study should be completed prior to a plan; would a prioritizing method be developed to evaluate property; and how would the property be purchased, i.e. mill levy. Director Joseph stated the core of the project would be to engage the public to determine their values as it relates to open space. The plan would develop defensible criteria to prioritize open space in private ownership and how to best spend Town resources. The proposal limits public input and presentations due to the budget constraints; however, additional meeting could be added at an increased cost. A plan would aid the Planning Commission that is faced with public opposition to development and neighborhoods that place high value on open space. He stated the community has a notion that open space can be governed through regulatory method, which is not constitutional. Ron Norris/Town citizen views the proposal as a study and suggested the Town add check points to determine whether or not to move forward with the next phase. David Habecker/Town citizen stated the study could be enlightening; however, property owners may unfairly have their property lock up as open space. Mark Elrod/Town citizen questioned the consultants sole and exclusive right to ownership and use of the plans prepared. He stated the Town should have ownership of the plan that it has paid for. *A Board of Trustees - November 25,2008 - Page 5 After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Homeier/Ericson) to continue the item to the December 9, 2008 meeting and bring forward a contract for a study of open space with Conservation Partners, Inc., and it passed unanimously. 5. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Rocky Mountain National Park has a cardboard baler they have offered to the Town for residential cardboard recycling. The baler would be made available once a month to citizens. RMNP would staff the site and Town would agree to pay for half the cost of hauling the material. A formal agreement would be presented to the Town during the first quarter of 2009. 6. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: It was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Blackhurst) the Town Board enter 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), and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 9:25 p.m. Mayor Pinkham reconvened the meeting to open session at 10:45 p.m. 7. TOWN ADMINSTRATOR CONTRACT. It was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Miller) authorized Mayor Pinkham and Trustee Eisenlauer to enter into negotiations with Town Administrator Halburnt for a three year contract, and it passed unanimously. 8. ADJOURN. Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. William C. Pinkham, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 25,2008 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 202 & 203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 25th day of November, 2008. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Ericson, Homeier, Levine and Miller Attending: Ali Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Town Attorney White and Town Clerk Williamson Absent None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. FIRE DISTRICT. Administrator Halburnt stated the Fire District Task Force presented the Town Board with its findings and proposed formation and funding of a valley wide fire district at their October 28th Board meeting. Town staff met with County staff to discuss the timeframe and steps for the formation of the district. The purpose of the meeting is to determine the Board's comfort level on turning over operations and management of the Fire Department to a district and the level of subsidy from the Town. The 7% sales tax subsidy proposed by the Task Force would be more than the current transfer to the Fire Department. The Task Force has anticipated the costs to increase over time; therefore, a larger sales tax percentage was requested. She requested the Board review Appendix B, C and D and forward comments and concerns to staff. Attorney White informed the Board that an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Town and a Fire District would be established to include the sales tax transfer to the new district; however, the funds would be subject to annual appropriations. He stated 800 calls would require a department to have a paid staff, and the Town's Fire Department averages 450 calls a year. Discussion followed: The suggested 7% of sales tax is generous and a smaller percentage should be considered; it is critical to provide a commitment and move forward; provide a percentage of sales tax from the previous year rather than the projected sales tax of current year's sales tax as proposed; the Board stated concern with providing 90% of projected sales tax at the beginning of the year to the district; does the current Fire Department support the proposed concept; concern with providing financial support and handing over all capital equipment; leasing equipment would provide the Town some control; sales tax support of 7% could be capped and readdressed after an initial term of the IGA; it could be difficult to garner Town resident support, especially business owners; would election cost be reimbursed to the Town; and the Board supports the concept and remains behind the formation of a district. Attorney White suggested the Board consider quarterly sales tax payments because the district would receive 40 to 50% of the property tax (1.95 mills) by March/April. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson stated the Fire Department personnel have varying opinions; however, the proposed plan has more support than previous plans. Full-time paid personnel are apprehensive of the change. The IGA could address concerns related to benefits and the retainment of the Fire Chief. The IGA could also address the reimbursement of election costs. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 5 Town Board Study Session - November 25,2008 - Page 2 Trustee Homeier stated the Task Force has brought Town and County residents together to discuss a difficult issue and propose a solution. He suggested the Board consider 6% sales tax, retain capital assets and lease equipment and the building to the new district. Trustee Blackhurst agreed and requested a cap on the financial support. Mayor ProTem Levine concurred the Town should lease capital assets and provide a long term lease to the fire district. Administrator Halburnt stated an Initiative Committee should be formed immediately and should include members from the Fire District Task Force. Task Force members are not interested in serving on the Initiative Committee; however, they would support the Committee and provide information. The Board would encourage the Task Force members to form the Initiative Committee. She recommended the Task Force meet again to discuss the Initiative Committee and to form the Service Plan. The timeline for the formation of the district was discussed and includes the following: â€¢ Formation of an Initiative Committee â€¢ Initiative Committee drafts Service Plan â€¢ Committee has Pre-Application with County 60 days (Feb. 19 prior to submittal of the Service Plan to the County Clerk and Recorder. â€¢ Filing the Service Plan by April 1,2009. â€¢ Larimer County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners Review Service Plan between April - May. â€¢ File petition with the District Court on June, 2009. Attorney White stated the proposed budget is realistic, and the Town would realize savings, including funding to the vehicle replacement fund and dispatching services. The proposed district would pay for dispatch services currently provided to the Fire Department at no charge. He stated these issues may be the difference between a 6% and 7% sales tax subsidy. The Town Board proposed the following issues be addressed in the IGA to be brought forward in January: â€¢ Long term lease for the fire station. â€¢ Lease capital equipment. â€¢ Quarterly sales tax payments with money in hand. â€¢ 7% sales tax subsidy with a cap of $750,000. â€¢ Paid staff to remain for 3 years with equivalent benefits. â€¢ Reimburse the Town for election costs. Attorney White proposed a separate agreement be drafted to address the fire pension fund. The Town could be liable if the fund is not maintained appropriately. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:44 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 20,2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 20th day of November, 2008. Committee: Chair Eisenlauer, Trustees Ericson and Homeier Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Chief Kufeld, Chief Dorman, Training Captain Rosenquist and Clerk Williamson Absent None Chair Eisenlauer called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None. POLICE DEPARTMENT Amendment to the Model Traffic Code - Request Approval. The Public Works Department has had difficulties maintaining access through Crabapple Lane due to vehicles parked on the street. The street is currently 22 feet in width (narrow) and was not designed for or constructed to accommodate on-street parking. The affordable housing development was designed to accommodate parking within the development. Snowplowing and emergency vehicle access has been difficult as a result. Public Works therefore requests an amendment to the Model Traffic Code to designate Crabapple Lane as a no parking zone. Staff has met with the HOA and sent out a mailer to the neighborhood. Trustee Homeier stated the road was designed as a no parking street; however, the roadway has never been marked as such. He questioned if parking could be limited on days when there is snow. Director Zurn stated such limitations are not effective, are difficult to enforce and would not address the emergency access issue that arises when cars are parked on both sides of the street. Rich Dixson/Town citizen and resident of the development stated the development does not provide additional parking for guests or families with more than two vehicles. He suggested parking be limited to one side of the street (south side) and restrict parking within 20 feet of any curve. Linda Edmondson/Town citizen and resident of the development stated ancillary parking spaces are provided for those units that were not able to have an apron in front of the garage for parking; therefore, there are few additional parking stalls for visitors. She agreed with Mr. Dixson's comments. Corinne Dyer/Town citizen and HOA member agreed Crabapple Lane should be a no parking area. She stated concern with the number of cars families have and that many do not utilize the garage for parking as outlined in the covenants. She stated cars park in front of her ground floor unit and she would like to see this area as a no parking zone. Jean Michael/Town citizen and resident of the development commented her primary concern is safety and the ability for emergency vehicle access. She questioned if vehicles are parked on one side and snow plowed on the other if there would still be emergency vehicle access. She also stated parking is an issue. . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety Committee - November 20,2008 - Page 2 Rita Kurelja/EPHA Director stated the property was developed with the understanding that each unit would have the ability to park two vehicles onsite, one in the garage and one in the driveway as stated in the condominium declaration. She stated the Housing Authority is the managing agent for the HOA and has developed parking regulations. Wildfire has been suggested as an alternative, but would result in the same issues. She stated parking on one side of the street would be a good alternative to no parking. Arlyn Crowfoot/Town citizen commented he lives on Wildfire and would not take issue with cars parked on Wildfire. He stated it is difficult to navigate Crabapple Lane with cars parked on both sides of the street. He suggested limiting parking to one side of the street and making the street one way. Director Zurn stated an emergency vehicle would not have the proper 14 feet to maneuver the roadway with vehicles parked on one side and snow piled on the other side with steep banks along portions of the right-of-way. He informed the Committee that the Town has received claims for damage to cars along Crabapple Lane during plowing. The Committee recommends approval to amend the Model Traffic Code to add no parking on Crabapple Lane and the associated Ordinance. The Committee requested staff present the three options discussed during the meeting in a memo to the Board. FIRE DEPARTMENT Reports 1. EPVFD By-law Revisions: The by-laws have been amended to eliminate the residency requirement for membership within the service area, referencing the Town's Personnel Policy for disciplinary actions and inserted the Training Captain into the Chain of Command. 2. Recruit Testing: The Annual membership testing was conducted on November 16, 2008 with nine recruits tested. The testing included a written exam, ability test and an oral interview. The ability test changed this year from wearing the bunker gear to wearing a weight vest for the test. The seven recruits that made it through the testing are completing a background check. 3. 3rd Quarter Reports: Chief Dorman reviewed the report. He stated medical calls are 40% of all calls and have increased this year. Chair Eisenlauer questioned what it cost the Fire Department in order to save $8.7 million in property. Chief Dorman would present a cost analysis to the Committee during the annual report. There being no further business, Chair Eisenlauer adjourned the meeting at 8:48 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 20,2008 Minutes of a Special meeting of the PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in said Town of Estes Parkonthe 20th day of November 2008. Committee: Chairman Blackhurst, Trustees Levine and Miller Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Director Zurn, Town Clerk Williamson Absent None Chairman Blackhurst called the meeting to order at 8:55 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. None. ACTION ITEMS. CVB Arboretum Expansion and South Parking Lot Landscape Master Plan- Request Approval. The Tree Board has requested funding to expand the arboretum from the current CVB location across the river and to the areas around the south parking area of the CVB and the river. The expansion of the arboretum would add value to the community both as area restoration, but also an expansion of the educational opportunities it would bring to visitors and citizens. The Tree Board believes the area should be planned by a professional landscape architect. The resulting plan could be implemented over time with money budgeted each year from the Tree City designation. It is estimated several years of funding would create a much more inviting area and establish a natural riverbank environment behind and around the CVB. Cost estimates for a detailed landscape design is $15,000. This item was not budgeted for 2008; however, could be funded with a partnership between the Town and EPURA or Park staff could develop a landscape plan. Tree Board members Scott Roederer and Sandy Burns presented the concept to the Committee. The arboretum would be planted with native plants and labeled. The area contains many issues most notably the erosion of the riverbank and the slumping of the sidewalk, and therefore, the Tree Board requests the assistance of a professional. The entire south bank of the river across for the CVB has been used by the Bureau to remove silt from the river on a yearly basis, therefore, discussions would be necessary to determine what enhancements could be completed in the area. Director Zurn stated hard points placed in the river last year to alter the flow way from the north bank have been successful; however, improvements to the north bank are still needed. Staff continues to apply for DOW grants to improve the fish habitat in the area that would include improvements to the river bank. Wil Smith/ EPURA Director stated the landscaping on the south parking lot was not completed because of the Bureau's annual silt removal. The EPURA Board approved funding for improvements to the picnic area on the south bank of the river across from the CVB, including additional picnic tables and low maintenance grass and shrubs at a cost not to exceed $25,000. Director Smith stated a portion of the funds could be used to fund the design. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~ Public Works Committee - November 20,2008 - Page 2 The Committee questioned why a previous landscape plan was not being utilized. The previous plan was limited and did not include the river. The Tree Board does not support the original plan as it does not contain native plants as requested by the Board. The requested plan would encompass a larger area, and therefore, the Tree Board would like a professional designer rather than staff to develop the plan. Chairman Blackhurst stated a project of this size should be completed at one time, and could be funded from the Open Space Fund or Conservation Trust Fund rather than Public Works. Staff would review the uses of the funds to determine if funds could be utilized for the project. After further discussion, the Committee recommended approval of $15,000 to contract with a landscape designer to develop a master plan for the arboretum and landscaping of the south parking area across from the CVB. Funding would be determined by staff. REPORTS. 1. Estes Park Downtown Transportation Study bv PBS&J - Dir. Zurn reviewed the study. A traffic analysis was conducted for the downtown intersections and showed the intersections reached maximum capacity by 10:00 a.m. 30 to 40 days a year. By 2035 with no improvements, the number of days the intersections exceed capacity would triple to 90 days a year. Several alternatives were analyzed to determine the potential impacts of various changes to the street network. Three short-range roadway options were identified for final analysis, including Option 1 - all northbound Moraine Ave. traffic to turn right onto Rockwell Street with a pedestrian light across Moraine Ave. near Wiest and traffic southbound on Moraine would have the option to turn left on Rockwell; Option 2 - same configuration with the inclusion of a second pedestrian signal on Moraine at the existing mid-block crossing south of Rockwell St.; and Option 3 - same configuration as Option 2 with a signalized intersection at Riverside Dr. and Rockwell St. All three of the proposed alternatives could be completed within the existing Right-of-Way (ROW) and increases the Level-of-Service (LOS) allowing additional vehicles through the intersections. No improvements would lead to 70,000 vehicle hours/gallons of gas wasted, which equates to a large environmental issue. The Town has received a beautification grant from CDOT and has three years to spend the funds. Staff is seeking the Committee's approval to move forward with public input. Committee discussion followed: the proposed changes would not be rejected by the West Elkhorn Ave. merchants; community input needs to be gathered prior to moving forward with any improvements; the Committee expressed concern with directing traffic away from the downtown corridor; questioned if the alternate routes could be seasonal; pedestrian crossings near Moraine and Elkhorn have created a hazard; concerned Rockwell may not be able to handle an increased volume of traffic; and with increased traffic on Riverside the pedestrian crossing near Riverside and Elkhorn restrooms could become difficult to use. Staff commented the new traffic configuration would improve business downtown because traffic would be able to move through the intersections. Providing seasonal traffic routes would be possible but not esthetically pleasing, i.e. jersey barriers. The current pedestrian crossings are heavily used and short of physical barriers would continue to be used by visitors. The Committee agreed the proposed traffic modifications should be presented to the public as soon as possible with a variety of times and dates to accommodate citizen's work schedules. The community must agree with the plan or it should not move forward. Administrator Halburnt stated staff would move forward on RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Works Committee - November 20,2008 - Page 3 gathering public input. Mayor Pro Tem Levine left the meeting at 10:20 a.m. 2. Construction Proiect Updates - Manager Sievers stated the connection between two phases of the Fish Creek Trail from Scott Avenue to Lakeshore Drive was completed by a local contractor this fall for approximately $25,000. Virginia alley pedestrian/drainage improvements were completed with a retaining wall, curbing and two new pedestrian crosswalks on October 3rd under budget. The 2008 Street Improvement Project (STIP) was completed in conjunction with the YMCA paving contractor and completed the repaving of Stanley Ave., Crags Dr., Wiest parking lot and Virginia parking lot. Current projects continue to move forward with Fall River Trail Phase IV 90% completed and a month ahead of schedule. The improvements to the Elkhorn Ave. and Riverside Dr. are nearing completion and CDOT would begin installing then new signal poles. The roadways would be open for the Christmas parade. The contractor has provided a significant price reduction to complete sidewalk and planters in the parking area. Park staff would complete the landscaping of the planters this winter. Town staff should be commended for all efforts provided to complete this project. Administrator Halburnt left the meeting at 10:30 a.m. 3. Traffic Impact Fee Study - Dir. Zurn stated a $15,000 study would be needed to determine costs associated with transportation improvements and impact fees. Larimer County currently has an impact fee for transportation and parks for all building permits including commercial and single-family. Chair Blackhurst stated it would be important to have the information; however, the Board does not seem inclined to impose impact fees. 4. Bond Park Master Plan - Dir. Zurn stated the RFP is 60% complete and would move forward once the 2009 budget has been approved. There would be significant public input on the Master Plan as staff moves forward. There being no further business, Chairman Blackhurst adjourned the meeting at 10:50 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk .. 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment October 7,2008,9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair John Lynch, Members Chuck Levine, Bob McCreery, Wayne Newsom, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant Attending: Chair Lynch; Members Levine, McCreery, Newsom, and Sager Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Recording Secretary Roederer, and Recording Secretary Trainee Karen Ihompson Absent: None Chair Lynch called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of the minutes of the August 5,2008 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/McCreery) to approve the minutes as presented, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. LOT 5, BLOCK 7, AMENDED WINDCLIFF ESTATES SUBDIVISION, 5â„¢ FILING, 3452 Eaglecliff Circle Drive, Owner/Applicant: Stephen G. and Pamalah C. Tipps - Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow the corners of an existing residence to remain 15.9 feet from the eastern property line and 11 feet from the northern and southern property lines in lieu of the 25-foot setbacks required in the E-1-Estate zoning district Planner Shirk summarized the staff report. This is a request for a variance to allow an existing residence to remain 15.9 feet from the front property line and 11 feet from the side property lines. A variance for this property was requested and processed by Larimer County in 1995; the request was approved to allow the proposed residence to encroach into the setbacks. The residence was built according to the proposed footprint; however, it was rotated slighting during construction, resulting in a greater encroachment than was approved. New purchasers of the residence discovered this fact when a survey was conducted recently. Staff considers the current variance request a corrective variance. The property is zoned E-1-Estate, which is a one-acre zoning district with 25-foot minimum setbacks. The applicant's lot is approximately 0.5 acre in size and is undersized for the zoning district. The residence has existed since 1995 with no concerns expressed by neighboring property owners or utility providers. In considering whether special circumstances or conditions exist, Planner Shirk stated the house was incorrectly located during construction, and without a variance, the house would have to be relocated. The variance request was routed to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or to the provision of public services. No comments in support or opposition to the variance request were received from neighboring property owners. Planning staff's findings appear in the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance without conditions. Planner Shirk noted that current practices require an engineer's certificate at the footing and foundation inspection to ensure compliance with setback requirements prior to pouring of footings or foundation. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 October 7,2008 Public Comment: Amy Plummer/Van Horn Engineering was present to represent the applicant. She stated the drawing prepared by Van Horn Engineering in 1995 was a part of the original variance request, not a setback certificate. Planner Shirk acknowledged this, as the drawing was dated July 5, 1995 and the variance was not approved until August 1995. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Levine) to approve the request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow the corner of an existing residence to remain 15.9 feet from the eastern property line and 11 feet from the northern and southern property lines, with the staff findings, and the motion passed unanimously. 4. LOT 25, GRAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION, LESS 1090-484, 530 Grand Estates Drive Owner/Applicant: Daryl and Lorraine McCown - Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 4.3, Table 4-2, to allow a deck addition to an existing residence 12 feet from the southern property line in lieu of the required 25- foot setbacks in the E-1 Estate zoning district Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report. This is a request to allow a 24-foot-by-12- foot deck addition to an existing residence. A sliding glass door was installed when the home was constructed in 1977 to access the area where the deck is proposed. The applicants have owned the residence since the time it was constructed and have always planned a deck in this location. In considering whether special circumstances or conditions exist on the lot and whether practical difficulty would result from strict compliance with Code standards, Planner Chilcott noted the proposed deck would be located 12 feet from the southern property line and would not encroach into the setback any farther than the existing garage. Special circumstances do not result from the lot shapg, vegetation, or topography, and the lot nearly complies with the required minimum lot width. The applicant's lot is zoned E-1- Estate, which is a one-acre zonint] district. Therefore, special circumstances may result from the applicaht's lot size, which, at 0.38 acre, is significantly undersized for the zoning district. The lot size more closely complies with the minimum lot size requited in the E- Estate zoning district, which provides for a minimum lot size of 0.5 acre with required setbacks of 10 feet. The proposed deck would comply with a 10-foot setback: Based on this, planning staff finds that the requested variance for a 12-foot setback is not substantial. The existing character of the neighborhood would not be altered. The applicant did not purchase the property with knowledge of the setback requirement-at the time the residence was constructed, the side-yard setbacks for the lot were 10 feet. The variance request was routed to all applicable' reviewing agency staff and to neighboring property owners for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or to the provision of public services. No comments in support or opposition to the variance request were received from neighboring property owners. Planning staff's findings appear in the staff report, and staff recommends that any approval of the requested variance be conditioned on compliance with the submitted application. Public Comment: None. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Sager) to approve the variance request to allow a deck addition to an existing residence 12 feet from the southern property line, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the submitted application. .. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 3 October 7,2008 5. LOT 19, BLOCK 3, LAKE VIEW TRACTS, Address To Be Determined, Owner: Archdiocese of Denver, Applicant: Our Lady of the Mountains Parish - Request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 8.1.A, specifically in reference to Estes Park Municipal Code Section 17.66.060(13), to allow placement of an off-premise sign for Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Church located at 920 Big Thompson Avenue; Section 17.66.100(c), to allow construction of a 150- square-foot sign in lieu of the maximum 75-square-foot sign allowed in the R-2 - Residential zoning district; and Section 17.66.110(3)b, to allow the sign to be placed within the required 8-foot setback from property lines Planner Chilcott summarized the staff report. This is a request for variance from Estes Valley Development Code Section 8.1.A, specifically in reference to Estes Park Municipal Code Section 17.66.060(13), to allow placement of an off-premise sign for Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Church. The church is located at 920 Big Thompson Avenue. The sign is proposed to be placed two feet from the northeast corner of Lot 19, Block 3, Lake View Tracts subdivision. The applicant also requests variance from Section 17.66.100(c) to allow construction of a 150-square-foot sign in lieu of the maximum 75-square-foot sign allowed in the R-2-Two-Family Residential zoning district, and variance from Section 17.66.110(3)b to allow the sign to be placed two feet from the eastern property line of Lot 19, Block 3, Lake View Tracts, in lieu of the required eight-foot setback from property lines. The required setback from the property line adjacent to the Highway 34 right-of-way would be maintained. The Estes Park Municipal Code outlines findings that must be made in order for the Board to approve the requested variances. The applicant's statement of intent describes the special circumstances they believe exist-specifically, the church parcel contains a paved parking area that extends to the property line and into the road right-of-way. Due to the existing development on the lot, the applicant states a suitable location for the sign is not available on that lot. In considering whether the requested variances would be in general harmony with the Municipal Code or would be injurious to the neighborhood, the applicant states it owns the adjoining properties, including the property on which the sign would be located, and the closest residences are located across Highway 34 or across Vista Lane. No written comments were received from neighboring property owners in support or opposition to the variance requests. Planning staff received a phone inquiry regarding proposed materials for the sign, whether the sign would be lit, and what impact the proposed sign would have on the view from their residence. Planner Chilcott noted that the sign is proposed to be lit; the lighting must comply with the Estes Valley Development Code and Building Codes. The sign is proposed to be a monument sign approximately six feet tall; it would be raised above existing grade by approximately two feet. It is proposed to be buff sandstone with black lettering. Planning staff does not believe the proposed sign would be injurious to the neighborhood. Planner Chilcott stated the Board should use its best judgment in considering whether the requested variances are the minimum necessary to draw attention to the church. The proposed setback from the shared property line with the church would allow the sign to be located as close to the parking lot on the church lot as possible; it would not be easy to discern the sign is an off-premise sign. Town Attorney White provided comments indicating that it would be reasonable to apply the CO-Commercial Outlying zoning district sign standards to the proposed sign. The lot on which the church is located is zoned CO; the lot on which the proposed sign Would be located is zoned R-2. The proposed sign would meet the size limit provided for the CO zoning district but exceeds the maximum allowed square footag'e for the R-2 zoning district. If the Board chooses to apply size standards set forth for the CO district, it would be reasonable to require that the sign be counted against the signage permitted on the CO zoned lot. Discussion followed regarding the proposed sign size, as the applicant's statement of intent indicates the sign would be 150 square feet and Planner Chilcott estimated the sign would be approximately 90 square feet on each side. Sign Code Officer McEndaffer clarified that each face of the proposed sign is 84 square feet; however, because each sign face is separated by less than 24 inches, only one side of the sign is counted toward the total square footage allowance. She also noted that the sign code would allow RECORD OF, PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 4 October 7,2008 installation of an additional free-standing sign on the church lot, provided the total square footage of the signs did not exceed 150 square feet. Planner Chilcott went on to state the church has owned the property for approximately 50 years, and prior to adoption of a Town sign code. In considering whether the applicant's predicament could be mitigated through another method, the applicant could apply for a boundary line adjustment to move the property linb of the church lot such that it would encompass the area where the sign is proposed. Per comments received from the Colorado Department of Transportation, if the church were to sell the R-2-zoned lot in the future, CDOT would consider the sign an off-premise sign and CDOT regulations would require removal of the sign, regardless of any variance approval from the Board of Adjustment. Planner Chilcott amended recommended condition of approval #1 such that compliance with the submitted site plan (rather than site plans, as shown in the' staff report) is required. She also added recommended condition of approval #6 as shown below. Planning staff's findings appear in the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the requested variances with six conditions of approval. Member Newsom noted that if the proposed location for the sign was moved onto the asphalt parking area, a variance to allow ah off-premise sign would not be needed. Planner Chilcott stated moving the proposed sign location could impact traffic circulation in the parking lot; also, the amount of provided parking provided for the church may just meet minimum parking requirements. Public Comment Jes Reetz/Cornerstone Engineering was present to represent the applicant. He stated parking for the church can be an issue, particularly in summer. Placement of the sign in the current parking lot could require removal of some parking spaces and/or recently installed landscaping. The church owns the adjacent property where the sign is proposed t and would like to use the property for that purpose. The church had considered a boundary line adjustment to accommodate the proposed sign but did not want to reduce the size of the R-2-zoned lot. Member Sager questioned the purpose of having a two- sided sign when one side of the sign would be facing the church rather than the road. Mr. Reetz stated the sign is proposed as per the applicant's wishes. Virginia AlmquisUNeighboring Property Owner expressed concern about the potential for a second sign to be placed on the church property, stating she did not want views from their property on Hillside Lane to be impacted by a future sign. She stated she would vigorously oppose a second sign on the property. Sign Code Officer McEndaffer noted the applicant could apply for a sign permit for a second sign. If the sign met the Code requirements, there would be no further public review; the sign would be approved. Chair Lynch and Director Joseph stated Ms. Almquists' concerns are premature and are not part of the current variance requests being considered by the Board. Board and Staff Discussion: Member Newsom reiterated his opinion the proposed sign should be located on the church lot where a variance would not be required. Member Sager noted the proposed location for the sign is past the church for those traveling on Highway 34 from east to west. He reiterated his concern that the side of the sign facing the church would serve no purpose and stated his belief the applicant had not given careful consi8eration to the placement of the sign, given its intended use. Discussion followed regarding whether the Board should grant leeway in placement of the sign such that it could be visible from either direction along the highway. Planner Chilcott stated a specific location had been proposed for the sign; change of this location would require further review by the Board. Director Joseph agreed, noting the variance request should not be a moving target. Member McCreery stated his support for approving the variance as proposed. .. r RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 5 October 7,2008 It was moved and seconded (McCreery/Sager) to approve the variance request for Lot 19, Block 3, Lake View Tracts, to allow placement of an off-premise sign for Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Church located at 920 Big Thompson Avenue, to allow construction of a 150-square-foot sign in lieu of the maximum 75-square-foot sign allowed in the R-2-Residential zoning district, and to allow the sign to be placed within the required 8-foot setback from property lines, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and as amended by Planner Chilcott, and the motion PASSED. Those voting in FAVOR: Levine, Lynch, McCreery, Sager Those voting AGAINST: Newsom CONDITIONS: 1. Compliance with the submitted application, including the proposed sign size shown on the submitted Sign Site Plan. However, staff shall have the authority to approve minimal revisions to the signs in the future without further Board of Adjustment review. 2. This sign shall be attributed to the lot addressed 920 Big Thompson Avenue, rather than Lot 19, Block 3, Lake View Tracts, i.e., the sign shall count towards sign allowances, such as the number of allowable signs and maximum allowed sign area, at 920 Big Thompson Avenue. 3. A sign permit shall not be issued until a draft sign easement and a draft electric easement are approved by staff. 4. A recorded copy of the sign and electric easements shall be submitted to the Town within thirty days of sign installation. 5. The applicant shall obtain any required electric permits and inspections. 6. Compliance with the comments from CDOT dated September 25,2008. This includes the requirement if the church sells the parcel containing the sign, and the property develops, the sign will be relocated onto the church's property since the second parcel will no longer have the same principal activity as the church's property. 7. REPORTS None. There being no further business, Chair Lynch adjourned the meeting at 9:58 a.m. John Lynch, Chair Julie Roederer, Recording Secretary 00 0 14 1 1 . Estes Park Cultural Center Updated Operating Projection for 11Â·,e Arts ~nd i~,2,ZZE 6 JequllejeCI 1 -sm~ 00 1 I il CD * 11 Indicating No Interest in Venue Park R-3 School District, Choral Music Â· Remodeled High School Auditorium is sufficient Â· Not big enough - require 500-600 seats Wea S1UGA3 lepedS >lied sels3 Jo U/\Aol * SenlleA JOOplnO XIpel.UNd 'l,I/\AO esn 01 Jeleid â€¢ u0!lepOSSÂ¥ S,Jel.peel 0!snIN 883Â¥ Mied sels3 0 Allsoo ool eq Il!/\A j! eu.Insse 'siej!O8J Joi efuel ool â€¢ User Needs Analysis * Rocky Ridge Music Center Â· Own performance space * Center Stage School of Dance sie6u.!S Jeql.Uello XeueA Sels3 0 SenueA 304 01 SSeSOB GABH â€¢ - C :918 1 4- I (D 0, M C - m X - -001 E 13 0 :E QU 2 -e M CE M < 4 (D P m r f T 3 E E E I M 1- LLI 6'' ........ 1 ;er Needs Analysis (cont rs - No Specific Reason Given Center of Estes Park Estes Park Hospital Foundation Â· Estes Park Women's Club suo!lonpoid piedoel uapp! ses!JdJelu3 6uos um , Groups with N Â· Friends of Folk * Did not respond su6!sea d!IS!JO UGJ kielleD Jel.1!els e stes 1 elâ€¢ E' 1 .. il User Needs Analysis (cont'd.) â€¢ Local Non-Profit Groups Interested in Using Â· 3-4 concerts annually, average 230 attendance per concert Â· Concert series on Monday nights in June/July Â· Winter concert series would remain at smaller capacity Stanley depend on management, and usage policies SenueA 1900-AAol JO 334 01 Sseooe GABH Mied selsEI 'Senvu!ejunov\1 'uel/\1 u!ejunov~1 'Xle!009 0!301830 0 dnoifi 40ee Joi ienuue seoueluzoped â‚¬-1 . * Estes Park Music Festival * Estes Park Repertoire Theater leARsed puel48!H 4smoos + 9146!u â‚¬-1 Speouoo 41!AA leA!1seJ Xep f â€¢ Am!qepioge uo puedep 11!AA 86esn Â· U'Â· JJÂ¥* 23 uuluut:121 . 46""m Hotel elejoqo ! 1 1 1 1 1 it .9 J Â¢ 2 C CO 1 1 a. 0 0 1 0 71 (D 0 0 0 LU O. 1 1 .. ested in using lobby space for visual arts events User Needs Analysis (cont'd.) â€¢ Local Non-Profit-Groups (cont'd.) Â· 3-6 concerts/year plus rehearsals before each * Chamber Music of Estes Park jepeno Bupls soe>lei JO Allenuue speouoo z . 4pqep3oge uo puedep il!/\A 86esn â€¢ Slesleellei Bulpnlou! 'Jeek/shep oz oi dn â€¢ Al!.liqepio#e uo puedep WAA 86esn â€¢ l.pee eioleq siesieelleJ E- L snld Jeek/seum ez speouoo â€¢ * Oratorio Society * Earthwood Galleries 1-10 times per year 1 1 1 1, e& Â£5 1 la it -C 1- . 1 1 1 , 1 User Needs Analysis (cont'd.) â€¢ Local Non-Profit Grou (cont'd. * Fine Arts Guild of the Rockies Â· 4-6 shows, 3-4 performances of each * University of Colorado Boulder seouelu.loped O!Iqnd 4;!AA AOUapise.1 )180AA Z-I, u! 1se.lejul - s>leeAA el. 'uousnpoid Jeindod ises lieuls - uononpoid Bu!Â·InolleA!;sed e.leedse~lellS 00 - 0.=23 Â¥ Uluuâ€¢ a hiâ€¢v Buu â€¢ Regional Universities U.leitioid eouea . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .0 0 J 4- O 1 - m O 0 O -C & 1 User Needs Analysis (cont'd.) Â· Have long history of performing in EP since 1930s Â· UNC owns a cabin that sleeps 11, would consider use as Â· Little Theater of the Rockies (Summerstock program) - Musical revue and musical theater productions (2 shows) 'sdno.113 leuoisse,old ,-Â£ 'se!.les j.leouoo Ainr Buunp ApieeM - 0!ulapeoe Bupnp sleuoe.I pue seiqulesue X,inoe, gt ol dn - leAilsed 0!snIN Jaulluns BuldoleAep-03 u! isele,ul - â€¢ Regional Universities (cont'd.) * University of Northern Colorado housing for performers MeeAA/SAAOUS 8 01 dn 'S)leeAA 8-9 - dno.16 juepms L g E -3 (1) r 61 Ill User Needs Analysis (cont'd.) Â· Operates 186-seat Butte Opera House in Cripple Creek - Contract through 2009, option for 3-year extension - Professional actors, revue-style show, 7-9 shows/week Reports tremendous growth in EP, up 80% from year 1 to 2 aidd!Jo U! SJOjOBJ UAAOUMUn UeA!6 u! peJOWel lou Â· Park Village Playhouse - Seats 150-180 with tables als;CS"Wel)61~ * Mickey Burdick â€¢ Other 1 1 1 5, 04 0 boo rr mr Vo 00 rr i E -(991.-â€ž-IMMeNVDVDA ~ ~0 -4 CV -4 0 (N-(Ner)00.022(NNer,enâ„¢ ~ R rt 3 E .2 3 9 C 6 9 2.2 h 2 33# f -M â‚¬ Â¢ C Pt uo %222 : 1 9 Mee. :M Â¢00200 7-a 0 0 0 1- 07 ca) EU) 11 9 -03 0 -g rl 08 c 1 (1)35 000 DeÂ® 0 1 01-> 00 -9 0 a a) ZZI S.[agn 4Is~[aA!Ufl Il:jo,qns 602 ZII SO[Sn GIALLOG[dSOXId E[V.101 (gq,UOW iguimns k User Needs Analysis (cont'd.) Group Chamber Music of Estes Park Estes Park Music Festival epertoire Theater s Guild of the Rockies arbara Berber Schedule of Earthwood Galleries ilasa 11301 010'q Joie!O.leu,1 â€¢ Projected Local.Users Estes Park Chorale JOUE only -0 -0 %0 XO O- 0-' O cr. cr. OLDOOLO 1 -1 11 '. 20:2 16 16 92 a) a) V 0 C/7 ~ O- O- O 22a op % -a C C 00= ZZ(D . E co(Dc *Â£80 : JOOZ .. * Will req ire Theater Seating Capacity 433 additional $0.75 $1.25 subsidy in r-Seat Rent $2.00 start-up years n-Performance (Corporate) Per-Seat Rent $2.50 009'BL 06eloo=' eien S 6L ~9$ Peleinoleo 17=1.bs Jed slsoo houednb~o â€¢ Assumptions Estes Park Cultural Arts Center PERFORMANCE SPACE ASSUMPTIONS All 2008 $, Stable Year of Operation Theater Performance Rental Rates SNOUdIAInSSÂ¥ 011NON003 sesuedx3 Bunefedo 60 % Aoue6uquoo SNOIidINASSÂ¥ SNIallne uo!pesueil uoisseolloo 86eJeAv ajek' ain}deo uo!sseouoo u!63eIN uo!1nqu juoo uoisseouoo Operating Projection elehl slgeues @Bull:1 * Stable year, likely Y ar 3 .,1 (9 0 22 8& , 67 0 (D 16 0. C (D CO t g CE . 11 r-- IN CO rt LO CON Rate Code Description Capacity Amount SEÂ£$ Â£Â£17 @WhI eouelluoped - }!joid-uoN leool 291$ Â£Â£* leweelleN/4081/~Ped-UON - 1!JO]d-uoN leool Lt'9$ 92 LS Â£Â£17 8WN 80UeLUJOJ.led - 1!Jold-UON Jel#O LZES Â£90$ 9Â£17 iesieellekl/40 d-uoN -140]d-uoN ]8410 998$ 002$ Â£Â£* d - slejuehl le!0]elilluo0 2 007$ Â£Â£* .pad-uoN ileSJeelle /4081 - siejuekl le!0JallIWOO 097$ Â£Â£$' sesn ped-uoN/seinpel/s6u!18@K uo!1UeAUO0 Operating Projection (con_~' d.) 11: â€¢ Rental Rates Estes Park Cultural Arts Center 000 00 0) 1- or)10 000000 â‚¬46464 01.0,0 0)0091- <0 91-o rt 91-r- O,0,)A O -- U-f 4 8/Â«ail<' N 91Â· CO C\160}N 6,3. .- 66 â‚¬& CN fRi ug 69 th 42/ - 00 LON 1-r- 64 69 CN CO xi-A 22 00 r- 1-0 CNI 64 69 64 64 a) c" 2 g n 3 LO r- . E ,1, CD r CO -- -- ,- CN 03 .t IDCD N 2050 C 8 (D 8 5% Co tâ‚¬ 0 0 . E O- 1- CD & O -2 CE Z J 0 -E E E & -U 000 000 , ELLyt 06 80UellIJOVed - 1!JOJd-UON J041 (December 2008) Uses Rental Charge 999'ZO Lt â€¢ Usage Stable Year leS,le - SIB}Uah' lepieul Â£90' 1.$ ~ ~Jied-uoN/66ulleeIN uo!1ue oz lesleelleN/4001 - 1!Joid 01Â·10 , ll:IOhld-NON hl3 Hl SAVG 1Â¥101 Operating Projection (cont'd.) ~Estes Park Cultural Arts Center OPERATING PRO FORMA Estes Park Presentations - Performance Es es ark Presen a ions - Rehearsals/Tech na Local Non-Profit - Tech/Rehearsal 03MOSNOdS-NMO.I. 1Â¥101 Local Non-Profit - Perfor ll:IONd-NON 1 S3Sn MaH10 19101 SAVO BONVEMONB~~ 1Â¥101 r., Â¤)0 > 00 E 0 G El g co Â®=a C) e 8 i I. g li â‚¬ 1 a) 0 â‚¬0 0 0 0 % Adjusted Avg. Projected Projected Ticket 9Â£2'ZES 9ZZ'Z OOELÂ¢ %02 eouell]Joped - pejosuods-UMO1 Ticket Price Attendance Sales gEL'ZE$ ~ ZZL'817 Stable Year 7Â£,m %99 ~ 00Uewioped - 1!Joia-uoN leool LE*'tz %09 80Uell.IJOJ.led - 1!Joid-UON J@4}o | 96:'9 | %09 1 Operating Projection_(cont'd.) R ar C m â€¢ Attendance Estimates IEstes Park Cultural Arts Center OPERATING PRO FORMA Avg (December 2008) 1 1 10 h 10 co !:R LU U-1 D -1 1- E E LL OQ 0- Llc U) iZLLI 0 0 60 J 05 05 < LU LLI Â® 0/10 Zi 01-IH-il JOO â€¢ J J IJ -J -1 I 1-1-- #1-1- 00000- li 1-1.-1-1-1- If 0$ 8 L SNOUViN393hld >IhIVd S31S3 (December 2008) USES Rental Charge 29*'91$ t6 SE L'tdit OLL Â£90'ZES *E 999'ZO LÂ¢ 99Z Jele Stable Year Operating Projectio~ (9_8t'd.) - â€¢ Utilization Summary ~ Estes Park Cultural Arts Center OPERATING PRO FORMA Jelee41 . - 4 1 . - .. .. I. 4 . 0 4 - - 0 - I ./ . .. . 4 - .- 0 0. 4 - 4 - ... CE .. .. . I. I . e. 4- .. 0- 0 9 E 11 1 FORMA (December 2008) ep![Wikiâ‚¬G gitiuiwol,tirelke!:Dror,6.;i OPERATING lili i BR jz ~0 =0 0 Â¤. 1.0 0 LO 2 U. 00 0 LO U. V> â‚¬4 .....il- 0 ~~l~~ 09$ 991 - seed le!Polsno Fee cy # of Events Fee 21 Un01.UÂ¥ 88d SlueA3 Jo # houenbe,d 09*'*$ 9â‚¬$ 993 - Fluekl lueludinba 082'Â£Â£$ 91VNOI1IG0V 1VlN3hl 1Â¥1O1 Stable Year Labor Chargebacks $125 256 $125 883 SlueA3 JO # Auenbekl Operating Projection (cont'd_.) e~~~4A~ :~~V OPERATING PRO FORMA (December 2008) â€¢ Chargebacks IEstes Park Cultural Arts Center g 6 .. 1 1 1 1 32 32 32 000 Mac,) 1 1 -11.1 - 1 1 El T 4 O 2 00 % Taxes & OPERATING PRO FORMA BASE SALARY Stable Year 009'*9$ 000'99$ (1:I) JeBue~N Jelueo SUv leinlino 00*19$ 000,8,$ (13) Joloei!0 leolu4081 /suoilezed 00*99Â£$ 000'92$ (13) 80!#0 x08/uondeoehl/luels!ssÂ¥ "U!Ul 092 Â£ L$ %0 L - 009'7 LES (ld) Jodee>ppo 091'â‚¬ L~ ~ 900 L (ld) Ja6eue'Al Bulle>pel/\I Benefits Operating Projection (cont'd.) 919101 ~Estes Park Cultural Arts Center (December 2008) â€¢ Staffing 0000 , 000000 g CON 0 0 tO O Cd 06% N - r- C.3 -- CO 6464 6464 CN 64 69 CV fe fa 1 U) g g I- ~u-#2 (D (D .O 2 1: 5 e S 0 CD C .E f:Eif ft, A N * 05 06 r. E2â‚¬,- 22&2, 2 56 22 12 . 25 :: 10 -Z >0 0 -1 1%02*. LL U) 0 0 0 Fl a- al- I- 1 J Zi O L.LI 0 1 1 .. Stable Year 009'Â£$ 000'Z 009'Z S UlwaIN 'leABJ 000' L :q~V SU~! eollq 939$ -me 009$ 91!wied 009'Â£$ (}unoo~~~nquouptq)sZId~lse 0092$ 976'6:$ pee4JeAO 'le}Olq 900'288 ~ 'NI:I 9 .NIMICIV 1Â¥1O1 ~Estes Park Cultural Arts Center OPERATING PRO FORMA e and FOH Managers Expenses (December 2008) Operating Projection (cont'd.) otal, Personnel Admin Pe â€¢ Administrative . I 1 1 2 O LCD 1.0 91- 1.0 - 00 m er) r/ 0 00 CM- C) h -- r.-- LO CNI 91- r-- ocr a) O M i (0 M (D C, - ee ee ee 64 ta CO 1 03 1 1 CD 2) CU 0 1- aa- i~ 2 1 0 -6 t..0 -cb F =Do x-0 00 - O 0 Oca 0 O ~ 1-L 00 Theater 7,655 6109'6Â£2$ S3nN3A3H DNI1Â¥k13dO 1Â¥101 Operating Projection (cont'd.) Reference Recovered from Renters ChU~ZZ:21 eouepuenÂ¥ sales 18)10!1 Pejosuo 90!#0 xog/uo!SSeOUOO leN '86weAe 00!JJO X08/UOESe0U00 ~Estes Park CulturaI Arts Center OPERATING PRO FORMA (December 2008) leluehl 41!oed 'lelol enll@Aek! Bu!;Ele entleAekl Buiteledo Jel#O 'tel â€¢ Revenues Facility Rental & 8280 *Â§ 3 --)-Â°-5 Sist,4 - EM El Â£2 EEC c i fat i 05 << Va 11 12 le 2 .*0# 0 3. 2â‚¬9 1 ~E@ Â°'~ ~~ w ~ * ~ eu_ g.g e ,/8883 < 0- a. a_ LU 1.- 1- 3 ft,Hip,3 Sl;; 1 ,- E il 11/il Mt i ir . > C _82 1 CO L.J I CD 0 #f# 8 3 @ 3- C mco 42 g Edo 11 6,000 Admin Exp. $7,200 Admin Exp. $4,625 Admin Exp. $3,600 916'922 000'9Â£$ 009'M OOK'8$ 009'84$ 091'Â£1$ 099'1Â£$ 009'9Lt te L'ZES pue saoueJnsui , *Â£9'96Â£ $262, 6Â£ L 'Â£Â£*$ S3SN3dX3 DNI.I.VhladO 1Â¥101 299' L 1$ %9 @ Aou@6u!]uoo asuedx3 OPERATING PRO FORMA (December Staffing Admin Exp. Operating Projection (cont'd.) ~Estes Park Cultural Arts Center â€¢ Expenses 2008) Stab e nagers uction Assistants) mpensation - St .. 0 0 LU LU D xp c/) Z O- Z cn LU 1-0 LU 91> 0 @ 92 2' LU LU 205 0 A LLI 0 00 m c CD &= 8 F x E 1.- 0 0 < LU Â¤) .t=: < E g RE ec b~ 0 2.15 8 0- , 2 6990- E O E ~ 580 15 0 -1 I o EaCJ 050#0~0 CLO-<CLOLLIO O 1- . 11 Stable Year $107,655 argebacks & Cost Recovery $33,280 $32,735 ncessions (Net Revenue) $34,144 $31,705 $239,519 080'791$ 9/6'93$ ee4JeAO eA!wils!u 009,8,$ tÂ£9'96$ Z99' LE$ 962'*9*$ %29 Eg sesued)<3 JO % enlleAekl 6u! eJe LZE'SLZE ~I:laG 9Nll.73g Operating Projection (cont'd.) ~ Estes Park Cultural Arts Center OPERATING PRO FORMA (December 2008) OPERATING REVENUES â€¢ Summary 1 . 1 m 000 M COLOOT- "C\109, , 0 4 Z LO 4- * th C\INC)0 42 R IDC\1 64 00 â‚¬464 44 - rl- a 0 NESog E O- h8 h W C N CD ./. rt 0 CD LO * 10 X 09 99 v. 0 Ul I. CO r- 1.0 OLOLO 01- O.A.M. Q A LO N r- O C mom I 1 00 1 -1 2 0 1 0- CO t 1 0 -C C E 11. C])f E 0 a) 0 2 6, u) - 0 = B. C a) (0 - C Â·- 0 1 11 2â‚¬ 19 0 2 9 919 -0 a - m 8 22 % co 0-EW-CO- 8 i 2 16 i 8 @ g -Â§ 2 9 9. 0 - 21-50Â§ 16 0.22 E 8 c O NOOF 1 .0 m - 0 i 3 U) J z U) C ' Mi t- .. Multiplier Impact E :9'99Â£' " ZZL,8, Potential Economic Impact Spending 48,~~ct $27.79 92629:2$ lejol Bu.!pueds X3811!oue eoue!pne Jol eil-16!J ef}efeAv leuo!1814 uo pesed FT & PT) .. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E 1 ~f Â£2 22 1 CD - A 1 == 0 0 2 J -9 -m r , al C -t: C 6= 2 , W L. 1 . Next Steps/Considerations ,, concerns expressed about affordability of * Strong consideration should be given to endowment or other fund to subsidize cal non-profit groups suv ieuo!6ehl Xq pelosuods Xuel.U 'Slepouu Jo X13!JeA S'!ounoo .. Estes Park Cultural Arts Center OPERATING PRO FORMA (December 2008) CONTENTS Schedule # Page # Key Assumptions Schedule 1 Page 2 SUMMARY PRO FORMA Schedule 2 Page 3 REVENUE SUMMARY Schedule 3 Page 4 EXPENSE SUMMARY Schedule 4 Page 5 Theater Rental Rate Schedule Schedule 5 Page 6 Rental Additions / Chargebacks Schedule 6 Page 7 Utilization Summary Schedule 7 Page 8 Theater Utilization Projections Schedule 8 Page 9 Theater Attendance Projections Schedule 9 Page 10 Concession Sales and Box Office Charges Schedule 10 Page 11 Administrative Expense Detail Schedule 11 Page 12 Staffing and Compensation Schedule 12 Page 13 AMS Planning & Research Corp. Page l of 13 12M/2008 .. ,. Estes Park Cultural Arts Center SCHEDULE 1: KEY ASSUMPTIONS PERFORMANCE SPACE ASSUMPTIONS All 2008 $, Stable Year of Operation Theater Seating Capacity 433 Theater Performance Rental Rates Local Non-Profit Per-Seat Rent $0.75 + Other Non-Profit Per-Seat Rent $1.25 Commercial Performance Per-Seat Rent $2.00 Non-Performance (Corporate) Per-Seat Rent $2.50 ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS Fringe Benefits Rate 30% Contingency % of Operating Expenses 5% Average Concession Transaction $4.00 Concession Capture Rate 50% -Concession Contribution Margin 35% BUILDING ASSUMPTIONS Square Footage 18,600 Occupancy Costs per Sq. Ft., calculated $5.19 1 AMS Planning & Research Corp. Page 2 of 13 12M/2008 Estes Park Cultural Arts Center Schedule 2: Summary Pro Forma Stable Year OPERATING REVENUES Rental Income $107,655 Chargebacks & Cost Recovery $33,280 Ticket Sales $32,735 Concessions (Net Revenue) $34,144 Box Office Ticket Charges $31,705 . TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES $239,519 OPERATING EXPENSES Personnel $262,080 Administrative Overhead $25,925 Programming $48,600 Occupancy $96,534 Expense Contingency @ 5% $21,657 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $454,796 Operating Revenue as % of Expenses 52.67% OPERATING DEFICIT $215,277 AMS Planning & Research Corp. Page 3 of 13 12M/2008 i y Estes Park Cultural Arts Center Schedule 3: Revenue Summary Reference Stable Year Facility Rental Theater Utilization $107,655 Costs Recovered from Renters Chargebacks $33,280 Sub-Total, Facility Rental $140,935 Other Operating Revenue Town-Sponsored Ticket Sales Attendance $32,735 Food/Beverage, Net Concession/Box Office $34,144 Box Office Ticket Charges * Concession/Box Office $31,705 Sub-Total, Other Operating Revenue $98,584 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES I $239,519 AMS Ranning & Research Corp. Page 4 of 13 12M/2008 Estes Park Cultural Arts Center Schedule 4: Expense Summary Stable Year Personnel Reference Compensation - Staff Staffing $210,800 Stagehands, Stage Managers Admin Exp. $33,280 Other Part-Time (Produdion Assistants) Admin Exp. $18,000 Sub Total, Personnel $262,080 Administrative Overhead Printing Fees Staffing $2,500 Postage & Mailing Admin Exp. $2,000 Public Relations/Special Events $6,000 Equipmen#Supplies Admin Exp. $7,200 Travel, Subscriptions, Licenses Admin Exp. $4,625 Telephone Admin Exp. $3,600 Sub Total, Admin. Overhead $25,925 Programming Artist Fees $36,000 Production Costs $4,500 Marketing $8,100 Sub Total, Admin. Overhead $48,600 Occupancy Janitorial Services $23,250 Utilities $32,550 Maintenance Contrads $18,600 Insurances and Bonding $22,134 Sub-Total, Occupancy $96,534 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $433,139 Expense Contingency @ 5% $21,657 AMS Planning & Research Corp. Page 5 of 13 12M/2008 ,, Estes Park Cultural Arts Center Schedule 5: Rental Rate Schedule Rate Code Description Capadty Charge Per-Seat Amount 1 Local Non-Profit - Performance Rate 433 $0.75 $325 2 Local Non-Profit - Non-Perf./Tech/Rehearsal 433 $0.38 $162 3 Other Non-Profit - Performance Rate 433 $1.25 $541 4 Other Non-Profit - Non-Perf./Tech/Rehearsal 433 $0.63 $271 5 Commercial Rentals - Performance Rate 433 $2.00 $866 6 Commercial Rentals - Tech/Rehearsal/Non-Pei 433 $1.00 $433 7 Convention Meetings/Lectures/Non-Perf. Uses 433 $2.50 $1,083 1 1 AMS Planning & Research Corp. Page 6 of 13 12M/2008 .; *i Estes Park Cultural Arts Center - Schedule 6: Rental Additions/Chargebacks Stable Year Fee ~ ' Frequency # of Events Fee Amount Labor Chargebacks $125 50% 256 $125 $16,000 Fee Frequency # of Events Fee Amount Custodial Fees $50 ~ 100% 256 $50 $12,800 Avg. Charge Per Event Frequency # of Events Fee Amount Equipment Rental $35 50% 256 $35 $4,480 TOTAL RENTAL A0DITIONALS $33,280 AMS Planning & Research Corp. Page 7 of 13 12M/2008 4. 4. Estes Park Cultural Arts Center Staile Year Schedule 7: Utilization Summary USES Rental Charge Theater TOTAL ESTES PARK PRESENTATIONS 18 $0 TOTAL LOCAL NON-PROFIT USES 94 $26,467 TOTAL OTHER NON-PROFIT USES 110 $54,125 TOTAL OTHER USES 34 $27,063 TOTAL - Theater 256 $107,655 TOTAL EVENTS 256| TOTAL RENTAL EVENTS / RENT 256 $107,655 AMS Planning & Research Corp. Page 8 of 13 12M/2008 .. Estes Park Cultural Arts Center Stable Year Schedule 8: Utilization Rental Rental Projections Rate Uses Rate Rental Charge Code Estes Park Presentations - Performance n/a 9 $0 $0 Estes Park Presentations - Rehearsals/Tech n/a 9 $0 $0 TOTAL TOWN-SPONSORED 18 $0 Local Non-Profit - Performance 1 69 $325 $22,408 Local Non-Profit - Tech/Rehearsal 2 25 $162 $4,059 TOTAL LOCAL NON-PROFIT 94 $26,467 Other Non-Profit - Performance 3 90 $541 $48,713 Other Non-Profit - Tech/Rehearsal 4 20 $271 $5,413 TOTAL OTHER NON-PROFIT 110 $54,125 Commercial Rentals - Performance 5 15 $866 $12,990 Commercial Rentals - Tech/Rehearsal ~ 6 10 $433 $4,330 Convention Meetings/Non-Pei 7 9 $1,083 $9,743 TOTAL OTHER USES 34 $27,063 TOTAL PERFORMANCE DAYS 183 TOTAL EVENT DAYS 1 256 $107,655 . AMS Planning & Research Corp. Page 9 of 13 12M/2008 ' I Estes Park Cultural Arts Center - Stable Year Schedule 9: Attendance Avg. Ticket Avg % Adjusted Avg. Projected Projected Ticket Projections Price (2008 Sold Ticket Price Attendance Sales $$$) Town-Sponsored - Performance 1 $18 1 70% $12.00 2,728 $32,735 Local Non-Profit - Performance ~ 1 55% 16,432 Other Non-Profit - Performance 60% 24,421 Commercial - Performance 1 1 80% 5,196 TOTALS | | 1 48,777 ~ $32,735 . AMS Planning & Research Corp. Page 10 of 13 12M/2008 Estes Park Cultural Arts Center Schedule 10: Stable Year Concessions Sales and , Tickets Sales TICKETS SOLD 48,777 $32,735 Box Office Charges Transadion Capture Concession Food & Beverage Average Rate Sales Theater Patron Sales $4.00 50% $97,555 Contribution Margin 35% $34,144 Per-Ticket Tickets Box Office Share Charge Revenue Box Office 48,777 65% $1.00 $31,705 AMS Planning & Research Corp. Pagellof13 12M/2008 . , Estes Park Cultural Arts Center Schedule 11: Administrative Expense Detail Stable Year Admin Personnel Full and Part-Time Staff $210,800 Stagehands, Stage and FOH Managers $33,280 Other Part-Time (Production Assistants) $18,000 Sub Total, Personnel $262,080 Overhead Telephone - (based on headcount) $3,600 Postage & Mailing - Gen'I $2,000 Printing & Copying, General $2,500 Travel, Meetings, Mileage $2,500 Publications & Subscriptions $1,000 Memberships & Dues $625 Ucenses/Fees/Permits $500 Office Supplies (based on headcount) $3,600 Equipment Repair/Maint./Support $3,600 Subtotal, Overhead $19,925 TOTAL ADMIN. & FIN. $282,005 . AMS Planning & Research Corp. Page 12 of 13 12M/2008 .. Estes Park Cultural Arts Center - % Taxes & BASE SALARY Stable Year Schedule 12: Staffing Benefits Cultural Arts Center Manger (FT) $65,000 30% $84,500 Operations/ Technical Diredor (FT) $48,000 30% $62,400 Admin. Assistan#Reception/Box Office (FT) $28,000 30% $36,400 Bookkeeper (PT) $12,500 10% $13,750 Marketing Manager (PT) $12,500 10% $13,750 TOTALS $166,000 , $210,800 AMS Planning & Research Corp. Page 13 of 13 12M/2008 ... Town of Estes Park Community Development ESTES MM_,Â· PARK COLORADO Room 210, Town Hall Memo P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: 12-3-08 Re: Vested Rights Extension Request for Streamside on Fall River Development Plan #05-05, Lot 1 of Streamside Amended Plat, Curt Thompson/Applicant. Background. Streamside Development Plan #05-05 was approved by the Estes Valley Planning Commission on October 18, 2005. The three-year statutory vesting period expired in October of this year. This plan proposes construction of twenty-four accommodations units and parking within thirty feet of Fall River as shown below. Currently, the Planning Commission is discussing code changes that may result in both greater river setbacks and wildlife impact mitigation effective sometime in 2009. If adopted, these changes would have a significant influence in a new approval on this site. The applicant is requesting a one-year extension of this vesting period. Budget. ------ ------- ---- ------m. 4 - . -- . -- -4=f-gl~-tof.ff.Tfer hiyky-ti 1-1- I:In-* 3 none 4. 4 1 96...lat 1.frrlls=--- - Action. il ' ~1 1 '~ --I- - i T-"'~'11<822.1*=rÂ·--- T 0,14 1- : 1 -=94% The Board should weigh carefully the i -13.4#-*r--1=7/ li : circumstances presented by the --1 -,0-1,-1 2 #trfav ; 11 applicant in support of this reguest, 16=4 ->-TriL 3\ 1 T dj J 30 Foot Setback From =* -=-- -- --2~ ...:\ r=01 j 4 along with the possibility that the 2~,KI-- k----llen~*~~t \,r ff 1 High Water Mark applicable regulatory context may 1 ~3~1;~2* -20~1 ; 9/. Topof River Bank change sometime in the next six :i. . 94 -- VI'll . .r :& V.=I- months. Any motion to extend this , / r. r-4% I E.-2444Â£, 1 1:' 4_Migh Water Mark vesting should be specific as to the date / L--J I.* I - .- ..==- i -- ; 1+L r 11 upon which the extension would expire. --0--.... I -- 1 Pf? 2 k> -I -- - ~--- 1 Town of Estes Park 1.U Community Development E ST E S -MIÂ® PARK COLORADO Room 210, Town Hall P.O. Box 1200, Estes Park, CO 80517 Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Alison Chilcott, Planner 11, and Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: November 28,2008 Re: Circle of Friends Montessori School Special Review #08-03, Lot 1, Masonic Subdivision, Circle of Friends Montessori School/Applicant Background. The Montessori School has submitted a special review application to operate a day-care center in the Masonic Lodge building at 1820 South Saint Vrain Avenue (Highway 7). The property is zoned R-2-Two-Family Residential and day-care centers are permitted by special review in this zoning district. Staff approved a temporary-use permit on September 12, 2008 to allow the Montessori School to relocate to the Lodge while the special review application is being reviewed. The permit expires on December 9, 2008, the date the Town Board is scheduled to make a decision on the special review application. A condition of the temporary-use permit is that "If the Town Board does not approve the special review application, the Montessori School will be required to immediately discontinue use of the property." Ck..2;42447 The school had a deadline by which -At~ ,-6.gh-Aer,s Or. 1.Â»,>1 ;9~ 4 ...tt '-hz *t. .ffk- ithad tomove out ofthe elementary 4 -4 #cÂ·=44,>d~ 64 -.A ::14 school. Without the temporary-use -, + .-Â»~?i' 111~11 ~rElte=1=15(]21: 1% *1 *t. U .0,0 1,93 9 -Â» .14,=er; 1 ~ a.4/2 Singl4-Finfity Â»" ~9* r "1, '4 special review application was being reviewed. Per the Director, '*'1*.+Ljittl~i * 40~*0Â£ Kay Lawson, the school has thirty- 44't, 6.Â«31 eight children enrolled and six staff 9, *..%6/1.: Â¥ I.,y ~velopa ~A;Alll.l~mill W 2.4.:: in, U 4Â¢* 44 4- I, Citivj~~30/cl members. Closure of the school mal. 4 #.1*,~fi~,A Cacia DE,imi~-* rt--â€¢11.- would have had a significant impact Â«19~,a~y ~_==aâ€žetit.,.:~?4~Â·*â€¢~F~!~j; on families using the school's 094,1.4~ 4 Single-FSA;Ilr~11M~1~14V services. On November 18, 2008, the Estes Valley Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of the special review application. Planning Commission recommended a number of waivers to code requirements since the Lodge is a temporary location for the Montessori School (The school is actively searching for a permanent location). For this reason Planning Commission recommended that this approval, if granted, expire on March 24, 2010. If the Montessori is interested in remaining at the Masonic Lodge beyond this date, the use will be re-reviewed by Planning Commission and Town Board and additional improvements such as revegetation and landscaping, removal of the Highway 7 access, and relocation of the Acacia Drive access may be required. Budget. The following fees have been waived by the Community Development Director. Special Review Application $2,000.00 Temporary Use Application $50.00 Building Permit $760.06 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $100.00 Total $2,910.06 Action. Approval of the application with the Estes Valley Planning Commission's findings and conditions. The Planning Commission's recommended conditions are provided below: 1. This approval shall expire on March 24, 2010 and the Montessori School shall: a. Submit a new special review application for review by December 23,2009 for Planning Commission review on February 17, 2010 and Town Board review on March 24, 2010; or b. Shall vacate the property no later than March 24,2010. 2. Compliance with the affected agency comments. â€¢ Page 2 Administration Memo To: Honorable Mayor Bill Pinkham and Board of Trustees From: Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Date: December 4,2008 Subject: LMD Budget Background Voters in the November 2009 election approved the formation of a Local Marketing District and a 2% lodgingtax 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 bythe 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 levyingthe 2% lodgingtax. 4. On November 25,2008, the town board and county commissioners approved the LMD's 2009 operating plan. Action We are asking the Town Board to approve the LMD's 2009 Budget. The statutes are somewhat unclear if the town and county need to approve the LMD's budget or simply receive a copy. For this year, Greg White has recommended approval of the LMD's budget as part and parcel of the LMD's operating plan. The LMD Board approved its 2009 Operating Budget on December 2,2008. They reduced their draft budget by $163,000 of operating expenses. Some members of the town board expressed concern that the LMD had budgeted for costs they may not incur in 2009. Instead, the LMD will seek a budget amendment, should those expenses become necessary in 2009. The final budget is $124,115. ESTES PARK LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT 2009 BUDGET 1 It. 1 - r- 1 . - 1 4 +Ir - ihts -111 -1 6 01-2 10- 1 2 " C 46512'~ 11Ljlma. : r _ - 1- Sales Taxes $1,000,000 -i- -U Interest $1,495 Cash on Hand as of January Ist SO ! Miscellaneous Revenues I $0 i $1,001,495 TOTAL 'g. EXPENDITURES Budget ; B. EXPENDITURES 2009 - 1. Operating Supplies $2,000 2. Administration ' $20,000 1 3. Audit i $2,500 1 ~ 4. Legal or Consultant Fees $20,000 , i ~ 5. Board Fees $0 , 10. Election 1 $24,000 11. Miscellaneous $2,000 ~ 12. Contingent $50,000 ~ TOTAL $120,500 ~ *3*.te---.-7-....- Emergency Reserve Fund Per TABOR, 3% of Expenditures Must be maintained in Fund Balance $3,615 Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: David Shirk, Planner Date: December 9,2008 Subject: Fall River Addition Phases 5-11 Background. .' %.1 In September 2007, the ~ 7 0.- Estes Valley Planning ~ ~ ' ~~ RMNPit{PII Commission unanimously i 6 f ,<194 )- F... approved Development I 44*1 Plan 07-14 for Della Terra I Il 0 ~ faltATi*ad~__ Current town ~ Mountain ChAteau, a ~/7 *1~ 7171 Mund=v i ~ twelve-room bed and F RMNP 1 -I [1 t.1 *1 t-1 9.J breakfast/wedding facility to it 43 1 /9 Ill be located at 3501 Fall ./.-6.li 02-11.4[1 River Road, within unincorporated Larimer .*6-4, 1 1 - A,~LI '1 -.....6 - - *ff- County. The site is currently operated as the National Park Retreats campground, and owned by Della Terra, LLC (a Fort Collins LLC). The owner intends to abandon the camp sites at the end of the 2008 season, and begin operation of the bed and breakfast in the 2009 season. Existing motel/cabins will remain. Pursuant to an inter-governmental agreement with Larimer County, Planning Commission approval included a requirement to petition the town for annexation. On March 25, 2008, the Town Board approved an annexation agreement that provided for annexation of town property (the hydro-plant grounds) and water service. The applicant agreed to pay for half of the annexation costs, with the Town paying the balance and processing the annexation petition. It is this annexation petition being considered now. Addition 5: .51 acres, Fall River Road right-of-way Addition 6: 1.07 acres, Fall River Road right-of-way Addition 7: 20.02 acres, zoned "A-1" Accommodations, Town owned property (old fish hatchery, employee housing) Add#ion 8: 3.14 acres, Fish Hatchety Road right-of-way Addition 9. 45.85 acres, zoned "A-1" Accommodations, Town owned property (picnic grounds, museum) Add#ion 10: 1.96 acres, Fall River Road right-of-way Addition 11. 16.01 acres, Fall River Road right-of-way (1.57 acres), "Della Terra" property (14.44 acres, zoned "A" Accommodations) Budget. The expected additional expenses are minimal. This is because the Police Department already patrols the property owned by the Town, and the highway is maintained by CDOT. Staff has not conducted an in-depth estimate of the project revenue for this project due to confidentiality of the business model. However, past studies have found that commercial properties generate more revenue than expenses. Typically, a commercial property generates approximately $1.2 dollars of revenue for every $1 of expense. Action. Staff recommends APPROVAL of the Fall River Addition Phases 5-11. â€¢ Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 24-08 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 "FALL RIVER FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH, NINTH, TENTH AND ELEVENTH ADDITIONS" to the Town of Estes Park is as follows: FALL RIVER ANNEXATION FIFTH ADDITION: A tract of land located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 16 as monumented by a 2 1/2" brass cap on a 1" pipe and with all bearings relative to the East line of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 16 considered as bearing N 01Â°19'00" E, the south end of said line being monumented by a 1" pipe and a 2 1/2" G.L.O. brass cap stamped 1925; thence S88Â°31'00'W 2609.69' to the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 16, being monumented by a 2 1/2" brass capped pipe stamped C 1/4 corner Section 16, T5N, R73W, U.S.G.L.O. 1926 Survey and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence S89Â°19'27'W 237.69' along the North 1/4 line of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 16; thence departing said North line S52Â°03'50"E 299.27' to a point on the southern right-of-way of Highway 34; thence departing said right-of-way N00Â°37'00"E 141.14 to a point on the northern right-of-way of Highway 34; thence along said right-of-way NOOÂ°09'21"E 45.66' more or less to TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; said tract contains *22,221 square feet (0.51 acres) more or less, and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way of record, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Containing 0.51 acres. FALL RIVER ANNEXATION SIXTH ADDITION: A tract of land located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the East 1 /4 corner of said Section 16 as monumented by a 2 1/2" brass cap on al" pipe and with all bearings relative to the West line of the Southeast lM of said Section 16 considered as bearing N 01Â°19'00" E, the south end of said line being monumented by al" pipe and a2 1/2" G.L.O. brass cap stamped 1925; thence 4. S88Â°31'00"W 2609.69' to the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 16, being monumented by a 2 1/2" brass capped pipe stamped C 1/4 corner Section 16, T5N, R73W, U.S.G.L.O. 1926 Survey; thence S89Â°19'27'W 237.69' along the North 1/4 Section line and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence departing said 1/4 Section line S52Â°03'50"E 299.27' to a point on the southern right-of-way of Highway 34; thence continuing along said southern right-of-way N76Â°21'36'W 755.21'; thence departing said southern right-of-way N89Â°19'18"E 497.91 more or less to TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; said tract contains *46,496 square feet (1.07 acres) more or less, and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way of record, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Containing 1.07 acres. FALL RIVER ANNEXATION SEVENTH ADDITION: A tract of land located in the West 1/2 of Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 16 as monumented by a21/2" brass cap on al" pipe and with all bearings relative to the East line of the SouthEast 1/4 of said Section 16 considered as bearing N 01Â°19'00" E, the south end of said line being monumented by a 1" pipe and a 2 1/2" G.L.O. brass cap stamped 1925; thence S88Â°31'00'W 2609.69' to the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 16, being monumented by a 2 1/2" brass capped pipe stamped C 1/4 corner Section 16, T5N, R73W, U.S.G.L.O. 1926 Survey; thence SOOÂ°09'21'W 45.66'; thence SOOÂ°37'00'W 141.14' to a point on the south right-of-way of Highway 34 and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence deaprting said southern right-of-way S01Â°14'24"W 767.87' to a point on the northern right-of-way by use of Fish Hatchery Road; thence along said northern right-of-way by use the following 37 bearings and distances; N83Â°13'13'W 23.52; N79Â°38'01'W 61.40'; N77Â°22'32'W 98.97'; N77Â°49'31'W 95.27'; N82Â°11'35'W 80.16'; N75Â°11'23"W 153.99'; N75Â°42'29'W 1 13.46'; N70Â°58'37'W 67.73'; N59Â°03'31'W 73.22'; N60Â°00'12'W 57.28'; N58Â°14'15"W 45.79'; N51Â°23'32'W 34.75'; N27Â°44'01'W 43.57'; N31Â°22'58'W 27.73'; N29Â°13'02"W 68.62'; N46Â°26'22'W 51.50'; N57Â°16'56'W 39.13'; N46Â°44'28'W 15.92'; N49Â°24'09"W 70.40'; N47Â°03'38'W 51.26'; N48Â°39'14'W 128.93'; N47Â°12'20"W 81.00'; N49Â°27'50"W 125.24'; N48Â°30'04'W 51.91'; N53Â°50'38'W 75.39'; N15Â°26'24"E 15.11'; N50Â°14'45"E 54.55'; N62Â°48'58"E 14.09'; N53Â°58'22"E 29.86'; S89Â°54'47"E 36.70'; N73Â°20'43"E 107.01'; thence N82Â°43'47"E 108.71'; thence N88Â°01'18"E 108.48'; thence S85Â°50'10"E 95.76'; thence S86Â°25'12"E 75.77'; thence S76Â°19'45"E 37.62'; N89Â°20'59"E 83.23'; N89Â°19'18"E 66.09' to a point on the southern right-of-way of Highway 34; thence along the southern right-of-way S76Â°21'36"E 755.21' more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; said tract contains t872,221 square feet (20.02 acres) more or less, and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way of record, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Containing 20.02 acres. FALL RIVER ANNEXATION EIGHTH ADDITION: A tract of land located in the West 1/2 of Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 16 as monumented by a 2 1/2" brass cap on a 1" pipe and with all bearings relative to the East line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 16 considered as bearing N 01Â°19'00" E, the south end of said line being monumented by a 1" pipe and a 2 1/2" G.L.O. brass cap stamped 1925; thence S88Â°31'00'W 2609.69' to the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 16, being monumented by a 2 1/2" brass capped pipe stamped C 1/4 corner Section 16, T5N, R73W, U.S.G.L.O. 1926 Survey; thence SOOÂ°09'21'W 45.66'; thence SOOÂ°37'00"W 141.14' to a point on the south right-of-way; thence S01'14'24"E 767.87' and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along the Fish Hatchery Road right-of-way by use the following 37 bearings and distances; N83Â°13'13'W 23.52; N79Â°38'01'W 61.40'; N77Â°22'32'W 98.97'; N77Â°49'31"W 95.27'; N82Â°11'35'W 80.16'; N75Â°11'23'W 153.99'; N75Â°42'29'W 113.46'; N70Â°58'37"W 67.73% N59Â°03'31'W 73.22'; N60Â°00'12'W 57.28'; N58Â°14'15'W 45.79'; N51Â°23'32"W 34.75'; N27Â°44'01'W 43.57'; N31Â°22'58'W 27.73'; N29Â°13'02'W 68.62'; N46Â°26'22"W 51.50'; N57Â°16'56'W 39.13'; N46Â°44'28'W 15.92'; N49Â°24'09'W 70.40'; N47Â°03'38'W 51.26'; N48Â°39'14'W 128.93'; N47Â°12'20'W 81.00'; N49Â°27'50'W 125.24'; N48Â°30'04"W 51.91'; N53Â°50'38'W 75.39'; N15Â°26'24"E 15.11'; N50Â°14'45"E 54.55'; N62Â°48'58"E 14.09'; N53Â°58'22"E 29.86'; S89Â°54'47"E 36.70'; N73Â°20'43"E 107.01'; N82Â°43'47"E 108.71'; N88Â°01'18"E 108.48'; S85Â°50'10"E 95.76'; S86Â°25'12"E 75.77'; S76Â°19'45"E 37.62'; N89Â°20'59"E 82.23'; thence N89Â°19'18"E 66.09' to a point on the southern right-of-way of Highway 34; thence along the southern right-of-way along a curve concave to the north radius 11560', length 248.20', delta 1 Â°13'49"; thence departing said southern right- of-way line and along the right-of-way by use of Fish Hatchery Road the following 27 bearings and distances: N85Â°58'14'W 99.10'; 689Â°14'18'W 86.73'; S83Â°33'04"W 96.51'; S76Â°52'10'W 113.72'; S70Â°00'57'W 90.66'; S61Â°31'32'W 54.34'; S56Â°07'30"W 60.48'; 652Â°58'09'W 64.01'; S02Â°04'06'W 13.33'; S38Â°59'31"E 28.14'; S80Â°29'21"E 21.31'; S58Â°18'50"E 83.45'; S52Â°18'06"E 50.96'; S47Â°56'32"E 142.82'; S48Â°07'11"E 53.53'; S48Â°29'58"E 128.32'; S38Â°20'04"E 54.15'; S49Â°11'03"E 72.86'; S73Â°22'14"E 19.36'; S39Â°46'49"E 45.92'; S52Â°38'59"E 39.77'; S31Â°10'28"E 50.69'; Sl 5Â°24'27"E 90.87'; S63Â°37'54"E 32.78'; 637Â°38'23"E 73.12'; S70Â°37'41"E 57.66'; S83Â°41'33"E 18.28' to the end of said right-of-way by use boundary; thence along the following 6 courses along deeded properties along a curve concave to the north radius 551.70', length 114.42', delta of 11Â°52'57", thence along a curve concave to the north radius 551.70', length 124.61', delta of 12Â°56'26"; thence S78Â°46'27"E 115.64'; thence S78Â°46'19"E 132.23'; Thence S78Â°47'42"E 144.40'; Thence S78Â°48'01"E 160.91', thence N01Â°14'24"E 67.90' more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; said tract contains 1136,763 square feet (3.14 acres) more or less, and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way of record, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Containing 3.14 acres. FALL RIVER ANNEXATION NINTH ADDITION: A tract of land located in the West 1/2 of Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 16 as monumented by a 2 1/2" brass cap on a 1" pipe and with all bearings relative to the East line of the Southeast 1 /4 of said Section 16 considered as bearing N 01Â°19'00" E, the south end of said line being monumented by a 1" pipe and a 2 1/2" G.L.O. brass cap stamped 1925; thence S88Â°31'00"W 2609.69' to the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 16, being monumented by a 2 1/2" brass capped pipe stamped C 1/4 corner Section 16, T5N, R73W, U.S.G.L.O. 1926 Survey; thence S89Â°19'27'W 237.69' to a right-of-way brass cap; thence departing said right-of-way S89Â°19'32'W 1167.46' to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along the Fish Hatchery Road right-of-way by use the following 22 bearings and distances: S61Â°31'32'W 34.21'; S56Â°07'30'W 60.48'; S52Â°58'09'W 64.01'; S02Â°04'06"W 13.33'; S38Â°59'31"E 28.14'; S80Â°29'21"E 21.31'; S58Â°18'50"IE 83.45'; S52Â°18'06"E 50.96'; S47Â°56'32"E 142.82'; S48Â°07'11"E 53.53'; S48Â°29'58"E 128.32'; S38Â°20'04"E 54.15'; S49Â°11'03"E 72.86'; S73Â°22'14"E 19.36'; S39Â°46'49"E 45.92'; S52Â°38'59"E 39.77'; S31Â°10'28"E 50.69'; 615Â°24'27"E 90.87'; S63Â°37'54"E 32.78'; S37Â°38'23"E 73.12'; S70Â°37'41"E 57.66'; 683Â°41'33"E 18.28' to the end of said right-of-way by use boundary; thence 601Â°07'56"W 467.37' to a point on the South line of the N 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of Section 16; thence along said line S89Â°38'48"W 1829.39' to the south 1/16 corner of Section 16; thence along the west line of of the N 1 /2 of the SW 1 /4 of Section 16 NOOÂ°38'26"E 1262.87' to the west 1/4 corner of Section 16; thence along the north line of the N 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of Section 16 N89Â°19'31"E 1199.11', more or less, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; said tract contains 11,997,425 square feet (45.85 acres) more or less, and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way of record, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Containing 45.85 acres. FALL RIVER ANNEXATION TENTH ADDITION: A tract of land located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 16 as monumented by a 2 1/2" brass cap on al" pipe and with all bearings relative to the East line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 16 considered as bearing N 01Â°19'00" E, the south end of said line being monumented by a 1" pipe and a 2 1/2" G.L.O. brass cap stamped 1925; thence S88Â°31'00'W 2609.69' to the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 16, being monumented by a 2 1/2" brass capped pipe stamped C 1/4 corner Section 16, T5N, R73W, U.S.G.L.O. 1926 Survey; thence S89Â°19'27"W 237.69' to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence 689Â°19'18'W 431.82' to a point on the southern right-of-way of Highway 34; thence along said southern right-of way along a curve concave to the north radius 11560.00', length 325.59', delta of 1 Â°36'50"; the continuing along a' curve concave to the north radius 11560.00', length 803.89', delta of 3Â°59'04"; thence departing said southern right-of-way S77Â°48'24"E 1545.81' more or less to TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; said tract contains +85,326 square feet (1.96 acres) more or less, and. is subject to all easements and rights-of-way of record, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Containing 1.96 acres. FALL RIVER ANNEXATION ELEVENTH ADDITION: A tract of land located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 16 as monumented by a 2 1/2" brass cap on al" pipe and with all bearings relative to the West line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 16 considered as bearing N 01Â°19'00" E, the south end of said line being monumented by a 1" pipe and a 2 1/2" G.L.O. brass cap stamped 1925; thence S88Â°31'00'W 2609.69' to the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 16, being monumented by a 2 1/2"brass capped pipe stamped C 1/4 corner Section 16, T5N, R73W, U.S.G.L.O. 1926 Survey; thence S89Â°19'27"W 237.69' to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along the northern right-of-way of Highway 36 and a curve concave to the north, radius 11460.00', length of 1888.07', delta 9Â°26'23"; thence departing said northern right-of-way N37Â°44'29"E 112.23'; thence S75Â°19'52"E 388.99'; thence N16Â°18'13'W 762.33'; thence S88Â°38'04'W 783.78'; thence SOOÂ°21'22'W 468.16' to a point on the northern right-of-way of Highway 36; thence departing said northern right-of- way SOOÂ°21'22'W 109.36' to a point on the southern right-of-way of Highway 36; thence along said right-of-way along a curve concave to the north radius 11560.00', length 917.78', delta 4Â°32'56"; thence departing said south right-of-way line S77Â°48'24"E 1545.81' more of less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; said tract contains *697,419 square feet (16.01 acres) more or less, and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way of record, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Containing 16.01 acres. I I' DATED this day of , 2008. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk ,, ORDINANCE NO. 17-08 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS FALL RIVER FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH, NINTH, TENTH AND ELEVENTH ADDITIONS 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 th day of said area as required by law, was filed with the Board of Trustees on the 9 September, 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 Â£ day of September, 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, December 9, 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. 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 gth day of December ,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 FALL RIVER FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH, NINTH, TENTH AND ELEVENTH ADDITIONS to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, is hereby approved: FALL RIVER ANNEXATION FIFTH ADDITION: A tract of land located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 16 as monumented by a 2 1/2" brass â€¢2 cap on a 1" pipe and with all bearings relative to the East line of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 16 considered as bearing N 01Â°19'00" E, the south end of said line being monumented by a 1" pipe and a 2 1/2" G.L.O. brass cap stamped 1925; thence S88Â°31'00'W 2609.69' to the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 16, being monumented by a 2 1/2" brass capped pipe stamped C 1/4 corner Section 16, T5N, R73W, U.S.G.L.O. 1926 Survey and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence S89Â°19'27'W 237.69' along the North 1/4 line of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 16; thence departing said North line S52Â°03'50"E 299.27' to a point on the southern right-of-way of Highway 34; thence departing said right-of-way N00Â°37'00"E 141.14 to a point on the northern right-of-way of Highway 34; thence along said right-of-way N00Â°09'21"E 45.66' more or less to TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; said tract contains +22,221 square feet (0.51 acres) more or less, and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way of record, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Containing 0.51 acres. FALL RIVER ANNEXATION SIXTH ADDITION: A tract of land located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 16 as monumented by a 2 1/2" brass cap on a 1" pipe and with all bearings relative to the West line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 16 considered as bearing N 01Â°19'00" E, the south end of said line being monumented by a 1" pipe and a 2 1/2" G.L.O. brass cap stamped 1925; thence S88Â°31'00'W 2609.69' to the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 16, being monumented by a 2 1/2" brass capped pipe stamped C 1/4 corner Section 16, T5N, R73W, U.S.G.L.O. 1926 Survey; thence S89Â°19'27'W 237.69' along the North 1/4 Section line and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence departing said 1/4 Section line S52Â°03'50"E 299.27' to a point on the southern right-of-way of Highway 34; thence continuing along said southern right-of-way N76Â°21'36"W 755.21'; thence departing said southern right-of-way N89Â°19'18"E 497.91 more or less to TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; said tract contains +46,496 square feet (1.07 acres) more or less, and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way of record, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Containing 1.07 acres. FALL RIVER ANNEXATION SEVENTH ADDITION: A tract of land located in the West 1/2 of Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 16 as monumented by a 2 1/2" brass cap on a 1" pipe and with all bearings relative to the East line of the SouthEast 1/4 of said Section 16 considered as bearing N 01Â°19'00" E, the south end of said line being monumented by a 1" pipe and a 2 1/2" G.L.O. brass cap stamped 1925; thence S88Â°31'00"W 2609.69' to the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 16, being monumented by a 2 1/2" brass capped pipe stamped C 1/4 corner Section 16, T5N, R73W, U.S.G.L.O. 1926 Survey; thence SOOÂ°09'21"W 45.66'; thence SOOÂ°37'00'W 141.14' to a point on the south right-of-way of Highway 34 and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence deaprting said southern right-of-way S01Â°14'24"W 767.87' to a point on the northern right-of-way by use of Fish Hatchery Road; thence along said northern right-of-way by use the following 37 bearings and distances; N83Â°13'13'W 23.52; N79Â°38'01"W 61.40'; N77Â°22'32'W 98.97'; N77Â°49'31'W 95.27'; N82Â°11'35'W 80.16'; N75Â°11'23"W 153.99'; N75Â°42'29"W 113.46'; N70Â°58'37'W 67.73'; N59Â°03'31'W 73.22'; N60Â°00'12'W 57.28'; N58Â°14'15"W 45.79'; N51Â°23'32'W 34.75'; N27Â°44'01"W 43.57'; N31Â°22'58'W 27.73'; N29Â°13'02"W 68.62'; N46Â°26'22'W 51.50'; N57Â°16'56'W 39.13'; N46Â°44'28'W 15.92'; N49Â°24'09"W 70.40'; N47Â°03'38'W 51.26'; N48Â°39'14'W 128.93'; N47Â°12'20"W 81.00'; N49Â°27'50"W 125.24'; N48Â°30'04'W 51.91'; N53Â°50'38'W 75.39'; N15Â°26'24"E 15.11'; N50Â°14'45"E 54.55'; N62Â°48'58"E 14.09'; N53Â°58'22"E 29.86'; 689Â°54'47"E 36.70'; N73Â°20'43"E 107.01'; thence N82Â°43'47"E 108.71'; thence N88Â°01'18"E 108.48'; thence S85Â°50'10"E 95.76'; thence S86Â°25'12"E 75.77'; thence S76Â°19'45"E 37.62'; N89Â°20'59"E 83.23'; N89Â°19'18"E 66.09' to a point on the southern right-of-way of Highway 34; thence along the southern right-of-way S76Â°21'36"E 755.21' more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; said tract contains *872,221 square feet (20.02 acres) more or less, and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way of record, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Containing 20.02 acres. FALL RIVER ANNEXATION EIGHTH ADDITION: A tract of land located in the West 1/2 of Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 16 as monumented by a 2 1/2" brass cap on a 1" pipe and with all bearings relative to the East line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 16 considered as bearing N 01Â°19'00" E, the south end of said line being monumented by a 1" pipe and a 2 1/2" G.L.O. brass cap stamped 1925; thence S88Â°31'00'W 2609.69' to the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 16, being monumented by a 2 1/2" brass capped pipe stamped C 1/4 corner Section 16, T5N, R73W, U.S.G.L.O. 1926 Survey; thence SOOÂ°09'21'W 45.66'; thence SOOÂ°37'00"W 141.14' to a point on the south right-of-way; thence S01'14'24"E 767.87' and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along the Fish Hatchery Road right-of-way by use the following 37 bearings and distances; N83Â°13'13'W 23.52; N79Â°38'01'W 61.40'; N77Â°22'32'W 98.97'; N77Â°49'31"W 95.27'; N82Â°11'35'W 80.16'; N75Â°11'23'W 153.99'; N75Â°42'29"W 113.46'; N70Â°58'37'W 67.73'; N59Â°03'31'W 73.22'; N60Â°00'12'W 57.28'; N58Â°14'15'W 45.79'; N51Â°23'32'W 34.75'; N27Â°44'01'W 43.57'; N31Â°22'58'W 27.73'; N29Â°13'02'W 68.62'; N46Â°26'22'W 51.50'; N57Â°16'56'W 39.13'; N46Â°44'28'W 15.92'; N49Â°24'09'W 70.40'; N47Â°03'38"W 51.26'; N48Â°39'14'W 128.93'; N47Â°12'20'W 81.00'; N49Â°27'50"W 125.24'; N48Â°30'04"W 51.91'; N53Â°50'38'W 75.39'; N15Â°26'24"E 15.11% N50Â°14'45"E 54.55'; N62Â°48'58"E 14.09'; N53Â°58'22"E 29.86'; S89Â°54'47"E 36.70'; N73Â°20'43"E 107.01'; N82Â°43'47"E 108.71'; N88Â°01'18"E 108.48'; 685Â°50'10"E 95.76'; S86Â°25'12"E 75.77'; S76Â°19'45"E 37.62'; N89Â°20'59"IE 82.23'; thence N89Â°19'18"E 66.09' to a point on the southern right-of-way of Highway 34; thence along the southern right-of-way along a curve concave to the north radius 11560', length 248.20', delta 1Â°13'49"; thence departing said southern right- of-way line and along the right-of-way by use of Fish Hatchery Road the following 27 bearings and distances: N85Â°58'14'W 99.10'; S89Â°14'18'W 86.73'; S83Â°33'04'W 96.51'; 676Â°52'10'W 113.72'; S70Â°00'57'W 90.66'; 661Â°31'32'W 54.34'; 656Â°07'30'W 60.48'; S52Â°58'09'W 64.01'; S02Â°04'06'W 13.33'; S38Â°59'31"E 28.14'; S80Â°29'21"E 21.31'; S58Â°18'50"E 83.45'; S52Â°18'06"E 50.96'; S47Â°56'32"E 142.82'; S48Â°07'11"E 53.53'; S48Â°29'58"E 128.32'; S38Â°20'04"E 54.15'; S49Â°11'03"E 72.86'; S73Â°22'14"E 19.36'; S39Â°46'49"E 45.92'; S52Â°38'59"E 39.77'; S31Â°10'28"E 50.69'; S15Â°24'27"E 90.87'; S63Â°37'54"E 32.78'; S37Â°38'23"E 73.12'; S70Â°37'41"E 57.66'; S83Â°41'33"E 18.28' to the end of said right-of-way by use boundary; thence along the following 6 courses along deeded properties along a curve concave to the north radius 551.70% length 114.42', delta of 11Â°52'57", thence along a curve concave to the north radius 551.70', length 124.61', delta of 12Â°56'26"; thence S78Â°46'27"E 115.64'; thence S78Â°46'19"E 132.23'; % Thence S78Â°47'42"E 144.40'; Thence S78Â°48'01"E 160.91', thence N01Â°14'24"E 67.90' more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; said tract contains +136,763 square feet (3.14 acres) more or less, and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way of record, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Containing 3.14 acres. FALL RIVER ANNEXATION NINTH ADDITION: A tract of land located in the West 1/2 of Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 16 as monumented by a 2 1/2" brass cap on a 1" pipe and with all bearings relative to the East line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 16 considered as bearing N 01Â°19'00" E, the south end of said line being monumented by a 1" pipe and a 2 1/2" G.L.O. brass cap stamped 1925; thence S88Â°31'00'W 2609.69' to the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 16, being monumented by a 2 1/2" brass capped pipe stamped C 1/4 comer Section 16, T5N, R73W, U.S.G.L.O. 1926 Survey; thence S89Â°19'27'W 237.69' to a right-of-way brass cap; thence departing said right-of-way S89Â°19'32'W 1167.46' to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along the Fish Hatchery Road right-of-way by use the following 22 bearings and distances: S61Â°31'32'W 34.21'; S56Â°07'30'W 60.48'; 652Â°58'09'W 64.01'; S02Â°04'06'W 13.33'; S38Â°59'31"E 28.14'; S80Â°29'21"E 21.31'; S58Â°18'50"E 83.45'; S52Â°18'06"E 50.96'; S47Â°56'32"E 142.82'; S48Â°07'11"E 53.53'; S48Â°29'58"E 128.32% S38Â°20'04"E 54.15'; S49Â°11'03"E 72.86'; S73Â°22'14"E 19.36'; S39Â°46'49"E 45.92'; S52Â°38'59"E 39.77'; S31Â°10'28"E 50.69'; S15Â°24'27"E 90.87'; 363Â°37'54"E 32.78'; S37Â°38'23"E 73.12'; S70Â°37'41'E 57.66'; $83Â°41'33"E 18.28' to the end of said right-of-way by use boundary; thence 601Â°07'56"W 467.37' to a point on the South line of the N 1 /2 of the SW 1 /4 of Section 16; thence along said line S89Â°38'48"W 1829.39' to the south 1/16 corner of Section 16; thence along the west line of of the N 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of Section 16 N00Â°38'26"E 1262.87' to the west 1/4 corner of Section 16; thence along the north line of the N 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of Section 16 N89Â°19'31"E 1199.11', more or less, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; said tract contains +1,997,425 square feet (45.85 acres) more or less, and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way of record, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Containing 45.85 acres. FALL RIVER ANNEXATION TENTH ADDITION: A tract of land located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 16 as monumented by a 2 1/2" brass cap on al" pipe and with all bearings relative to the East line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 16 considered as bearing N 01Â°19'00" E, the south end of said line being monumented by a 1" pipe and a 2 1/2" G.L.O. brass cap stamped 1925; thence S88Â°31'00'W 2609.69' to the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 16, being monumented by a 2 1/2" brass capped pipe stamped C 1/4 corner Section 16, T5N, R73W, U.S.G.L.O. 1926 Survey; thence S89Â°19'27"W 237.69' to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence S89Â°19'18'W 431.82' to a point on the southern right-of-way of Highway 34; thence along said southern right-of way along a curve concave to the north radius 11560.00', length 325.59', delta of 1 Â°36'50"; the continuing along a curve concave to the north radius 11560.00', length 803.89', delta of 3Â°59'04"; thence departing said southern right-of-way S77Â°48'24"E 1545.81' more or less to TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; said tract contains *85,326 square feet (1.96 acres) more or less, and is i. subject to all easements and rights-of-way of record, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Containing 1.96 acres. FALL RIVER ANNEXATION ELEVENTH ADDITION: A tract of land located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described as commencing at the East 1 /4 corner of said Section 16 as monumented by a 2 1/2" brass cap on al" pipe and with all bearings relative to the West line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 16 considered as bearing N 01Â°19'00" E, the south end of said line being monumented by a 1" pipe and a 2 1/2" G.L.O. brass cap stamped 1925; thence S88Â°31'00'W 2609.69' to the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 16, being monumented by a 2 1/2" brass capped pipe stamped C 1/4 corner Section 16, T5N, R73W, U.S.G.L.O. 1926 Survey; thence S89Â°19'27"W 237.69' to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along the northern right-of-way of Highway 36 and a curve concave to the north, radius 11460.00', length of 1888.07', delta 9Â°26'23"; thence departing said northern right-of-way N37Â°44'29"E 112.23'; thence S75Â°19'52"E 388.99% thence N16Â°18'13'W 762.33'; thence S88Â°38'04'W 783.78'; thence SOOÂ°21'22'W 468.16' to a point on the northern right-of-way of Highway 36; thence departing said northern right-of- way SOOÂ°21'22"W 109.36' to a point on the southern right-of-way of Highway 36; thence along said right-of-way along a curve concave to the north radius 11560.00', length 917.78% delta 4Â°32'56"; thence departing said south right-of-way line S77Â°48'24"E 1545.81' more of less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; said tract contains +697,419 square feet (16.01 acres) more or less, and is subject to all easements and rights-of-way of record, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Containing 16.01 acres. 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 MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph, Community Development Director Date: 12-3-08 Subject: Engage Conservation Partners for Preparation of the 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 of 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. Update: The proposed scope of work has been modified to provide for more explicit progress monitoring by the Town Board and Planning Commission. In particular the following task has been added: Task 7: Assess Project Status and Determine Whether to Draft Plan Based on the input from the public meeting and the memo summarizing Public Meeting #2 comments, the Consultant Team will meet with the Town and its representatives to review study progress. The purpose of the meeting will be to ensure that there is agreement on key elements and findings of the study prior to proceeding to produce a draft plan. The Town will indicate whether the Consultant Team should move to the next three phases of the project or conclude the project. Budget Impact: $44,989 Recommendation: Engage Conservation Partners for the performance of Tasks 1 through 7 (study, public engagement, analysis), as outlined in the attached proposal. December 3,2008 To: Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 A policy of 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 Study and 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 representatives 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 analysi to map critical scenic resources. The inventory will depict open space values that th. 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 of 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 of the 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 t6 protect these lands. Having worked on 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, Project Review and Preparation for 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. This information will be forwarded to the Town and a meeting scheduled with the Town representatives to review the first public meeting results, information planned for the second meeting and to obtain input and suggestions for next meeting. Based on public input on the importance of individual open space resources or values and input from the Town, the Consultant Team will determine the best way to illustrate open space values. 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 complet6, 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 of parameters such as a minimum 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 the land use regulatory system and potential funding sources for the Consultant Team to develop a series of r . recommendations on how to employ or refine 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 o ., .. land use and funding options for consideration by the Town and development of materials and maps for use in public meeting #2. Task 5: Optional Public Attitudes Survey As part of the discussion of the results of Public Meeting #1, the Town will determine whether it wants to undertake a public attitudes survey. The benefit of the survey is that it will reach a broader cross section of the Estes Valley public than is likely to be attained through the public meeting process. The questionnaire would be designed to ask randomly selected respondents within the study area about their attitudes towards open space protection, the types of lands that they feel should be protected, attitudes towards various options to protect open lands and their willingness to spend public resources for their protection. The results of the survey would be tabulated and presented as part of the agenda for Public Meeting #2. Task 6: Public Meeting #2- Draft Open Space Concept Plan, Land Protection Criteria and Protection Options; begin Land Use Regulatory Actions and Funding Discussion The first half 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 land use regulatory and community-funding options. We will discuss the existing regulatory standards that affect land protection and identify a set of funding options for consideration. We may want to address willingness to pay issues and use response forms to gauge interest in various options. The objective of the exercise will be to frame the land use options and funding issues so that they are based on community understanding and input. Products: Memorandum summarizing public meeting comments. Task 7: Assess Project Status and Determine Whether to Draft Plan Based on the input from the public meeting and the memo summarizing Public Meeting #2 comments, the Consultant Team will meet with the Town and its representatives to review study progress. The purpose of the meeting will be to ensure that there is agreement on key elements and findings of the study prior to proceeding to produce a draft plan. The Town will indicate whether the Consultant Team should move to the next three phases of the project or conclude the project. Task 8: Create Draft Open Space Plan If the Town desires to continue the project, the Consultant Team will have a conference call with the Town to review results of 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 of 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 9: Public Meeting #3-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. I. P Products: Summary of Public comments. Task 10: 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 of printing. Fees and Expenses The following chart identifies the fee estimates for the project, organized by task. We are willing to have the total project 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 of the month and are due and payable upon receipt. The project will commence on or about December 15, 2008 and final products will be due on June 15, 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, Review & Prep PM #2 $8,440 5. Optional Public Survey 6. Public Meeting #2 $2,760 7. Assess Status $2,640 8. Draft Plan $6,570 9. Public Meeting #3 $2,760 10. Create Final Plan $4,060 Subtotal Fees $42,045 Expenses $2,944 TOTAL ESTIMATE $44,989 Optional Task #5: Open Space Attitudes Survey, Estimate cost at $13,000 to $20,000 depending on study parameters. 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 month, 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 of billing. Interest on unpaid or late bills shall accrue at 13/4 percent interest per month (21.0% A.P.R.). Client agrees that all statements not objected to in writing within thirty (30) days of 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 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 of Conservation Partners, Inc. whether the project for which they are made is , executed or not. The Town of Estes Park and Larimer County shall have the right to ownership and use of the plans prepared by the design team solely for their planning purposes in the Estes Valley area. The plans, drawings and specifications shall 0% not be used by the Client 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 if a job 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 of 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 of default. For purpose hereof, any failure to pay sums due under.Paragraph 2, above, for a period of ninety (90) days shall be L. 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 of all 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 if 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 Labor 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 of 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 Title: Finance Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer Date: December 09,2008 Subject: Supplemental appropriation for 2008 budget Background The Town of Estes Park adopts budget resolutions on an annual basis. Statutes allow for periodic adjustments to be made to budgets, as financial environments are prone to change throughout any given year. One such example is our resolution to accommodate rollovers of expenses from one year to the next. The "rollover" resolution is usually ratified in late January or early February of each year. A second example would be the 2008 mid-year appropriation for the Fire Services Fund. The attached budget-modifying resolution is commonly referred to as the "supplemental appropriation". The supplemental appropriation resolution allows municipalities to authorize a different (usually greater) amount of money for a specific fund than was originally authorized. Such resolutions can be done throughout the fiscal year. Town staff takes the original budget resolution very seriously and requests supplemental appropriations only when all other attempts fail to contain costs within original budget parameters. Documentation/explanation The attached spreadsheet provides information on three aspects of the Town's finances. The first section ("REVENUES") is the comparison of the revenues (which includes transfers, proceeds from other sources). As you can see, the Town was generally successful in achieving its revenue goals. Areas of major variance included: 1. General Fund revenues exceeded budget due to an unbudgeted $190,000 grant for Victims Advocates. In aggregate, the grant compensated somewhat for deficiencies in estimated sales tax and interest income. 2. The Fairgrounds project was not undertaken, so there were no loan proceeds in Community Reinvestment Fund. 3. CVB revenues are up because the Town has absorbed Second Wind (Visitors Guide). 4. Fire revenues are up because of the collected fire services fees. 5. Light and Power is up because of the interest earned off of the $6.lm bond monies as they rested in Colo Trust waiting for deployment on the project. 6. Water is up because the final CWR&PDA loan was larger than the original budget. 7. Fire Pension is down because of the exposure to equities markets. The third section ("FUND BALANCE ADJUSTMENTS") of the spreadsheet reports the projected changes in ending fund balance from the 2007 CAFR, to the original 2008 budget, and finally to projected fund balances based upon the most recent available information (through December 2, 2008). There are three funds that are projected to have fund balances that will be lower than what was submitted with the original 2008 budget. They are: 1. Fleet Fund balance will be approximately $22,300 less than what was forecasted in the original 2008 budget primarily because the ending estimated balance for 2007 was inaccurate. 2008 activity contributed to a lesser degree due to a slight decrease in revenue base. 2. Fire Pension Fund balance will be less than budgeted due to a combination of a) exposure to the equities markets, and 2) State contributions being less than originally forecasted. 3. Police Pension Fund balance will be less than budgeted due to an unbudgeted (but required) actuarial study. The other 16 funds' projected ending balances will exceed original expectations. The column in section 2 ("EXPENDITURES") labeled "H.T.E. 12/02/08 Ending expenditures" is the actual column that staff requests to be adopted in the supplemental appropriation resolution. These are the new forecasted total expenditures for 2008. Several funds will exceed their original budgets. Most of the requested amendments are the result off offsetting revenues and expenses, which cause expenses to exceed budget but have no net affect on fund balances. They are: 1. General Fund will exceed budget by approximately $128,000 due to the aforementioned $190,000 Grant for/from Victims Advocates. This is an "in-out" function that does not affect fund balance, and in fact, General Fund balance will significantly exceed the original budget. â€¢ Page 2 â€¢Â·t 2. Museum Fund will exceed budget by approximately $1,200. The extra expenditure(s) tie to the extra revenues generated by Hydroplant Picnic grounds and Building rentals. Estimated fund balance will exceed original fund balance estimates ($46,332 vs $31,778). 3. Senior Center Fund will exceed original budget by approximately $5,400. Senior Center Inc contributed more revenue ($16,138 vs $8,920) that was originally budgeted, and corresponding projects elevated expenses beyond original budget. Ending fund balance will exceed original budget ($7,181 vs $4,970). 4. Open Space Fund will exceed original budget by approximately $82,000. In additional to a mid-year payroll reallocation from General Fund (increase to Open Space) of approximately $8,581, Open Space has taken on Wildlife ($24,000) and Open Space Studies ($50,000). The newly projected fund balance of $225,000 still leaves significant funding for future projects. 5. CVB expenditures will exceed budget by $177,000. In 2008, the CVB took on Second Wind (Visitors Guide) and its $178,000 budget. There are revenues to offset this expense, and projected fund balance will not be affected. 6. The Fire Fund will exceed budget (which was already a supplemental budget that was created 05/13/08) by $61,810, attributable to the increased costs ($87,918) associated with the new fire truck. This was approved in committee and by the Board during the year. 7. Water Fund will exceed budget by $897,405 due to a rescheduling of the Water Plant project from a $4.7million portion of the project in 2008 to $6.Om in 2008. 8. Medical Fund will exceed budget by $1,890 due to the GASB 45 actuarial study that specified post employment benefit requirement/expenses of which we were uncertain at the time of the original budget. Said costs begin to address GASB requirements for recognizing potential liability for employees in our insurance program once they reach retirement age. 9. Fire Pension will exceed original budget by $1,100 because there were more retirements in 2008 than were anticipated, thus increasing the benefit payments. 10. Police Pension will exceed original budget due to a unforeseen but required actuarial study ($825). Action steps requested Staff requests consideration of adoption of Resolution to Appropriate Sums of Money for the 2008 Budget â€¢ Page 3 j'. INFORMATION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION TO 2008 BUDGET 2008 Budget H.T.E. (12/02/08) Favorable/ , (2008 Budget Summary) 2008 EOY Estimate (Unfavorable) REVENUES 101 General 12,144,888 12,215,892 71,004 204 Community Reinvestment 4,550,000 686,360 (3,863,640) 207 Museum 277,774 282,083 4,309 211 Conservation Trust 35,000 35,200 200 217 Senior Center 190,259 197,837 7,578 220 Larimer Cty Open Space 259,000 252,500 (6,500) 222 CVB 2,719,119 2,894,987 175,868 229 Fire 937,627 1,128,944 191,317 419 Building Authority 93,460 93,460 0 502 Light & Power 11,359,221 11,491,435 132,214 503 Water 8,328,230 8,895,401 567,171 605 Catastrophic Loss 85,000 68,000 (17,000) 606 Medical 430,100 430,487 387 612 Fleet 278,000 265,920 (12,080) 625 Information Systems 386,145 387,847 1,702 635 Vehicle Replacement 573,641 575,641 2,000 709 Firemen Pension 228,900 89,605 (139,295) 710 Police Pension 300 125 (175) 716 Theater 15,000 12,750 (2,250) Total 42,891,664 40,004,474 (2,887,190) includes all sources of money inflow: revenues, proceeds from debt, transfers in EXPENDITURES A B 2008 EOY H.T.E. Original 2008 Budget + supplemental appropriations H.T.E 12/02/08 (A +B) Favorable/ (Resolution 04-08, 02/12/08) . Ending expendiÂ·tures (Unfavorable) (Fire: Resolution 10-08, 05/13/08) 101 General 11,866,736 268,516 12,263,548 12,135,252 (128,296) 204 Community Reinvestment 4,947,125 21,204 438,699 4,968,329 4,529,630 207 Museum 307,914 3,266 312,387 311,180 (1,208) 211 Conservation Trust 32,012 5,500 37,512 37,512 0 217 Senior Center 198,446 0 203,813 198,446 (5,367) 220 Larimer Cty Open Space 350,000 29,680 462,028 379,680 (82,348) 222 CVB 2,746,475 23,953 2,947,483 2,770,428 (177,055) 229 Fire O 934,295 996,105 934,295 (61,810) 419 Building Authority 93,460 0 93,460 93,460 0 502 Light & Power 17,716,368 590,182 16,673,967 18,306,550 1,632,583 503 Water 8,640,052 361,261 9,898,718 9,001,313 (897,405) 605 Catastrophic Loss 0 0 0 0 0 606 Medical 422,481 0 424,371 422,481 (1,890) 612 Fleet 268,006 0 261,313 268,006 6,693 625 Information Systems 391,267 3,760 387,887 395,027 7,140 635 Vehicle Replacement 208,500 0 208,500 208,500 0 709 Firemen Pension 114,640 0 115,740 114,640 (1,100) 710 Police Pension 2,565 0 3,390 2,565 (825) 716 Theater 21,000 0 21,000 21,000 0 Subtotal 48,327,047 1,320,590 45,749,921 50,568,664 Transfers 4,173,029 921,027 4,173,029 Totals 44,154,018 2,241,617 46,395,635 011 funds include total expenditures and transfers out .t INFORMATION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION TO 2008 BUDGET FUND BALANCE ADJUSTMENTS Original budgeted 2008 ending Projected 12/31/08 Ending fund balance fund balance from 2008 Summary fund balance incorporating Net 12/31/07, per 2007 CAFR Budget + rollovers 12/02/08 H.T.E. data Change 101 General 4,037,922 3,476,917 3,990,266 513,349 204 Community Reinvestment 1,146,176 647,333 1,393,837 746,504 207 Museum 76,636 31,778 46,332 14,554 211 Conservation Trust 108,887 102,668 106,575 3,907 217 Senior Center 13,157 4,970 7,181 2,211 220 Larimer Cty Open Space 437,657 214,629 228,129 " 13,500 222 CVB 139,303 33,615 86,807 ** 53,192 229 Fire 0 0 132,839 132,839 419 Building Authority 0 0 0 0 502 Light & Power 10,450,769 * 3,039,572 5,268,237 2,228,665 503 Water 3,852,083 2,482,008 2,848,766 366,758 605 Catastrophic Loss 2,333,425 2,296,983 2,401425 104,442 606 Medical 394,773 365,527 400,889 35,362 612 Fleet 269,875 296,790 274,482 (22,308) 625 Information Systems 77,245 63,785 77,205 13,420 635 Vehicle Replacement 1,194,932 1,545,559 1,562,073 16,514 709 Firemen Pension 1,164,388 1,310,103 1,138,253 (171,850) 710 Police Pension 5,444 3,227 2,179 ** (1,048) 716 Theater 442,582 422,514 434,332 11,818 26,145,254 20,399,807 * includes proceeds from l&P bond of $6,124,904 **2008 changes will affect beginningfund bolances for 2009, These changes occurred post-printing of 2009 budget tâ€¢ X. RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE SUMS OF MONEY NO. 25-08 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, 2008, AND ENDING ON THE LAST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008. WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has adopted the annual budget in accordance with the Local Government Budget Law on November 27, 2007; and WHEREAS, over the course of the fiscal year ending December 31, 2008, 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 gth day of December, 2008. Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk â€¢t Town of Estes Park Memo To: Mayor William Pinkham and Town Board of Trustees From: Lowell Richardson Deputy Town Administrator CC: Jacqueline Halburnt, Town Administrator Date: 12/5/2008 Re: Survey Bond Park Use for Labor Day Arts and Crafts Fair Background Sunrise Rotary approached the Community Development Committee, on two occasions, to inquire about reinstating the Labor Day Arts and Crafts Fair at Bond Park starting in 2009 for fundraising purposes for their club. Prior to 2008 the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department held an arts and crafts fair on Labor Day weekend for twenty-six years as a fundraiser for the department. This event created a divisiveness among business owners whose position purported this event and those similar negatively impacted business sales. Based on this issue Sunrise Rotary representatives met with 59 business owners to ascertain current opinion and views of business owners concerning this issue. The reported results suggested overwhelming (85%) support of holding an event at Bond Park. The Community Development Committee requested staff to conduct a separate survey of businesses with a larger sample population. Staff conducted a survey using SurveyMonkey.Com a web based survey service using the CVB email list serve of 550 businesses. The businesses surveyed represented six different sectors 1) Retail. 2) Dining. 3) Attractions. 4) Construdion Trades. 5) Lodging. 6) Services. The results are presented in two formats, one by business sector and two by aggregate response. It should be noted this is not a scientific survey but a consensus survey presenting general opinion of those questioned. Those results and the Sunrise Rotary survey results are attached for review and comparison. It should be noted other groups have approached Special Events staff to use Bond Park for fundraising endeavors prior to Sunrise Rotary but were informed Bond Park could not be used for such events unless approval was granted by the Town Board. A memorandum addressing this issue from Special Events staff is attached for review. Sunrise Rotary chose to submit an application and request use of Bond Park through Community Development Committee and the Town Board. Those who made inquiries through Special Events staff chose not to move forward with their request. 1 j. Budget/Cost ,, N/A Recommendation Staff respectfully requests a decision from the Town Board concerning the use of Bond Park as outlined by Town Policy. Sunrise Rotary informed staff and CDC they face timeline issues coordinating vendors which would start immediately if approved. â€¢ Page 2 '{ A Survey: Labor Day Arts and Crafts Fair At Bond Park SECTION ONE .. A Survey: Labor Day Arts and Crafts Fair At Bond Park " Contents Section One (SurveyMonkey.Com Survey) Summary one page Survey Monkey results ............................................................ four pages Survey questionnaire page 1 Raw data survey results with written comments .............. pages 2 - 12 Section Two (Uncalculated Written Survey's) Four surveys ................ eleven pages Section Three (Sunrise Rotary Survey) Questionnaire ................. one page Application request ....... three pages Survey results ................. three pages Section Four (Special Events memo) Memo by Special Events Manager Winslow ........... one page .. e A Survey: Labor Day Arts and Crafts Fair At Bond Park Summary The survey initiated is an informal non-scientific census of 550 businesses administered through the use of "Survey Monkey" an internet based tool used to collate and collect data. The survey instrument comprised of seven questions was directed at identifying general opinion of various business owners/managers within the Estes Park area regarding the use of Bond Park to conduct an arts and craft fair, specifically on Labor Day weekend. Due to time constraints respondents were asked to complete the survey within a two week period with no follow-up by the administer of this survey. Total survey responses were 123 of 550 polled, a 22.36% response, this provides adequate response data to provide an understanding of the respondent population opinion regarding the Bond Park use issue. The results of this survey are presented in two distinct formats, one being total aggregate responses and two based on demographic population responses. The demographic population breakdown is into six business sector categories 1) Attractions. 2) Retail. 3) Lodging. 4) Services. 5) Dining. 6) Construction. Those surveyed were selected from the CVB (Convention and Visitors Bureau) email list serve. This provided the most direct and immediate population group to survey based on time constraints. The aggregate results suggest 1) 51.2% of respondents received complaints from their customers that a Labor Day art and craft fair was not held this year while 48.8% of respondents state they received no such comments from their customers. 2) 49.5% of respondents stated comparatively their YTD sales 2007 to 2008 were higher while 50.5% stated they were lower. 3) 63.9% of respondents stated they possess sales records to support Labor Day weekend records as higher or lower while 36.1% do not. 4) 84% of respondents ate they would support an arts and crafts show in Bond Park over Labor Day weekend while 16% would not. 5) 85.5% of respondents would support an arts and crafts show over the Labor Day weekend if held by a non-profit group such as Sunrise Rotary while 14.2% would not. 6) Respondents rated other issues associated with a Labor Day arts and crafts fair to be in order of priority direct lack of ample parking for visitors/employees (64.9%), craft fair vendors take up premium parking (56.1%), direct competition with local business (33%), creates too much traffic congestion (33%), too many people already in town for labor Day weekend (29.8%). Based on the results of the survey with a 22.36% SAMPLE response those surveyed support allowing an event, such as an arts and crafts show, to be held at Bond Park over the Labor Day weekend. Additionally, those surveyed believe the number one issue needing to be addressed is management of parking in the immediate area for visitors/employees and control of parking for vendors. The survey results from monkeysurvey.com are similar in results when compared to Sunrise Rotary's personal interviews with local businesses. Special note: It should be noted that four additional surveys were printed from Survey Monkey's website and completed in written form by local businesses they are attached to the packet but were not calculated with the aggregate data. NOMAN I cO O , E 1 3 O 0 N 9 2% 4-, 32 C h 2 -1-7 141 1 + 1 C Ei 0 C ..1 0 % ME Mili >4 N 2 CD C W, Â· Â· , i - m i. I >, LL C) CD * - .-2 5 8 4 1 4 ' -23 1 0 ' esuodsabl esuodsekl 6Â£ Ir ii,v./ I 1! ejaM â‚¬ L %901 Surve ey. c m Logged in as " Suzy Blackhurst" leg -O~ %9. L 13 uo!*emv %0/1 ~0Â· ,> Sao!AJes %Ft, Sepeil 00!pnliSUOO % LOâ‚¬ Browse Responses 059, Response Summary Total Started Survey: 123 f F It Responses ~ ~ Total Completed Survey: 123 (100%) uo!}Senb peie,Asue uonsenb peddpis design survey ~ collect responses ~ ana e results 1 current report: Default Report ~ Add Report ~ 2,Joloas sseu!snq JnoX st jeqAA ~ L IN/:k i#Â§~i~i~>:ip:i4:il:: :~::~::8~::k::, Bu!6pol Page: Default Section because knowledge is everything Download Res ponses * Share Responses N CD r N <3) e u N O 4 - j C 0 0 S 6 0 2 5 Z 2 .* % 0) I _1 2 g CO 0 0 N 0 C 'C & E 0 0 049'6* 99 %9.09 Â¥b uonsenb peddpis asuodsabl esuodsekl 69 68 %129Â£ ::1 ON 80: uo!,senb peJeMSue 2. Did you or your employees receive any complaints that the Labor Day weekend arts and crafts fair was not held this year in Response Response Percent Count Response Response Percent Count Yes I j:iiÂ«44-ti?%:%~~~~~**wl/~Awl- <,5>~bg~.44*wi'D~1 51.2% [tiÂ·<:~~- i~$.4%4-..%4'((-**,h='I:'.:': 't *60*/ ' 44 tÂ« 48.8% answered question skipped question answered question lueoded date, are 2008 sales higher or lower than 2007 sales? te# u! pauoiluaul sales pue>leaM *80 Joqel JeAAOI JO Je46!4 PoddnS 01 Sp.looel Jelljo JO elep aAell noX oa , Bond Park? F 0 il,: 2. ' -. Lack of ample P~~2 5~JO=: 1 ..:1 64.9% 37 1 56.1% 32 29.8% 17 33.3% 19 answered question 57 skipped question 55 92 ~ Me ! A Â¢f~Â·: ~ SL uonsenb pele/Asue 8* uousenb peddls .. asuodsabl u.102) Aa>{i.lowia.A.InS JO tu suoo taimm sse.taxe ..u i,not,litfA D Piclo.: aa A :ll; <flit. 9,41 it) (JO!,JOd ON DaA.jeSGH Slub'>4 iii 3 ' 0610 1460.4603 98 joelwoo i.4 #donnc) }do luewele}S ADRAIjd asn Jo st.1.ija.1. Aotioci uiedsÂ·Â·I juÂ¥ eJe4 luell: ap]Aoid aseeld su.leouoo JO suo9sa66)ns 'sjuaunuoo aAell noX Ji '8 your business Craft fair vendors take up all the premium parking Too many people in Town already due to Labor Day holiday Too much downtown traffic creates congestion . 10 82*i m A o e â€ž + CD 4. .- r C â€ž r C g 0 0 0 X32CC - S C C E Mao .9 .2 C 00 9 0 16 2 0 4 00 1 2 00 00 1 i i [1. . 0- e. a M 70 0, 2 & k m k 2 0 E 10 0 0 0 Z Z - Response Response asuodsabl esuc asuodsabl esuodsabl 6 L %Â£:Â£â‚¬ - ~ 41!AA UO!}!leduloo pe!!p s! 3!e:1 16830 Count 6. Would you support an arts and crafts fair being held at Bond Park over the Labor Day weekend if a local non-profit, such as skipped question 14.2% onsenb peddpIs 5. Would you support an arts and crafts fair being held in Bond Park over Labor Day weekend? Yes I 1 P.#.* "I #4*""**#g"#/*eli""'4*#./.*i#@*Â»44>.... - : ~:~:::::::::::::~~::::~~~Â»-.:1 saA 2,>ped puos opioeq 146noiq s! J!el yeJo hea Joqei e J! aes nok op senss! 184AA 'Z Sunrise Rotary, coordinated the event? A Survey: Labor Day Arts and Crafts Fair At Bond Park " Survey Monkey Conducted 11/14/08 - 11/26/08 Survey Questions 1) What is your Business Sector? 2) Did you or your employees receive any complaints that the Labor Day weekend arts and crafts fair was not held this year in Bond Park? 3) Comparing your 2008 sales to 2007 sales year-to-date, are 2008 sales higher or lower than 2007 sales? 4) Do you have data or other records to support higher or lower Labor Day weekend sales mentioned in #3? 5) Would you support an arts and crafts fair being held in Bond Park over Labor Day weekend? 6) Would you support an arts and crafts fair being held at Bond Park over the Labor Day weekend if a local non-profit, such as Sunrise Rotary, coordinated the event? 7) What issues do you see if a Labor Day craft fair is brought back to Bond Park? a) Craft fair is direct competition with your business b) Lack of ample Parking for visitors and/or employees c) Craft fair vendors take up all the premium parking d) Too many people in Town already due to Labor Day holiday 1 .: A Survey: Labor Day Arts and Crafts Fair At Bond Park TOTAL RESPONSES (n) % # Responses 123 Respondent Demographics a. Retail (39) b. Lodging (37) c. Services (27) d. Dining (13) e. Construction (5) f. Attractions (2) (B) Any Complaints? 119 Yes 61 51.26% No 58 48.74% C Sales Amt 100 Higher 47 47.00% Lower 53 53.00% D Support for sales? 101 Yes 64 63.37% No 37 36.63% E Support any sale? 116 Yes 99 85.34% No 17 14.66% F Support Non-profit Sale? 117 Yes 102 87.18% No 15 12.82% G. Direct Competition 4 H. Lack of Parking 27 1. Vendors Take Premium Parking 22 J. Too Many People Already in Town 12 H. Traffic Creates Congestion 19 2 1. A Survey: Labor Day Arts and Crafts Fair At Bond Park ATTRACTIONS % (n) Response # Responses 2 100.00% (B) Any Complaints? Yes 1 50.00% No 1 50.00% (C) Sales Amt Higher 1 50.00% Lower 1 50.00% (D) Support for sales? Yes 1 50.00% NO 1 50.00% (E) Support any sale? Yes 2 100.00% No (F) Support Non-profit Sale? Yes 2 100.00% No (G) Direct Competition (H) Lack of Parking (1) Vendors Take Premium Parking (J) Too Many People Already in Town (K) Traffic Creates Congestion Written Comments We are located right on Bond Park. The craft fair does not hinder our business or help it. There is no parking, but then there never is parking around Bond Park so we don't really see an impact. #3 doesn't ask about Labor Day weekend sales, it asks about YTD sales. Not sure #3 and #4 are related as implied in #4. The craft fair does not impact our business whatsoever because people can't park near our business during the peak of the summer anyway. It's always full. 3 Â·: A Survey: Labor Day Arts and Crafts Fair At Bond Park CONSTRUCTION % (n) Response #Responses 5 Any Complaints? 5 Yes 2 40.00% No 3 60.00% Sales Amt 4 Higher 1 25.00% Lower 3 75.00% Support for sales? 5 Yes 1 20.00% No 4 80.00% Support any sale? Yes 5 100.00% No Support Non-profit Sale? Yes 5 100.00% No Direct Competition 1 Lack of Parking 1 Vendors Take Premium Parking 1 Too Many People Already in Town 1 Traffic Creates Congestion 1 Written Comments I like the craft fair. Just wish it wasn't such lousy weather. The type of fair should not be a direct competitor to the Fine Arts Guild Fair two weeks later. Perhaps more crafts than fine art. I've attended many craft fairs, and none of the above issues are any worse here than out of town. Folks will take their money elsewhere, like Windsor the same weekend. Bring it back!! Question #7 is very negative. I f Sunrise Rotary's goal is to help Este's youth, we should be more positive, encouraging, and supportive. Plus, get the youth involved in the Labor Day fair if the funds benefit them. All too often, parents/adults tend to do all the work. We all need to contribute our time and should feel proud as a community. After all, how many towns can say they conduct fundraising events for the youth? Estes is a tourist based economy and we have no right to complain about one weekend. Whatever happened to welcoming our visitors with open arms? 4 A Survey: Labor Day Arts and Crafts Fair At Bond Park DINING (n) % #Responses 13 (B) Any Complaints? 13 Yes 5 38.46% No 8 61.54% C Sales Amt 13 Higher 9 69.23% Lower 4 30.77% D Support for sales? 11 Yes 7 63.64% No 4 36.36% E Support any sale? 13 Yes 10 76.92% No 3 23.08% F Support Non-profit Sale? 13 Yes 10 76.92% No 3 23.08% G. Direct Competition 1 H. Lack of Parking 3 1. Vendors Take Premium Parking 4 J. Too Many People Already in Town 3 H. Traffic Creates Congestion 2 Written Comments People who come in tend to be frustrated at the congestion and traffic, and this year it was still plenty busy without the fair. Leave these events to weekends that aren't already going to be busy anyway. Parking is always an issue, and why its not dealt with amazes me. Elkhorn Ave provides a vast amount of revenue to the city and citizens. Why do we make it hard for customers to spend their money here? And please don't refer. to the "parking study"/boondoggle. Having parking problems 8-10 days a year does matter when that's a good proportion of our weekend days during high season. I don't really believe that these type of events are "attractions" more to the point they simply cut the retail pie into smaller pieces. Anything that brings people to Estes Park is a benefit to all the businesses in town. We need people to have many reasons to come here (i.e. events, fairs, the park and everything else) so there is something for everyone. I will support any event that will bring in the maximum amount of people to the town of Este. I also suggest more events in Bond Park on many more weekends. Would like to see the fair benefit the fire department again. Could the rotary chose a different beneficiary annually from the fair's proceeds? I think anything that brings people into town, summer AND winter is a great help. Rotary or the fire departments are both good causes. People who traditionally spend their Labor Day holiday with us - make this craft fair a part of their weekend. Estes is a town of repeat visitors...it was disappointing to see Bond Park empty.... 5 4 A Survey: Labor Day Arts and Crafts Fair At Bond Park . LODGING (n) % #Responses 37 (B) Any Complaints? 35 Yes 16 45.71% No 19 54.29% C Sales Amt 28 Higher 18 64.29% Lower 10 35.71% D Support for sales? 27 Yes 15 55.56% No 12 44.44% E Support any sale? 35 Yes 33 94.29% No 2 5.71% F Support Non-profit Sale? 35 Yes 34 97.14% No 1 2.86% G. Direct Competition 1 H. Lack of Parking 10 1. Vendors Take Premium Parking 5 J. Too Many People Already in Town 7 H. Traffic Creates Congestion 7 Written Comments 1. Craft fair vendors take up all the premium parking 2. The craft fair will be direct competition to local retail, a sector that has a tough time being successful. 3. Make sure sales tax is collected and paid and a business license is purchased!! 4. Allow local vendors to participate, if they so desire! 5. Craft fair vendors take up all the premium parking 6. I know that downtown merchants feel that it takes from their business but the people that come to the craft fair also eat in the restaurants and stay in the lodging. 7. I think the town is missing a very good opportunity to bring people to this town by doing away with the fairs in the park. 8. We had a very good reputation for shows in the park and I had a lot of people who visited because of the fairs. 9. You will have to re-establish the craft fair and there may be a loss of attendance until people are sure that the fair is going to be there. 10. I know many people who came for the crafts but they just didn't do the park and leave, they walked the town and even if they weren't staying up they ate lunch and supported the town that way. 11. I think the merchants that complain about a craft show are very short sighted and they ought to consider keeping their stores open for longer hours in the summer to make their business profitable. 12. They want to work from 9 to 5 and wonder why they can't make a living. 13. As long as there is a tourist on the street they should be open in the summer. 6 A Survey: Labor Day Arts and Crafts Fair At Bond Park " 14. The tourists are up in the park all day hiking and come back to town to shop and eat dinner and come out of dinner and find the shops closed. 15. They don't wait around the next day to shop the leave town. 16. I have had many guests complain about having money to spend and the shops are closed. 17. For their advantage the downtown should be run like a mall and everyone stays open until at least 9, 10 would be better. 18. I know those are long hours believe me but anyone can work 2 jobs for a few months and then you can go back to working part time in the winter. 19. You have 3 or 4 months to make you basic living and you need to be there when the tourists are there. 20. Craft fair vendors take up all the premium parking 21. it would be great to support our local youth 22. What was missing was the festive atmosphere the fair adds. I do not believe the fair has to sell anything,' how about music and dance, maybe food booths run by locals. 23. Anything that we can do to bring more people to town and give them something to do once here has my full support. 24. Retail should embrace anything that brings folks to town because once here everyone, including them, is a winner...folks will go to the craft fair, then visit shops, stop for coffee, have lunch or dinner etc. Tina Bernacchi 25. I support weekend events from May 1 - Nov 1. 26. Several of our lodge guests commented on the lack of the craft fair. It was an activity they enjoyed! 27. The loss of the event did not affect our business, but many were disappointed that the Fair was not happening. 28. I don't see parking, to many people in town or downtown traffic to be an issue comparatively with the summer visitors to Estes Park. The fair would be another thing Estes would have to offer. I think that's the beauty of Estes Park. It would be great to bring more off season excitement to Estes as well! , 29. #'s 3 & 4. We are a new business. This is our first year in business and could not answer questions 3 and 4. We're in the lodging business however and are close to Bond Park. We are absolutely supportive of the Arts and Crafts Fair. Personally, we really missed it this year. We hope it comes back! 7 < A Survey: Labor Day Arts and Crafts Fair At Bond Park RETAIL (n) (%) #Responses 39 (B) Any Complaints? 37 Yes 20 54.05% No 17 45.95% C Sales Amt 33 Higher 14 42.42% Lower 19 57.58% D Support for sales? 32 Yes 27 84.38% No 5 15.63% E Support any sale? 35 Yes 25 71.43% No 10 28.57% F Support Non-profit Sale? 37 Yes 25 67.57% No 12 32.43% G. Direct Competition 12 H. Lack of Parking 12 1. Vendors Take Premium Parking 9 J. Too Many People Already in Town 5 H. Traffic Creates Congestion 4 Written Comments 1. If the craft fairs are drawing people to town that wouldn't otherwise come, then test that theory by moving the Labor Day fair back one weekend to August and the Memorial Day fair forward one weekend to June. These are both rather slow periods that could benefit from additional people in town. In the meantime, let the Rotary Club take over the show for Labor Day 2009, because time is growing short for them to get it organized, and they can spread the proceeds among a number of nonprofits that can well use the money, especially in light of United Way's refocusing that may well take money away from a number of local organizations. 2. Festivals (like Elk Fest, Scandinavian Fest, Autumn Gold) concerts are better uses than craft fairs. Another concern is that it's a fact that many vendors at craft fairs take sales "under the table" and therefore pay no sales tax. The best idea would be to have a large scale wintertime, multiple weekend festival in Bond Park, with music, food, beer, ice carving, dog pulls, snow races, snowman making contests, fireworks, light shows, etc. January and February are when all businesses in Estes Park need a boost!!!!! 3. Our sales numbers are almost flat, YTD 2007 is slightly higher, and Labor Day weekend 2008 is slightly higher. As to #7 those are of course ongoing problems in Estes, fair or no fair. So it depends what your goals are, if you are doing the fair to bring more people to Estes it might be better to do it on a weekend that needs more people, Labor Day is pretty well saturated. An event gives people something to do but we can only have so many people up here so I don't think a fair would bring up significantly more people. If the goal is to raise funds for whatever, then it is a great weekend because there are so many people up here looking for something to do. My sense is for us anyway, festivals are pretty neutral, maybe slightly 8 A Survey: Labor Day Arts and Crafts Fair At Bond Park ' y. detrimental, as to their immediate effect on our sales. In the long run it is good to give people reasons to come to Estes, it is good to give people things to do so they can better enjoy their trip and it is very good to provide local non-profits with more ways to make money. These factors make for a better community, which in the big picture is good for business. 4. One of the biggest income weekends of the year. Why should temporary crafters scoop the "icing off the cake" when we are here all year, paying utilities, taxes, payroll, overhead etc...Let's focus on keeping the Estes Park merchants in business in Estes Park. 5. We find it inherently unfair that we pay rent all year, and the Town then puts a Crafts Fair right in our midst on one of the last big week-ends of the year (as well as on the first - Memorial Day). If there has to be a crafts fair, why not hold it at the Fairgrounds, where it does not directly interfere with our business? We certainly enjoyed the 2008 Labor Day! 6. The Town needs to develop a vision for Bond Park - how should it be used and what should it look like. What is best for the tourists - that is the question. What will make their experience the most pleasurable Lets look at the broad picture - not just one specific detail 7. We had our best sales day EVER over this last Labor Day, even though our summer as a whole was slightly down, and have records to prove it of course. If everyone is so convinced that the craft fair draws so many people, why don't they hold it on a non-holiday weekend? We think it's held on a holiday weekend because the people are already here... Also, Question number 3 says "Year to date" sales -- which have nothing to do with this 1 craft fair. Especially because question number #4 refers to Labor Day weekend in referencing question #3... So, was question #3 meant to ask what were our sales for Labor Day weekend????? Seems like that would have been the more appropriate question. So, I think there's a problem with this survey. 8. It is extremely difficult to make a retail business in Estes Park work under any circumstances, without out- of-town vendors coming in on prime weekends and creaming the sales we need to pay rent, payroll and year around costs. One of my vendors participated in the Fine Arts Guild Fair in 2007. She told me her sales figure, which was higher than I had done in my whole shop! EVERYTHING she sold was available in my shop, but the customers bought from her at the fair. They think they're getting something that isn't available elsewhere. That's as direct a competition as it could possibly be. 9. Sales in our shop were about equal to last year 10. Move the event to Stanley Fair Grounds therefore any visitor which is coming to Estes Park, just for the craft fair, won't be disappointed. There will be plenty of parking spaces available for vendors as well as customers. Pick a weekend other than Labor Day weekend and hold the event at Stanley Fair Grounds. If this is such a well attended event, maybe the Rotary could sell more booths with more room to accommodate more vendors and make more money. 11. Make sure ALL vendors have "special event" sales tax license. and someone in our town check each vendor. If you should cancel an event that is annual it should be publicized in Denver, Wyoming and Front Range. For folks to drive this far and find canceled events...we ALL lose. 12. I own a shop directly across the street from the Library lot. There are not even enough spaces for merchants who own businesses downtown. Your parking survey was ridiculous given those 10 days a year of parking problems coincide with the 10 high season weekends we have to sell our wares and give tax dollars to the town. Hello? Anyone home? I've had tourists tell me there is no parking and that's one of the reasons they go to Vail and Breckenridge both of whom have large parking garages within walking distance of their town centers. There is plenty of space for garages at the post-office, at the visitor's center and besides the town building. Make use of it! 13. There is always a lack of parking in Estes Park, we, need more parking!!!!!! Please bring back the craft fair!!!!!!!!!! 14. It would be nice if the fair was more original, not necessarily crafts. Parking is still an issue. Planning for that would be good. 15. There is no need to try to bring people into town on a weekend that we know will be busy. If you look at what is best for the town, try to bring people in on off weekends. 16. Do the craft fair on an "off" weekend to help attract people, not on a weekend when the people are already here! (Same should be done for Memorial Day - move it to the 1st or 2nd weekend in June.) 9 " A Survey: Labor Day Arts and Crafts Fair At Bond Park 17. There are so many more events that would bring people up to Estes Park other than a craft fair which directly competes with most local businesses. 18. I think that the craft fair is in direct competition with my business and also that they have an upper hand giving that every time I have bought from them they will wheel and deal with me giving me the impression that the cost of doing the fair for them is not enough. Yet our property taxes, rents etc... are so high we cannot afford to be wheeling and dealing because of overhead expenses that are out of sight! 19. Please, if another fair happens-- make it a QUALITY, JURIED event more like the Fine Arts Guild show later in the month, rather than the old Labor Day show-- which was rather cheap looking, with some work of low quality being sold. Shows bring MORE people to town so everyone benefits: hotels, restaurants, other stores too! 20. The festivals draw more people--that means more money for EVERYONE! 21. You should have had some positive "issues" to choose from, in #7. In the bigger picture, the various events held in Bond Park benefit the entire town. I have to compete in my own arena and the downtown businesses need to assure that they have products that our tourists will purchase. 22. I feel anything that makes Estes Park a destination in a world of competition for visits in Colorado is a good thing. Even if some businesses are slower this weekend, people come to Estes, have fun, tell others and come back. 23. How do you balance the input when some businesses claim better or worse sales when a show is in Bond Park? Some businesses will benefit, some will not. The bottom line is that if any event brings more people into town, then it should be good. There is no accurate way to measure the "spill over" effect these events have on surrounding businesses, because shoppers may come back at a later date to shop downtown. 24. While I realize that some business owners feel that the craft fair takes dollars out of their pockets; I feel that special events bring folks to Estes. No one goes to the craft fair and then leaves town-although we had a great Labor Day week-end; I'm concerned that we didn't have any special events going on downtown. I had 22 people ask about the show-that's not a ton of folks-but it is a considerable #. After a year with no events going on, I'm wondering if we will have crowds next year or if our visitors will visit other advertised events along the Front Range. 25. People come to Estes FOR the A&C Fair and were disappointed it wasn't held. Won't be back on Labor Day W/E without it. 26. I would also coordinate a free park entrance weekend again on another weekend and actually communicate with the Park Service so we know when it is too. Should be advertised in the valley as well as locally with banner about it down by corner where Sweet Basilico uses to be. 27. The layout of the booths blocks business to those on Park Lane as no-one can see the businesses in the back. A simply layout change could easily fix this. Another way to overcome retailer's resistance to the art fair is to offer booth space or better yet, free booth space to existing EP retail businesses. I think the fair is a benefit to the entire town and should be revived. 28. The arts & crafts fair is an asset to what our town can offer. I am a strong supporter of community youth and believe there is a benefit by having organizations raise funds for our youth. I shop at the fairs because they bring in new vendors and products. I think the businesses against the crafts fair would benefit from not functioning on fear baked analysis. 10 A Survey: Labor Day Arts and Crafts Fair At Bond Park J. . SERVICES (n) % #Responses 27 (B) Any Complaints? 27 Yes 15 55.56% No 12 44.44% C Sales Amt 21 Higher 5 23.81% Lower 16 76.19% D Support for sales? 23 Yes 12 52.17% No 11 47.83% E Support any sale? 26 Yes 24 92.31% No 2 7.69% F Support Non-profit Sale? 27 Yes 26 96.30% No 1 3.70% G. Direct Competition 2 H. Lack of Parking 6 1. Vendors Take Premium Parking 5 J. Too Many People Already in Town 2 H. Traffic Creates Congestion 2 1. I would support any fundraiser helping Estes Area Youth, as I believe this is a forgotten segment of the community. 2. I don't see any problems with bringing it back and actually think it would be a great thing to do. 1 personally missed having it this year, as a resident/business owner it is one of my favorite craft fairs we have in town. I did hear lots of complaints from visitors, wondering where the craft fair was. I also wondered why the fire department stopped doing such a successful fundraiser since they are always in need of new equipment. 3. Consider having plenty of "rent a cops" available to direct traffic. Lots of visitors complain about parking. 4. I think anything that could possibly bring more people to town is good and becomes an opportunity. 5. Yes, yes, yes, please bring back the Labor Day craft fair. It is the best event of the year in Bond Park! Visitors and locals alike look forward to this event. 6. I think it will be a shame to lose a special arts & crafts event in Estes on Labor Day weekend. The Rotary is an excellent choice as well as the Lions Club as they know how to organize and have the staff to make things happen. DO NOT LET THIS OPPORTUNITY GO BY THE WAYSIDE. -- Gary Dill 7. I see no issues. Good event for the community. Brings people to town. Helps economy 8. Good art and craft fairs are a wonderful thing for Estes- GOOD being the Key word. I believe as a town we should not let them go and encourage more open fairs. 9. Down business has NOTHING to do with any crafts fair 11 " A Survey: Labor Day Arts and Crafts Fair At Bond Park 10. The more activities that are available the better the situation is for all of Ehtes Park. The vendors have for the most part different items than the downtown merchants. 12 A Survey: Labor Day Arts and Crafts Fair At Bond Park c SECTION TWO M r:.%- ' 1 E 7.. -- .: I ~ '~ *1 '.: ., r . tbefault Secti6n: The Town of Estes Park needs your help. Please take five minutes to complete this important survey about arts and crafts fairs in Bond Park. The Town Board is considering a request to use Bond Park on Labor Day for a fund raising event. Over the previous twenty-five years the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department has held arts and crafts fair on Labor Day to raise funds. In 2008, the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department discontinued this fundraising event. The Estes Valley Sunrise Rotary Club has asked to renew the Labor Day Arts and Crafts Fair at Bond Park for the purpose of raising funds for community youth. The Town Board of Trustees would like to hear from you and get your input on this important issue. Your assistance in answering these questions will be helpful and appreciated. For the sake of protecting your privacy this survey is anonymous. * 1. What is your business sector? r~ Retail ~ Service ~ Dining ~ Attraction 2. Did you or your employees receive any complaints that the Labor Day weekend arts and crafts fair was not held this year in Bond Park? ~ Yes U$.o 3. Comparing your 2008 sales to 2007 sales year-to-date, are 2008 sales higher or lower than 2007 sales? ~ Higher 10 Lower 4. Do you have data or other records to support higher or lower Labor Day weekend saies ment)oned in #37 77//3 /5 A- D/FFU?f,UT Q VA"778/3/ 77/0*j ~ Yes AS tai) i P * 3. 'PB I AMÂ© 17) 51Â¥t# -DATA - 51â‚¬* ~ No RTÂ®, H 9 (101M Urs 5. Would you support an arts and crafts fair being held in Bond Park over Labor Day weekend? ~ Yes 6. Would you support an arts and crafts fair being held at Bond Park over the Labor Day weekend if a local non-profit, such as Sunrise Rotary, coordinated the event? ~ Yes N I No 7. What issues do you see if a Labor Day craft fair is brought back to Bond Park? t. ,. F~Craft fair is direct competition with your business , ~~ Lack of ample Parking for visitors and/or employees~ 0,2 ,~471 / {'*Allâ‚¬ 1 PANT5 < ~~ Craft fair vendors take up all the premium parking ,~Too many people in Town already due to Labor Day holiday 0'~Too much downtown traffic creates congestion, F*,A *:*AS3~ 7% &Â¢W6~327â€¢f/"~~it/*pr,~ 8. If you have comments, suggestions or concerns please provide them here. Â·M + Sgt ATFAGI â‚¬1) Thank you for your help! On December 5,2008 at 7 p.m. in the Town Board Room the Trustees will be considering a proposal for an arts and crafts fair in Bond Park over Labor Day weekend, 2009. The results of this survey will be presented at that time. If you have an opinion you'd like to share, please attend the meeting or send your comments to Lowell Richardson Irichardson@estes.org, or 577-3707. â€¢1 201 PARK LANE - P. 0. BOX 533 ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517-0533 TELEPHONE: (970) 586-5483 FACSIMILE: (970) 577-8421 November 25,2008 Town Board of Trustees Mayor Bill Pinkham Town of Estes Park Re: Usage of Bond Park for Town-sanctioned events It has come to my attention that you are currently considering a request from the Estes Valley Sunrise Rotary Club to take over the arts and crafts fair, previously sponsored by the Estes Park Fire Department, and hold it in Bond Park, where it had been for the previous twenty-five years. I have been vehemently opposed to these events being held in Bond Park, ever since I served on the Town Board of Trustees (1982 - 1986) and served many, many, years on the Planning Commission. I oppose this request no less, and I hope that you will look at the bigger picture of ALL events in Bond Park. I am not opposed to the concept of allowing these events in a more appropriate location. This was the first time since 2001 that I was able to be open for business over the Labor Day weekend, without feeling that I was butting my head against a brick wall, twiddling my thumbs, and raising my blood pressure because none of my customers could get to me. Frankly, I have grown tired of fighting this battle. However, you are a new Board of Trustees and a new Mayor, and since the last time I expended energy, regarding this issue before the Town Board was in the year 2000, I shall try one more time to be heard, and possibly affect future Bond Park policy. First of all, I attended hundreds of hours of meetings, as a Town Board member, right after the .awn Lake flood, as we were formulating the Estes Park Downtown Redevelopment plan, and 1. learning how to implement an Urban Renewal Authority. One of the most important things I brought home, from this experience, is that A COMMUNITY'S HEART IS ITS DOWNTOWN, AND ITS MAIN STREETS ARE ITS' ARTERIES. I have to question why we continue to clog our arteries even further on the absolute busiest weekends, and place these events smack dab in the middle of our heart, which is trying so hard to pump! We still remain a town, whose engine is fueled by tourism, and we need healthy arteries and a vibrant and healthy heart. 1 believe our current policies toward managing usage of Bond Park for these events are not conducive to this good health. Virtually all of the arts and crafts shows, and I now include the Scandinavian Midsummer Festival, have OUTGROWN Bond Park as an appropriate venue, in my opinion. All of them are extremely congestive to both the immediate streets and all nearby parking. Vendors and their families park as close to their booths as possible, and even if they go away at night, they're right back there early the next morning, and for as long as the event continues. These fairs and shows are not just a weekend hobby for many. They are big business... and at our expense. Over the years, I have watched lots of abuse of the single handicap parking space (during these events, particularly), just outside my building on the northwest side of Park Lane, probably having borrowed a placard from a friend or relative, so they won't have to walk to far, and with no signs of any impairment. I watch vendors and performance artists, not only park on the Bond Park side of Park Lane, just north of Elkhorn Ave. (where there are no parking signs), but also park on the sidewalk, obliterating any use by pedestrians (1'm sure this is all real legal!! !) 1 watch extended-cab pick-ups, some with campers, which are too long for the parking spaces, and even some trailers, unhooked and parked for the duration. Needless to say, none of this is good for traffic safety and flow, particularly during the half-day 'set-up" before the event begins the next day, and as the event draws to a close on its final day and everyone wants to get loaded up and out of here. I've watched countless police cars go by and take no action. Cramming up to 100 - 115 vendor spaces is also cramped and not conducive to good security. A couple of years ago (or so), I can remember the Memorial Day Crafts Fair occurring less than two weeks after Bond Park was re-worked and new sod was laid. That was truly one fine way to trample new sod, and a park in the center of the town's heart! I can't say that I believe that was a judicious and timely use of our tax dollars. We should take better care of this beautiful asset. There is a reasonable and prudent alternative to continuing this Bond Park policy. I believe there is both appropriate and adequate available land at the area known as the Stanley Park fairgrounds, which won't violate use restrictions placed on the deed at the time it was given to the town. I believe it would afford vendors more room, allow them to have their vehicles and trailers more readily accessible to them, and would allow for future growth of these events. Yes, they may have to do additional promotion to get people to the fairgrounds, but I believe that long term, the benefits will greatly outweigh their negatives (mainly, siphoning revenue from our merchants and restaurants, who do their best to provide all of us quality goods and services year round). I believe even the recently added car shows belong out at Stanley Park, especially when the Park Lane and McGregor Ave. blocks adjacent to Bond Park are closed off to traffic. The only Bond Park event that I can even abide is the Autumn Gold Festival in the fall. I think there are issues with that festival... namely food and beer service, and sound, which vastly exceeds the venue. If I owned a restaurant, I would have to feel that the festival was not helping my food and beer sales. I think that philosophically the Town Board of Trustees must look at a number of issues, and set policy, which is in congruity with your resolution of these issues. 1.) Does the Town Board support its businesses, who produce sales tax income for the Town of Estes Park year round, by moving these events to Stanley Park, or some other place which is suitable, out of the central business district, and thus limiting the negative effects to the downtown businesses? 2.) Does the Town Board recognize that vehicular traffic is already extremely congested in the central business district during major holiday and elk viewing weekends? 3.) Does the Town Board recognize that this extreme traffic congestion is exacerbated by the arts and crafts fairs and other events, which occur in and around Bond Park? 4.) Does the Town Board recognize that these events have outgrown Bond Park, and that their heavy foot traffic contributes to severe damage to the park, much of which struggles to survive, much less thrive? 114 5.) Does the Town Board believe that the time is now to relocate these events to a more - u. appropriate location, namely Stanley Park? Agreeing not to approve any new events in Bond Park is not solving the problems. The issue is those that are already there! 1 1 I have heard it suggested that somehow the Town has ascertained that, even though these Bond Park events may negatively impact a =few" businesses nearby, they are good" for the town. I believe that, outside of Scottish/Irish festival (which does bring many people to town), very few extra visitors are actually enticed to Estes Park for these events. On the weekends on which they occur, our town is already full to the gills with people...we already have gridlock...and these ~here today and gone tomorrovt venders siphon off d611ars, which every merchant needs, especially in these difficult economic times, in order to survive. The principal beneficiary of these events is the sponsoring "worthy cause", as it receives its booth space rents as income from its vendors. I cannot agree that these events make these affected weekends busier and more profitable for the downtown business community. I do believe that they add substantially to our problems of congestion and parking. Are all these costs to our community worth the benefits received by the sponsoring :worthy cause"? Thank you for your time in reading and considering these comments, as you deliberate the appropriate and prudent future policy of holding events_in Bond Park. Perhaps now is the time to make "change". 1 11 <C--1 j k-*14( 11 ) < 12//l,i#J, L /7 . 51Â®fhult:Section 9 , 1. . The Town of Estes Park needs your help. Please take five minutes to complete this important survey about arts and crafts fairs in Bond Park. The Town Board is considering a request to use'Bond park on Labor Day for a fund raising event. Over the previous twenty-five years the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department has held arts and crafts fair on Labor Day to raise funds. In 2008, the Estes Park Volunteer FIre Department discontinued this fundraising event. The Estes Valley Sunrise Rotary Club has asked to renew the Labor Day Arts and Crafts Fair at Bond Park for the Purpose of raising funds for community youth. The Town Board of Trustees would like to hear from you and get your input on this important issue. Your assistance in answering these questions will be helpful and appreciated. For the sake of protecting your privacy this survey Is anonymous. * 1. What is your business sector? ~ Retail ~ Service ~ Dining ~ Attraction 2. Did you or your employees receive any complaints that the Labor Day weekend arts and crafts fair was not held this year in Bond Park? ~ Yes ~ No 3. Comparing your 2008 sales to 2007 sales year-to-date, are 2008 sales higher or lower than 2007 sales? ~ Higher ~ Lower 4. Do you have data or other records to support higher or lower Labor Day weekend sales mentioned in #3? ~ Yes ~ No 5. Would you support an arts and crafts fair being held in Bond Park over Labor Day weekend? ~ Yes ~ No 6. Would you support an arts and crafts fair being held at Bond Park over the Labor Day weekend if a local non-profit, such as Sunrise Rotary, coordinated the event? ~ Yes . NO I 7. What issues do you see if a Labor Day craft fair is brought back to Bond Park? ~Craft fair is direct competition with your business . ~ La'ck of ample Parking for visitors and/or employees ~ Craft fair vendors take up all the premium parking .n Too many people in Town already due to Labor Day holiday ~ Too much downtown traffic creates congestion 8. If you have comments, suggestions or concerns please provide them here. . I ,__.J 1 .4.. t..lei Thank you for your help! On December 5,2008 at 7 p.m. in the Town Board Room the Trustees will be considering a proposal for an arts and crafts fair in Bond Park over Labor Day weekend, 2009. The results of this survey will be presented at that time. If you have an opinion you'd like to share, please attend the meeting or send your comments to Lowell Richardson Irichardson@estes.org, or 577-3707. - U 41 441/- /fla, 41/4--~4, ~ t. 4,1+Â·0 117\ Â« *rn L Â«2/0.21 4Â¢Al# Â· 4<tf-- 1 -. /771 6 14Â· c + -4 06Â« 1 AjE M 0/14-'091__ 1<~66,k-- Â£~Atl tr-v Kt- -tifiC ~I '1â€ž A 09,1 f 6 0-4 41 4-10Â·Â°F 1 . I b Default, Sedtion 0, e & -4: 1 ..' Ak*FALLB' ,Â¢,4.7'Â·t' .â€¢.At;;3{%>44.9~ '%1~'- el}~ ' i., . 6. 44., 4, . 4:.: 4. 4 49*'. 1, . - u The Town of Estes Park needs your help. Please take five minutes to complete this important survey about arts and crafts fairs in Bond Park. The Town Board is considering a request to use Bond Park on Labor Day for a fund raising event. Over the Previous twenty-five years the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department has held arts and crafts fair on Labor Day to raise funds. In 2008, the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department discontinued this fundraising event. The Estes Valley Sunrise Rotary Club has asked to renew the Labor Day Arts and Crafts Fair at Bond Park for the purpose of raising funds for community youth. The Town Board of Trustees would like to hear from you and get your input on this important issue. Your assistance in answering these questions will be helpful and appreciated. For the sake of protecting your privacy this survey is anonymous. * 1. What is your business sector? ~ Retail ~ Service ~ Dining ~ Attraction 2. Did you or your employees receive any complaints that the Labor Day weekend arts and crafts fair was not held this year in Bond Park? ~ Yes ~ No 3. Comparing your 2008 sales to 2007 sales year-to-date, are 2008 sales higher or lower than 2007 sales? (~ Higher- Lower 4. Do you have data or other records to support higher or lower Labor Day weekend sales mentioned in #3? ~ Yes ~ No 5. Would you support an arts and crafts fair being held in Bond Park over Labor Day weekend? ~ Yes K) No 6. Would you support an arts and crafts fair being held at Bond Park over the Labor Day weekend if a local non-profit, such as Sunrise Rotary, coordinated the event? ~ Yes Â® NO 1 i*Default Section , . $ : 4 79 The Town of Estes Park needs your help. Please take five minutes to complete this important survey about arts and crafts fairs in , Bond Park. The Town Board is considering a request to use'Bond Park on Labor Day for a fund raising event. Over the previous twenty-five years the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department has held arts and crafts fair on Labor Day to raise funds. In 2008, the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department discontinued this fundraising event. The Estes Valley Sunrise Rotary Club has asked to renew the Labor Day Arts and Crafts Fair at Bond Park for the purpose of raising funds for community youth. The Town Board of Trustees would like to hear from you and get your input on this important issue. Your assistance in answering these questions will be helpful and appreciated. For the sake of protecting your privacy this survey is anonymous. * 1. What is your business sector? ~~Retail ~ Service ~ Dining ~ Attraction 2. Did you or your employees receive any complaints that the Labor Day weekend arts and crafts fair was not held this year in Bond Park? ~ Yes ~ 0-20 3. Comparing your 2008 sales to 2007 sales year-to-date, are 2008 sales higher or lower than 2007 sales? ~ Higher (. Lower 4 #AT- A- ive'W -ie-1 - 1.14_ 51*UL, 7% Fi quâ€¢U-t_ 4. Do you have data or other records to support higher or lower Labor Day weekend sales mentioned in #3? ~ Yes- (F.Lo 5. Would you support an arts and crafts fair being held in Bond Park over Labor Day weekend? ~ Yes 01 6. Would you support an arts and crafts fair being held at Bond Park over the Labor Day weekend if a local non-profit, such as Sunrise Rotary, coordinated the event? ~ Ye~ ac 4,7. What issues do you see if a Labor Day craft fair is brought back to Bond Park? El Craft fair is direct competition with your business LO-Lack of ample Parking for visitors and/or employees ~~graft fair vendors take up all the premium parking E~140 many people in Town already due to Labor Day holiday ~ Too much downtown traffic creates congestion 8. If you have comments, suggestions or concerns please provide them here. i...." 1 21 Thank you for your help! On December 5,2008 at 7 p.m. in the Town Board Room the Trustees will be considering a ProPosal for an arts and crafts fair in Bond Park over Labor Day weekend, 2009. The results of this survey will be presented at that time. If you have an opinion you'd like to share, please attend the meeting or send your comments to Lowell Richardson Irichardson@estes.org, or 577-3707. Rocky Mountain Knife Co. P.O. Box 4033 Estes Park, CO 80517 m A Survey: Labor Day Arts and Crafts Fair At Bond Park SECTION THREE Survey 1. Did you have any complaints because the craft fair wasn't held this year over the Labor Day Weekend? 2. Was your business up or down this Labor Day Weekend from 2007 and/or prior years? 3. Do you have any sales data or other records to support traffic differences? 4. How do you feel about the Craft Fair coming back to Estes Park over Labor Day Weekend? 5. Comments ESTES PARK LABOR DAY ARTS & CRAFT SHOW Application Request 2009 I. Overview History The Labor Day Arts & Crafts Show is an event previously sponsored by the Volunteer Fire Department. It has been held in Estes Park for 26 years and was discontinued after Labor Day Weekend 2007. The Sunrise Rotary club was approached by residents of the community to become the sponsor and bring the show back. Potential Revenue We believe there is an immediate opportunity to raise $28000 annually that will be used to underwrite existing and new projects of the Sunrise Rotary Club. We also believe there is a longer term opportunity to increase and potentially double the revenue amount within five years with a possible move to Stanley Fairgrounds. II. Benefits 1. Raise money/revenue for the community activities and organizations like Restorative Justice, Interact and other causes supported by the Sunrise Rotary Club without asking for donations, contributions and sponsorships from the local businesses. 2. Promote a community event that brings guests and tourist traffic to Estes Park. (Keep the event in Estes Park'as opposed to another Mountain Resort) 3. Promote 8 community event that keeps residents in town and downtown. 4. Bring revenue to the city through sales tax and business license fees that would be collected and reported immediately following the event. 5. Support the downtown businesses that are overwhelmingly in favor of activities in Bond Park. III. Why Rotary 1. Community Ambassadors 2. Supportive of youth and non-profit service organizations 3. Consensus focused IV. Impact A. Local Retailers Survey Parameters 1. The original survey conducted by Rotary was not an o fficial survey. Every business was not contacted. However, a personal conversation was held with many business owners. In some cases the owner was not available so a manager or an employee who was working Labor Day Weekend was interviewed. ESTES PARK LABOR DAY ARTS & CRAFT SHOW Application Request 2009 2. We intentionally included ALL of the businesses in the survey we heard to be emphatically opposed and we chose to focus on downtown retail because we expected more opposition. We did not seek out each and every restaurant or lodging business, as we expected more favorable support from those business sectors. 3. A few responses from random businesses outside the downtown area were obtained and included to identify an indication of whether we might have unexpected opposition and perhaps find it necessary to expand the survey sample. 4. However, all early indicators are i f every Estes Park business was surveyed we would actually expect the opposition % to decrease relative to the whole, because the entire business pool includes lodging and food which appear to be largely in favor of the event. Survey Results: The overwhelming consensus was in favor of bringing the Arts & Craft Show back to Estes Park. Out of 60 surveys conducted 51 responders in support 6 responders neutral 3 responders opposed - 5% of sample The opposition represents just 5 % of the businesses surveyed. Of that total we found we could mitigate the issue for all of the opposed responders by working on the parking issues and/or by extending an opportunity for booth space or by allowing businesses to participate on event day by providing an opportunity to have some type of outside sale in order to encourage the visitors to walk beyond Bond Park. Summary comments: â€¢ Most of the businesses in support of the show or responders who were neutral preferred to keep the event in Bond Park rather than move the event to Stanley Fairgrounds. â€¢ Most of the opposed were not opposed if it was moved to Stanley Fairgrounds or if parking issues could be dealt with successfully. â€¢ Most of the opposed adjusted their position if they were given an opportunity to participate in the event at Bond Park or via an extension of the show with sidewalk display. â€¢ Most of the businesses felt there should be a wide variety of events in Bond Park rather than only entertainment and would prefer something every weekend. â€¢ Most businesses thanked us for visiting and getting their input. They appreciated being asked and heard. ESTES PARK LABOR DAY ARTS & CRAFT SHOW Application Request 2009 B. Parking Parking is a concern and for that matter is an issue no matter what activity is scheduled or not scheduled during the busy season. We are committed to working with the adjacent businesses, the town and the vendors to reach a workable solution for all parties. We believe a big part of that process will be to established specific restrictions, monitor during the event weekend and enforce. C. Future Master Plan for Bond Park: We think at some point it will be appropriate to have a public hearing for the future of Bond Park-but not until a year-round marketing plan is developed and a master plan is recommended for the various Estes Park venues. Until that work is completed, it seems premature and counterproductive to single out this show and turn the scheduling of it into a politically charged event without having first designed the parameters and guidelines under which events will be considered or not considered that apply across the board in a non discriminatory way. ~2 DO> 86% /7 22.0 Â£3Ec -- - .92 9 0 2' 5 0 8 -a 2 17 522 -5 +I~ 26-0 tiE;2{~ (D-Â¤2 3 21 1 5RQ8 8 51 E C .2 - 2 2 .5 3 2 -5 c * .23 2 -> C _ Â£2 k 1-- 6)i Â¤ 0-0 0 Q L & 2 2.C 0 U E g@$63~82 imp SE & o D CO 29-3*852 *23 <-0 - 3 < 38 2 M ob O 00 o c C 33 I * * CO CO 0 ;9,4 68 22 8 CO U) U) CO O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >> >> > >>>> 0 CO 0 - CO CO CO 20 26 2 20 22 2:M > > > 2 8 .O m (D :22 (D >N N â‚¬ &0 I 82* 73 4 0 Beo E 0 0 0 02 0@d~ 3 280 le -1- -52 CO > ./ C > (D 1 9 12 E â‚¬ g>* 8 22* 882 Ne O /~U-O 5 O (D Rig 12 5 5 Images of RMNP Like having s Park. do ver, wei, bring it back ime we br to Estes it is a good ~ing, but would Heirloom Jewelers knows that it is good for Rotary and ending the outdoor sale/promo 12Zort,cteavic peo~,le in~~~s~Ntays a m me now they ill dn eidoed el# Bups '>IJ se* ploeiseluoH OPDJoioo .Ixeu inocID pe!]JOM Name of Business Neutral Opposed Comments issues were mitigat Events are really important-great idea to bring it back. pe#lu-ued N JOADJ u! Jo spunoAD:I Aelu[)19 ID Plew eq il Siejeld ***se* tou seop U pu[) eldoed Jo toi D u! SBU,uq 'JOADJ u! l.lonuu AleA the communily. 'sseu!snq woii 400*ep weAe 10 Wooq D Complaints In Received Favor sel Auued ieddoo eul Adjacent to Holli! Park lections es 11#01"Atog Bean Blossom 5 cO :t= 0 23 ifi 3 4 C -U 2-6.~ . i @2 2 15 0 .22 E .52 2 32 -2 (O -r 0 0 D 2 65 6 U 2 2 Â® 1 2 6 0 -9 4- O 2 0 2 0 0 2Â£ ing f E d -30 1- C o E ocog t -75 O 0 -0*US iij ,-lu6 1 6 :t: p 0 -O 2 0 O 4 *-a O 6 2 3-&22-*fEE> 5-022% 2 2 0 0 0 0- 5 22 B .5 co122- % 0 3Â·â‚¬-4=d 00-u:â€ž, ig -Â®Ht* i a M Â¤00Â®0 C < E cho.G > * * * 0 : 2 5 5 5 â‚¬000000 CO CO CO 0 0 >>>>>> 58860 Wm maa am m m m.am >>>Z > E * 27,1 * - E 0 - C 0 .C (D 0 a 42mo * 9$ @cw 9 1 .c . 0 0-2 * 60 c Acn * 2% 3 2 3 1 5 S~EN 8 - 75 fi ~o > 0 0 0 > m (D 1 2 fi -10 8 b jit@ E d ~03*n 22&86 3 e it, ~~223Ylss*32-'gfIZ 1Ztzz:nd, I f he right product in your s , competition isn't the s more traffic into town. ersrgratrZ-'SWZTLIraey Fairground but also felt eau sdoell sBupq *d pl 1)11'Od puog eidoed ejou.1 Bullq Seo otul eldoed eau s5upq 1 |Jep 11 >IODq 1! Bu!]q Aletnlosqv Name of Business Neutral Opposed Comments 'J~~| el41 se!1!A#OD eJOLU el# 'UMOt i il! JOJ Al'DOU!oeds dn ewoo eidoed iAlet! ce ned about ven ors r comp etition, parking is the Complaints In Received Favor siness Se* SWOM+1!LIS elll ic Mtn. Charm th it would igate his uc)!toe .' 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 CO 0 0 0 CO CO CO 0 02 0 0 * 0 0 0 . * a) C) a) a) a) * a) C) C) 0 * >>>>>>>>>>>>> 6 8802@80 26.26.20 Â¢ a> * a> u Â¢ O O Q> 0000(.O(00(OU) >>> >>>>>Z >>> >>>>>>>>> O Q.:EE 2 -aÂ£ CO * Eco 2 2 U J El :6 12 -E 08Â¤222 0 B * -0 -2 if%3#ift# 24ggE@2 n- 2 O u =LE<02604* <Ial-LUEZ 52*062 Name of Business RZ'Ced~ Favor Neutral Opposed Comments Alexandra's Yes bring it back. Brings people downtown so that (Wine) Anything in bond Park helps business, Yes In general opposed but believes it to be a good thing for the community in terms of financial support for services, 'Mooq 11 Supq esoeid 'Alosseoeu AleA Great event, bring it back. '9#JeAe Il[) JO Uoddns ul Â·Dep! pelÂ£) D Aletnlosqv 'IDieueD u! Pooa SlueAe MJDd puog 'lueAe poos 91!DN 'JeAOI'!d9 SADMID 9! elel# Ul eldoed Supq Ale,niosqv eniDA enJ1 always elps. e Feet Originals es lueAe AIDAI sO JOADJ ul * 41OOCI D pele;JO eJeAA Siel]MO SseU!snc~ il *** seA Sketnduloo 11 Cool Stuff sioll.le@ uo! enss! Uioul 91 Buppod ** Columbine Inn A Survey: Labor Day Arts and Crafts Fair At Bond Park * SECTION FOUR Estes Park Convention & Visitors Bureau Memo To: Honorable Mayor Bill Pinkham and Board of Trustees From: Bo Winslow - Events Support and Facilities CC: Jacqueline Halburnt, Lowell Richardson, Tom Pickering Date: December 2,2008 Re: Labor Day Weekend Arts/Crafts Fair in Bond Park BACKGROUND: As we discuss the Crafts Fair in Bond Park, it is important that we share more history with you. The Events Department has been contacted by numerous other people who wanted to conduct a crafts fair on Labor Day Weekend. Staff instructed these people of our policy which states - No new activities/events will be given use of Bond Park on holiday weekends or the summer tourist season without approval from the Community Development Committee and the Town Board. If people were persistent, we would let them know they had an option to go to the committee and Town Board to discuss this. The people we talked to about holding a crafts fair on Labor Day weekend were -Past craft fair vendors (3) -Event coordinators from the community and outside our community (4) -Several local nonprofit groups Staff feels as though there are others who would like an opportunity to do this fair and it may be important to look at all the possible players. Cynthia Deats From: Jacqueline Halburnt Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 10:57 AM To: Jackie Williamson; Cynthia Deats; Bill Pinkham personal; Dorla Eisenlauer; Chuck Levine; Richard Homeier; Eric Blackhurst; John Ericson; Jerry Miller Subject: Fw: Town Web's Feedback Form Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Device -----Original Message----- From: Peter Marsh To: Jacqueline Halburnt; Lowell Richardson Sent: Mon Dec 08 10:43:56 2008 Subject: FW: Town Web's Feedback Form Jacquie, Lowell, I am forwarding Dan Via's note to the town to you for distribution as you see fit. Thanks, Peter Peter Marsh Director of Communications Estes Park Convention & Visitors Bureau 500 Big Thompson Ave. P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Phone: 970-577-9900, Ext 225 FAX: 970-577-1677 www.estesparkcvb.com See the web cam at www.estesnet.com/cam -----Original Message----- From: Town of Estes Park, Colorado [mailto:info@estesnet.com] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 10:40 AM To: Peter Marsh Subject: Town Web's Feedback Form ******************************************************************************* Name: Danial Via PhysicalAddress: 1263 Broadview MailingAddress: 1263 Broadview City: Estes Park State: co Zip: 80517 Phone: 970-586-2818 Email: danialvia@hotmail.com Remote Name: 165.236.160.162 Date: 12/08/2008 Time: 10:39:40 AM Comment: Dear Mayor and Trustees: I am writing you in support of Sunrise Rotary Club's request to stage an arts and crafts show in Bond Park over the Labor Day 2009 weekend. I approach this issue from three differing, and in someways, conflicting points of view: as a downtown business owner, a member of Sunrise Rotary Club, and as President of the Board of Directors of the Estes 1 Valley Restorative Justice Program. As co-owner of Wild Spirits Gallery at 148 W. Elkhorn, I have never been a fan of the Bond Park arts and crafts shows. We believe they are direct competition for our business and adversely impact our sales. Though we think their impact is negative, it is not critical to the success of our business. We certainly have no quarrel with the non-profit organizations that benefit from the shows, and have come tb accept the shows as part of. the business environment of Estes Park. Like winter and the off season, the shows may be annoying but are something that must be dealt with as part of doing business in Estes. As a member of Sunrise Rotary, I have had virtually no part in the effort to resurrect the the Labor Day Bond Park show, but can support the efforts of my fellow club members because I know Sunrise Rotary will use the money raised for important, even critical, services in the community. The intent is to distribute the proceeds from the show to various non-profit community organizations. As President of the Board of Directors of one such local non-profit I know how critically important additional sources of funding can be, especially in times of economic downturn when donations dry up just as the need for services increases. United Way of Larimer County, for example, has altered its priorities and a number of local non-profits are losing United Way's funding, not because of any failures on their part, but because they do not fit under the new guidelines. The money raised at the old Labor Day shows was a relatively small part of the overall Fire Department budget. But the same amount of money, even if distributed among several organizations, can make a major difference to each one of those organizations, and can be the difference between having those organizations' services available in the community or not. In conclusion, I am asking you to grant Sunrise Rotary Club's request, not because it is good for my business, but because there is more to life than business, and more to being a member of this community than merely being a member of its business community. Sincerely, Danial Via 2 15Â¥61bffi {0@Di {U]ME A Community Survey *#4% ~Ul?*NEM lMJERgAIok[9*0167 Â¤ Census (550 emailings) Â¤ SurveyMonkey.Com Â¤ Responses ( 123) Â¤ Statistically Significant (22.36%) 43%2' Â¤ Respondent Categories Â¤ Retail Â¤ Dining D Attractions Construction/Trades Lodging Services -#f*40*.,#11*~2*Bl.t &'~~ ~1 Â· 7 1 1 . 32% â€¢ Retail â€¢ Dining Â¢ Attractions I Construdon Trades N Lodging â€¢Services lato- \_2% ai 4%1 P. -Services NA ~ i Retail * Lodging NO ........I- f. - . _-'Iit Dining 1 Construction Attractions i i ~Il*21_.*7 1 1/fr:. 1//F.494*- t LZ. Total Respondents 0 10 20 30 40 4 50 60 70 .L b, NRC 1 1 1 1 t Services â€¢ Retail Lodging 2 ..v:&:&. .1 . 3 . . i.. Construction Attractions Total Respondents Higher ~ 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 1 NR ~ ~ Services -f . Retail â€¢ Lodging No I.I Â· Dining ' - - -__L_____ ~ ~ Construction 1 ~ Â· Attractions 1 '11'I'.'1 ~ | 1/,*1 i Total Respondents I:' t Yes ... 1 1 1 ~//I'li~"~'r 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 A.. ./ ~ Services â€¢ Retail '' lodging Dining Conswuction 4, Attractions 1 .. i 1 1 i~ i ' Total Respondents l ! 1%2: . 1 1 ,-_: 1 - --1- Â·Â·Â· -_ . ' i 20 40 60 80 I 00 120 Services - Retail â€¢ Lodging Dining Construction i Â· Attractions 1btal Respondents f-33317-1227 .1--' f -_f Â· 1 i- ft-Lvlf.232. 1 20 40 60 80 100 120 (01!I~12[iiI @*ED NR "'""= ~ Traffic Creates Congestion ~ 0 Services â€¢ Retail Too Many People in Town B 9, -1, L i . Lodging Vendors Take Premium g- ' ' Dining Parking Construction ~ Attractions Lack of Parking ir-- Total Respondents Direct Competeion i 0 10 20 30 40 50 4, 44 ~5â€¢4 Â·-Â·h- ~ ti: Â·,9.,5 . f.~ J.,0*~33.? f.. 1C1--b~. .k , ~ Â¤ Question #2 Â¤ 51.26% received complaints from customers about not having a craft fair 'fff{. (11@94 mal# iftÂ»B 2 7 1>e) 93.44 2 Â¤ Question #3 Â¤ 50.5% state their sales were lower in comparison to last year Â¤ Question #4 Â¤ 63.9% state they have data supporting a higher or lower sales year comparison 07 .... Al.M .. Â¤ Question #5 Â¤ 84% would support an arts and craft sale over Labor Day weekend in Bond Park 142: * Â¥3 2 Â¤ Question #6 Â¤ 85.8% would support a non-profit holding an Arts and Craft sale at Bond Park over Labor Day weekend Vf=>IC, -Â· 9/Pe&*ATOW 1 -Â·4**1 .*:Â·t 214%Â·- 6~~ ~. ~ Â·Â·7 49 Â· DREARgiÂ» Â¤ Question #7 Â¤ 64.9% state employee/visitor parking is number one issue, 56.1 % state vendors taking up parking an issue, 33% state traffic congestion as an issue, 29.8% state too many people already in town, and 33.3% state direct competition as an issue. *1? 2, ./ftin.-'f -- kii 1,1. 5 ~ti *19-*~83 9:Â·-' 0: -4+K , I lgU Ii:Jil Â® TOWN of ESTES PARK ESTES PARK Public Works Department COLORADO INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: December 09,2008 TO: Honorable Mayor Bill Pinkham, Town Board & Administrator Halburnt FROM: Scott Zurn P.E. Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Modification of parking restrictions for Crabapple Lane Background: The Public works Dept. has had difficulties maintaining access through Crabapple Lane due to vehicles parking on the street. The street is currently 22 ft in width and was not designed for or constructed to accommodate on street parking. The Public Works Dept. is having difficulty plowing and maintaining access for emergency vehicles when vehicles are parked on the street. The Public Safety committee requested that the Public Works Dept. research any other alternatives beyond restricting the parking. Other proposed options such as parking on one side and restricting the street to a one way direction were proposed. The current design of the road section is 22 ft which is a local road standard for one lane of traffic in two directions, i.e. enough road width for two cars to pass each other without conflict. Any parking would present head on conflicts when two vehicles try to navigate the parked vehicle. There would be no driver violation if any driver fails to yield and an accident occurs in this situation. In addition, any parking leaves inadequate area for snow storage windrows, snow removal equipment and emergency Apparatus. A one directional street was proposed by a Trustee and this was researched. Several concerns arise from this scenario. The first is that a one way street in a local neighborhood does not meet driver expectancy and first time drivers will inadvertently drive in the wrong direction increasing accident potential. Secondly, this higher density development has numerous access points to Crabapple Lane. Some of the access points in a one way scenario would require that the residents drive several hundred feet around and opposite of the direction desired. This will also result in violating the one way direction and accident potential. Third, the future of this road involves a connection to a second development to the north. The two-way is more desired for a local capacity and traffic pattern within the neighborhood. Potentially a neighbor visiting another neighbor may have to drive a half mile around to get next door. Fourth, the one-way with parking does not resolve the lack of area for snow storage windrows, snow removal equipment and emergency Apparatus. The HOA has accommodations and restrictions for the number of vehicles owned and present on the properties. If enforced these recorded restrictions would eliminate any need for on street parking as intended when the Town agreed to these roadway widths. It is the recommendation of this Department that the Model Traffic Code be amended to restrict the parking on Crabapple Lane to no parking. This restriction is for the purpose of maintaining access for emergency vehicles and will allow two-way traffic as intended and as originally designed and approved by the Town of Estes Park. Action: Staff seeks authorization to amend the Model Traffic Code and the associated Ordinance to restrict all on street parking at all times to no parking on Crabapple Lane. ORDINANCE NO. 18-08 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE APPENDIX TO THE MODEL TRAFFIC CODE, 1995 EDITION WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park adopted the Model Traffic Code for Colorado Municipalities, Revised 2003, hereinafter referred to as the Model Traffic Code, by Ordinance 10-03 in 2003; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend the Appendix of the Model Traffic Code in order to include no parking on Crabapple Lane located within the Town of Estes Park; and WHEREAS, Section 31-16-207 C.R.S. provides that the Board of Trustees of the Town may adopt this new Appendix to the Model Traffic Code by this Ordinance so long as the entire text of said Appendix is set forth in this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is necessary to amend the Appendix of the Model Traffic Code, in its entirety, as more fully set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, as follows: Section 1: The Appendix attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference is hereby adopted as the Appendix to the Model Traffic Code. Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. Section 3. In the opinion of the Board of Trustees an emergency exists in that it is necessary enforce the no parking zone on Crabapple Lane immediately because of winter roadway conditions, this ordinance shall take effect and be enforced immediately after its passage, adoption and signature of the Mayor. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO THIS DAY OF ,2008. TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: Mayor ATTEST: I . Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2008, and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on the day of ,2008. Town Clerk 2 f. f . 4 MODEL TRAFFIC CODE TOWN OF ESTES PARK - APPENDIX Amended January 23*,2003 As Posted and Verified by the Police Department 06/24/03 *Amended September 28,2004 *Amended April 23rd, 2007 as Verified by Police Department *Amended November 2008 MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT NAMES For enforcement purposes location and identification of each Town of Estes Park Municipal parking lot name is listed below: 1. Performance Park Parking Lot located on the north side of West Elkhorn Avenue in the 300 block 2. Spruce Parking Lot located on the east side of Spruce Drive and intersect of Cleave Street. 3. Tregent Parking Lot located on the east of Spruce Drive and intersect with West Elkhorn Avenue. 4. Big Horn Parking Lot located on the west side of Bighorn Drive and intersect with Cleave Street. 5. Moraine Parking Lot located on the west side of Moraine Avenue adjacent to Wiest Lane between Davis Street and Weist Lane. 6. Davis Parking Lot located on the west side of Moraine Avenue and intersect with Davis Street. 7. Virginia Parking Lot located at the intersects of west side of Virginia Drive and north side of East Elkhorn Avenue. 8. East Riverside Parking lot located at the intersects of the south side of East Elkhorn Avenue and east side of East Riverside Drive. 9. Riverside Parking Lot located at the intersects of the east side of East Riverside Drive and north side of Rockwell Avenue. ' 10. Post Office Parking Lot located at the intersects of the west side of East Riverside Drive between West Riverside Drive and East Riverside Drive. 11. West Riverside Parking Lot located on the east side of West Riverside Drive in the 100 block adjacent to the west bank of the Big Thompson River. 12. Town Hall Parking Lot located at the intersects of the east side of MacGregor Avenue and north side of East Elkhorn Avenue. 13. Visitor Center Parking lot located on the south side of Highway 34 adjacent to the north bank of the Big Thompson River one black east of Highway 34 and Highway 36 intersects. 14. South Visitors Center Parking Lot located on the northeast side of Highway 36 and two blocks southeast of Highway 34 and Highway 36 intersects. PARKING PERMITTED 1 . Timed parking will be in-force from the weekend prior to Memorial Day and be in effect until Labor Day. Signs will state parking limits enforced May-September. Hours of Timed Parking - 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Seven days a week. May through September. ON-STREET PARKING, 3-HR. LIMIT: Â· East Elkhorn (South side of Bond Park) Â· Park Lane, North side from 201 to MacGregor Ave Â· Park Lane, South side of street (North side of Bond Park) Â· Riverside Drive at Riverside Plaza, (West side of Riverside) Â· Moraine Ave 222 through 250 Â· Moraine Ave 231 through 251 Â· Moraine Ave from Wiest Drive south to the Moraine Restrooms Â· West Elkhorn Ave 112 through 134 (South side of street) Â· West Elkhorn Ave 119 through 125 (North side of street) Â· West Elkhorn Ave 215 through 235 (North side of street) Â· West Elkhorn Ave 208 through 230 (South side of street) PARKING LOTS, 3-HOUR LIMIT: Â· Virginia Drive Lot Â· West Riverside Drive Lot Â· Riverside Drive Lot (North of Rockwell Street, entire lot) Â· Post Office Lot (North end of lot) Â· Brownfield's Parking Lot (South of Elkhorn crosswalk light) PARKING LOTS, 30-MINUTE LIMIT: Â· Post Office Lot, South side 1/2 of lot (in front of Post Office) Â· 235 West Riverside Drive (East side of street, three spaces) ON-STREET, 30-MINUTE PARKING: Â·MacGregor Ave., East side of street, in front of Municipal Building (170 MacGregor Ave) NO-PARKING All loading zones - permitted loading/unloading only from 7:00 am to 12:00 pm, 7 - days a week. 3 - hour timed parking from 12:00 pm to 6:00 pm. Open parking from 6:00 pm to 7:00 am No overnight parking or camping in any Town owned parking lot or street unless posted or by permit only. No overnight parking of recreational vehicles in any Town owned parking lot. 2 No parking during snow removal operations: Aspen, Birch, Columbine, Driftwood, and Elm Avenues, both sides of street No parking at painted red curb locations. No parking at red or yellow striped/ markings locations. NO PARKING - LOADING ZONES Â· East Elkhorn 390 to 358 (South side of street - Loading Zone) Â· East Elkhorn Ave from 153 to 145 (North side of street - Loading Zone) Â· East Elkhorn Ave from 141 to 129 (North side of street - Loading Zone) Â· East Elkhorn Ave from 116 to 128 (South side of street - Loading Zone) Â· East Elkhorn Ave from 156 to 184 (South side of street - Loading Zone) Â· East Elkhorn Ave from 332 to 344 (South side of street - Loading Zone) Â· West Elkhorn Ave at Tregent Park (North side of street - Loading Zone) Â· West Elkhorn Ave from 111 to 119 (North side of street - Loading Zone) Â· West Elkhorn Ave from 191 to 213 (North side of street - Loading Zone) Â· 170 West Elkhorn (South side of street, 2 spaces) Â· West Elkhorn Ave from 144 to 134 (South side of street - Loading Zone) Â· 125 Moraine Ave (East side of street - Loading Zone) Â· Riverside Drive at Riverside Plaza driveway, (West side of Riverside - Loading Zone) Â· 111 Wiest Drive (Two spaces - Loading Zone) Â· Cleave Street - behind Old Church Shops (Loading Zone both sides of street) Â· Cleave Street - South side at intersection with Bighorn Drive - (Loading Zone / No Parking) Â· East Elkliorn Ave in front of 356 East Elkhorn - (South side of street - Loading zone). PARKING LIMITATIONS Visitors Center Overnight Parking By permit only in designated parking spaces as indicated by sign on the East side of the main parking lot. All other parking spaces day use only. No overnight parking of Recreational Vehicles. Fawn Lane No Parking Both sides of roadway MacGregor Ave/ No Parking Northeast corner, adjacent to Canyon Bypass Intersection Creeks Condominiums Big Horn Dr No Parking East side from Elkhorn Ave to driveway of 110 Bighorn Drive 3 .. Cleave St. No Parking South side of Lawn Lane to 100' E. of Lawn Lane. North side, in front of 223 Cleave St. South side at Big Horn Dr. No Parking/ South side, behind Old Church Shops Loading Zone Crabapple Lh.: No Parking Both sides-offadway. Ftdrri Wildfire Rd. to Wildfire Rd.4 Davis St. No Parking North side of Davis at Moraine Ave. E. Riverside Dr. No Overnight West side (vacant strip), 300 Block Parking Lawn Ln. No Parking West side, between Spruce Dr. & Cleave St. MacGregor Ave. Angle Parking Driveway of Municipal Building to Wonderview MacGregor Ave Diagonal Parking Park Lane, North to Wonderview - West side of street Virginia Drive No Parking 210 - 216 Virginia Drive, East side of street Moraine Ave. No Parking East side between 212 Moraine Ave to intersection of Elkhorn Ave. South side across from Elm Rd. Park Lane Angle Parking Only Both sides of road Park Lane No Parking From Elkhorn Ave to Crosswalk Spruce Dr. No Parking East side, between Cleave St. & Lawn Ln. Tregent Park No Overnight Parking lot Parking W. Elkhorn Ave. No Parking South side at Tregent Park (Restrooms) Loading Zone Wiest Dr. No Parking / From Moraine Ave to Wiest Street. Loading Only One way - East Only Highway 7 Parallel Parking East side, 100 Blk. of Hwy. 7 4 SPEED LIMITS: Aspen Ave. Both Directions 25 MPH Birch Ave. Both Directions 25 MPH Big Horn Dr. South bound, 100' South of 20 MPH, SB Wonderview Ave. to W. Elkhorn Ave. SPEED LIMITS (cont'd.): Big Thompson Ave. Hwy. 34, East of Hwy. 34/36 35 MPH, EB Inter. to .7 miles East of Hwy. 34/36 Hwy. 34, 1.4 miles East of 40 MPH, EB Hwy. 34/36 Inter. to City Limits 1.4 miles from City Limits to 35 MPH, WB Hwy. 34/36 Brodie Ave. From Fish Creek, WB/EB to 20 MPH, SZ Community Dr. School Zones 7:30am to 8:00am. and 3:00 p.m. to 3:45 p.m. 20 MPH, otherwise 25 MPH Carriage Dr. From Hwy. 7, EB to Lakeshore Dr. 25 MPH Cleave St. Both Directions 20 MPH Columbine Ave. Both Directions 25 MPH Community Dr. Hwy. 36/Community Dr to 30 MPH, SB/NB Manford Ave. Hwy. 7/Community Dr., N. to 20 MPH, SZ Manford Ave. Intersection Driftwood Ave. Both sides 25 MPH E. Elkhorn Ave. Hwy. 34/36 Inter. to Park Ln. 25 MPH 5 ./ Hwy. 34/36 Inter. to Park Ln. 25 MPH, WB at E. Elkhorn Ave. E. Riverside Dr. W. from E. Elkhorn Ave. to 20 MPH, WB/EB Moccasin Bypass SPEED LIMITS (cont'd.): Elm Ave. Both Directions 25 MPH Far View Dr. "S" curve, 0.1 mi. N. of Far View/ 20 MPH, NB W. Elkhom Ave. Intersection Fish Hatchery Rd. At Fall River Rd. 30 MPH, WB Grand Estates Dr. Both directions 30 MPH Graves Ave. From Hwy. 7 WB/EB to Community 20 MPH, SZ, EBNVB Heinz Parkway High Dr. North to City Limits 20 MPH, NB High Drive Heinz Parkway West to City Limits 30 MPH, WB Highway 7 Hwy. 36 South to Stanley Ave. 35 MPH, SB North from Stanley Ave. 35 MPH, NB Hwy. 36/7 Inter. South to. 35 MPH, SB Lexington Ln. at Dunraven 35 MPH, NBSB at 4 TH St. 35 MPH, SB at High St. 35 MPH, NB at Graves Ave. 35 MPH, SB at Morgan St 25 MPH, SZ, NB at Golf Course Rd. 35 MPH, NB at Twin St. 50 MPH, SB at Scott Ave. 50 MPH, NB 6 Ir * at Carriage Dr. 50 MPH, SB at Carriage Dr., just south of 50 MPH, NB Highway 34 Hwy. 34/36 Inter. East to .1 mile 35 MPH, EB from Steamer Dr. SPEED LIMITS (cont'd.): From Steamer Dr. East to 35 MPH, EB Elk Trail Ct. From City Limits West to 40 MPH, WB W. Grand Estates Dr. W. Grand Estates Dr. West 35 MPH, WB to 34/36 Intersection at Dry Gulch Rd. 40 MPH, WB at Lakefront St. 40 MPH, EB Highway 36 Hwy. 34/36 Inter. East to 35 MPH, EB Hwy. 7/36 I nter. West from Hwy. 7 to .3 miles 35 MPH, WB on Hwy. 36 .3 miles Hwy. 36 to Hwy. 34/36 Inter. 25 MPH, WB 2nd St., East to 4th St. 45 MPH, EB 4th St. to City Limits 50 MPH,EBANB 4th St. West to 2nd St. 45 MPH, WB 2nd St. West to Hwy. 36/7 Inter. 35 MPH, WB at Fish Creek Rd. 50 MPH, WB at Community Dr 50 MPH, WB at Hwy. 36/7 Inter., just West of 35 MPH, WB Larkspur Dr. From Carriage Dr. SB/NB to 25 MPH Town Limits 7 MacGregor Ave. 25' North of Wonderview Ave. 30MPH, NB/SB To MacGregor Ranch Mary's Lake Rd. 200' South of Moraine Ave. 30 MPH, SB to Town Limits Manford Ave. From EPHS WB/EB to Hwy. 7 20 MPH, SZ SPEED LIMITS (cont'd.): Moccasin Bypass South from Riverside Dr. to 25MPH, SB/NB Prospect Ave. (Except .3 miles East of Riverside Dr.) 20 MPH Moraine Ave. .1 mile East of Mary's Lake Rd. to 35 MPH, EB (Hwy. 36) .1 mile West of Davis St. .1 mile West of Davis St. to Elkhorn Ave. 25 MPH, EB 200' North of Davis St. to .2 miles 25 MPH, WB West of Davis St. .2 miles West of Davis St. to City Limits 35 MPH, WB From Crags Dr. to Moraine/Elkhorn 25MPH, NB/SB Peak View Dr. From Hwy. 7 EBA/VB to Town Limits 35 MPH Ponderosa Dr. From Stanley Ave. SB/NB to Morgan Ln. 25 MPH, SB Prospect Ave. Stanley Ave. to Moccasin Cir. Dr. 25MPH, EBANB West from Stanley Ave. to Fir Ave. 25 MPH, EB/WB Riverside Dr. From West Town Limits to 100' West of 30 MPH, WB/EB Prospect Village Dr. Rockwell St. From Moraine Ave. to East Riverside Dr. 25 MPH, EB Scott Ave. From Hwy. 7 EBANB to Fish Creek Rd. 25 MPH Stanley Ave. West from Hwy. 7 to Hwy. 36 30 MPH, WB From Hwy. 7 NB/SB to Prospect Ave. 30 MPH Stanley Cir. Circles Stanley Ave. 30 MPH, WB/EB Steamer Dr. .05 miles from Hwy. 34 to Town Limits 20MPH, NB/SB 8 Twin Dr. From Hwy. 7 EBANB to Peak View Dr. 30 MPH Virginia Dr. West from Park Ln. to Big Horn Dr. 20 MPH, EB, 1/6 W. Elkhorn Ave. Big Horn Dr. to .2 miles West of Spruce 20 MPH, WB Dr. (Posted at 157 W. Elkhorn Ave.) SPEED LIMITS (cont'd.): .2 miles West of Spruce Dr. to .1 miles 35 MPH, WB West of Old Ranger Rd. .1 miles West of Old Ranger Rd. to 40 MPH, WB Town Limits 1,000 Yds. East of Valley Rd. to 100 35 MPH, EB Yds. West of Spruce Dr. Far View Dr. to .3 mi. West of Wiest Dr. 35 MPH, EB .3 mi West of Wiest Dr. to Moraine Ave. 20 MPH, EB W. Riverside Dr. West to Crags Dr. from Ivy St. 20 MPH, WB/EB Wonderview Ave. .1 miles East of MacGregor Ave. to 40 MPH, EBANB (Bypass) Town Limits 1.25 miles East of W. Elkhorn Ave. 35 MPH, EB to Hwy. 34/36 I nter. Dated this day of ,2007. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Traffic Engineer 1, Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk, Town of Estes Park, Colorado, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of the Appendix to the Model Traffic Code for Colorado Municipalities, Revised 2003, on file in my office as part of the official records of the Town of Estes Park. 9 Dated this day of ,2007. Town Clerk 10 r aBu 1 Ul Z Jackie Williamson U, From: Bob Umscheid [kubu59@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 03,2008 2:57 PM To: Jackie Williamson CC: Gail Bruntjen; Corrine Dyer; Rita Kurelja; Art Messal; Jean Michael; P J O'Conner; Bob Umscheid Subject: Fw: Town Board Meeting Dec 9 - Agenda Item Parking on Crabapple Lane --- On Wed, 12/3/08, Bob Umscheid <kubu59@sbcglobal.net> wrote: From: Bob Umscheid <kubu59@sbeglobal.net> Subject: Town Board Meeting Dec 9 -- Agenda Item Parking on Crabapple Lane To: "Bob Umscheid" <kubu59@sbeglobal.net> Date: Wednesday, December 3,2008,3:44 PM Jean Williamson Estes Park - Town Clerk Jean Rita Kurelja of the Estes Park HOA suggested that I write to you since we can not attend the Town Board Meeting on Dec 9,2008. It is our understanding that at the Dec 9th Meeting that one o f the items for discussion is Parking on Crabapple Lane . We understand that the Estes Park Public Safety Committee will present a recommendation to prohibit all parking on Crabapple Lane . As a resident and owner at 885 Crabapple Lane we object to this recommendation . There is not sufficient off street parking for residents and their guests . We recognize that parking on Crabapple Lane has been a problem in the past with vehicles parking on both sides ofthe street. At the present time there are no signs on either side to prevent parking. The street is 22 ft wide and with vehicles on both side and opposite each other it is too tight for snow plows and or emergency vehicles . Our recommendation is to allow parking on one side only [ preferably the side with the sidewalks ] . We do not object to the suggestion of making Crabapple one way and either way is ok . If Parking is limited to one side only, then this would allow for ample room for any snow plow and or emergency vehicle to get through. Eliminating all parking on Crabapple will just relocate the problem to Wildfire which is only 6 inches wider . It should be noted that Wildfire can not be made one way and has heavy Truck traffic. Thank You for Your Consideration 12/4/2008 -Vi L , '. Bob & Karen Umscheid 885 Crabapple Lane Estes Park , Co 80517 12/4/2008 .r 4 4- Frey McCargar 9Â¢Plocki . AT TO R N E YS A T LAW John P. Frey I L Ian D. McCargar i n E. Plock ; NOV 1 7 2008 i 1 November 13, 2008 Ms. Jacquie Halburnt Town Administrator Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Larimer Emergency Authority Intergovernmental Agreement Dear Ms. Halburnt: This letter will follow up our earlier correspondence concerning the revision of the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority ("LETA") Intergovernmental Agreement. The initial draft of the new IGA was sent to you on July 11, 2008. Some minor modifications have been suggested and they have been incorporated in the final draft. They include the addition of the Johnstown Fire Protection District as a signatory and amended language in Section XV (3) regarding remedies available to the Participating Parties and LETA in the event of dissolution of the Authority. At this point, the LETA Board of Directors believes the enclosed final draft of the IGA is ready for adoption by the Town of Estes Park. At your convenience please place consideration of the IGA on an upcoming agenda for approval by your governing board. As we indicated in our earlier correspondence, if you have any questions before this action is taken, or if you would like a LETA representative in attendance when approval is considered, please contact our offices or LETA's Executive Director, Kimberly Culp. Approval of the new IGA requires the consent of 100% of the signatories. The LETA Board has targeted the end of the first quarter of 2009 for the completion of this process. We ask that you take action as quickly as possible so that the goal can be reached, and the new IGA can become effective as soon as possible. We know that several signatories have already approved the IGA in the form presented in the July 11, 2008 draft. With the changes made in the interim, especially the addition of the Johnstown Fire Protection District as a Participating Party, we believe the signatories who have already acted to approve should take action again to approve the IGA in its final form. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. The Historic Harmony Mill â€¢ 131 Lincoln Avenue Suite A â€¢ Fort Collins, CO 80524 tel 970-482-0212 â€¢ freymccargar.com â€¢ fax 970-482-0236 ,.1. V- Ms. Jacquie Halburnt November 13,2008 Page 2 of 2 Finally, the IGA allows approval in counterparts. We are enclosing an original of the IGA as well as two additional signature pages which include the Town of Estes Park signature block. The original IGA as well as the additional signature pages should be executed. Please retain the original IGA and return the additional signature pages to us. A complete set of signed signature pages will be provided once all of the required signatures have been obtained. Thank yotÂ¥4ainj~your participation in this process. /41*yyof, Ii I f l I // 3 UU+00- rp.*ty 0 / IPP/sf Enclosure pC: Kimberly Culp, LETA Executive Director Merlin Green, LETA Chair '1 f' THIRD AMENDED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE LARIMER EMERGENCY TELEPHONE AUTHORITY THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 2008, by and between the following public entities which shall collectively be referred to as the "Parties", or individually as a " Contracting Party": County of Larimer, the Town of Berthoud, the Town of Estes Park, the City of Fort Collins, the Town of Johnstown, the City of Loveland, the Town of Timnath, the Town of Wellington, the Town of Windsor, Allenspark Fire Protection District, Berthoud Fire Protection District, Loveland Rural Fire Protection District, Pinewood Springs Fire Protection District, Poudre Canyon Fire Protection District, Poudre Valley Fire Protection District, Red Feather Lakes Fire Â·Protection District, Glacier View Fire Protection District, Lyons Fire Protection District, Wellington Fire Protection District, the Windsor/Severance Fire Protection District, Johnstown Fire Protection District, Park Hospital District, Health District of Northern Larimer County, Thompson Valley Health Services District, and Colorado State University. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XI of Title 29 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.), as amended, the Parties are authorized to enter into agreements for the purpose of providing emergency telephone services; and WHEREAS, the Colorado Constitution, Article XIV, Section 18 and Â§29-1-201, C.R.S., et seq. provide for and encourage political subdivisions of the State of Colorado to make the most efficient and effective use of their powers and responsibilities by cooperating and contracting with each other; and WHEREAS, Â§29-1-203, C.R.S., as amended, authorizes any political subdivisions or agency of the State of Colorado to cooperate or contract with one another to provide any function, service, or facility lawfully authorized to each o f the cooperating or contracting entities, including the sharing of costs, imposition o f taxes, or incurring o f debt; and WHEREAS, on or about November 14, 1990, the Parties entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement concerning the implementation of an IE-911 Emergency Telephone Service which established the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority. This Intergovernmental Agreement was entered into pursuant to the authority granted by Article XI of Title 29 of the Colorado Revised Statutes; and WHEREAS, on July 7, 1999, the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Parties was amended with regards to the powers of the Authority and the operational procedures of the Authority with regard to budget and funding. Additionally, this Amendment added the Windsor/Severance Fire Protection District and Colorado State University as Contracting Parties to the Agreement; and LETA IGA 11/5/08 1 3. -7 -- . WHEREAS, on April 5,2002, the Intergovernmental Agreement was further amended to add the Town of Windsor, Colorado and the Town of Johnstown, Colorado as Contracting Parties and to afford those entities representation on the Authority's governing board; and WHEREAS, due to the changes in fact, circumstances, technology and law since the Parties entered into ihe original Intergovernmental Agreement, and subsequent amendments thereto, the Parties to this Agreement desire to amend the Agreement for the purposes of complyingwith Colorado law and to carry out the intents and purposes of the Parties; and ~ WHEREAS, the Parties intend by entering into this Agreement that the Authority hereby created shall fall within the definition of a "public entity" under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Â§24-10-101, C.R.S., and a "nonprofit organization" under the Volunteer Service Act Â§Â§ 12-21-115.5,13-21-115.7 and 13-21-116, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, it is the position of the Parties that emergency telephone authorities created pursuant to Title XI of Article 29, C.R.S., are not subject to the revenue and spending limitations imposed by Article X, Section 20 (2)(d) of the Colorado Constitution ("Amendment 1"), and to the extent that Amendment 1 may be deemed to apply to emergency telephone authorities, the authority created hereby shall operate as an enterprise within the meaning of Amendment 1 and shall thereby be exempt from all revenue and spending limitations imposed by said Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into this Intergovernmental Agreement for the purposes of establishing a separate legal entity to be known as the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority and to define the manner in which each of the Parties hereto will participate in the Authority. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants hereinafter contained, the Parties agree as follows: I. PREAMBLE The Parties agree that the recitals set forth above are true and correct and those recitals are hereby incorporated in the body of this Agreement. II. SUPERSEDING ALL PRIOR AGREEMENTS The Parties agree that uljon the approval o f this Agreement by all Parties, this Agreement shall supersede all prior agreements, representations and understandings between the Parties, whether written or oral, including but not limited to the Intergovernmental Agreement dated November 14, 1990 and amendments thereto dated July 7, 1999 and April 5,2002. LETA IGA 1 1/5/08 2 . V III. DEFINITIONS A. The definitions for the terms "emergency telephone charge," "emergency telephone service," "exchange access facilities," "governing body," "public agency," "service supplier," "service user," "wireless communications access," and "wireless carrier" as used in this Agreement shall be the same as the definitions for those terms set forth in Â§29-11-100.5, C.R.S., as amended. B. The term "emergency telephone services" shall mean any form of emergency communication which the Authority facilitates or provides to the Parties, and includes but is not limited to, emergency telephone services, wireless communications access, and other developing technologies used for communications purposes. C. "Proportional basis", as referred to in Section XV of this Agreement, shall be determined by the direct ratio of the number o f service lines within the jurisdictions hereinafter identified to the total number of service lines in all of those identified jurisdictions. For the purposes of this definition "jurisdictions" shall refer to Larimer County and the cities and towns that are Contracting Parties to this Agreement. Larimer County's proportion shall be determined using those service lines within the unincorporated areas of the County. IV. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE LARIMER COUNTY EMERGENCY TELEPHONE AUTHORITY The Parties hereby establish a separate legal entity to be known as the Larimer County Emergency Telephone Authority (the "Authority") which shall be responsible for administering the installation, operation, maintenance, upgrade and enhancement of emergency telephone services to the citizens of Larimer County, Colorado. The Parties will provide reasonable assistance to the Authority for the purposes of organizing, administering and operating emergency telephone services in Larimer County. The Authority is hereby created as a nonprofit, public entity established pursuant to Â§29- 1-203, C.R.S. and Â§29-11-100.5, C.R.S., et seq. and in conformance with the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Â§24-10-101, C.R.S., et seq. and the Volunteer Service Act Â§Â§13- 21-115.5,13-21-115.7 and 13-21-116, C.R.S. The Parties agree that the Authority is an independent legal entity, separate and distinct from the Parties, but subject to their ownership and control. The lawful boundaries of the Parties, as they may from time to time be changed, shall comprise the jurisdiction of the Authority. LETA IGA 11/5/08 3 V V. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE AUTHORITY BOARD 1. Governing Board. The Authority shall be governed by a Board of Directors (the "Board"), which shall have the power to perform all acts necessary, whether express or implied, to fulfill the purpose, and to provide the functions, services and facilities, for which the Authority was created. 2. Composition of the Board. The Board shall consist of seven CD members, all of whom shall be residents of Larimer County. The members of the Board shall be appointed as follows: a. One member shall be appointed by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners to serve as a representative from Larimer County. b. One member shall be appointed by the City Council of the City of Fort Collins to represent the City of Fort Collins. The City of Fort Collins representative shall be an employee, elected official or resident ofthe City of Fort Collins. c. One member shall be appointed by the City Council of the City of Loveland to represent the City of Loveland. The City of Loveland representative shall be an employee, elected official or resident ofthe City of Loveland. d. One member shall be appointed by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners to represent the fire districts in Larimer County. This member shall be appointed by the Commissioners upon nomination by the Authority, and shall be an employee, or elected official of a fire district named as a Contracting Party under this Agreement. e. One member shall be appointed by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners to represent the. hospital districts in Larimer County. This member shall be appointed by the Commissioners upon nomination by the Authority, and shall be an employee, or elected official of a hospital district named as a Contracting Party under this Agreement. f. Two members shall be appointed by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners to represent the Towns of Berthoud, Estes Park, Johnstown, Timnath, Wellington and Windsor and Colorado State University. These members shall be appointed by the Commissioners upon nomination by the Authority, and shall be employees, elected officials or residents of the named municipalities or in the case of Colorado State University an employee or appointed official ofColorado State University. g. Members shall serve a term of two (2) years and there shall be no prohibition on consecutive terms or number of terms. Nothing contained herein shall alter the current composition of the Board, or the current terms of Board members. h. Each member of the Board shall serve without compensation. LETA IGA 11/5/08 4 3. Voting and Quorum. Each member of the Board shall have one (1) vote. A quorum of the Board shall consist of four (4) members, except that, should there be four (4) or more vacancies at any time, then during that time a quorum shall consist of three (3) members. No official action may be taken by the Board on any matter unless a quorum is present. The affirmative vote of a majority of the Board members present at the time of the vote shall be required for the Board to take action. 4. Bylaws. The Board shall promulgate bylaws establishing offices and detailing all matters in connection therewith, including the election, duties and terms of officers and the filling of any officer vacancies, the establishment and responsibilities of committees, scheduling of meetings, and standing operating and fiscal procedures, as it deems necessary, provided the bylaws are in compliance with Articles I and II of Title 29, C.R.S., as amended, and this Intergovernmental Agreement. VI. POWERS OF THE AUTHORITY 1. Plenary Powers. Except as otherwise limited by this Agreement, the Authority, in its own name and as provided herein, shall exercise all powers lawfully authorized by the Parties pursuant to Â§29-1-203, C.R.S. and Â§29-11-100.5, C.R.S., et seq., as amended, including all incidental, implied, expressed or such other powers as necessary to execute the purposes of this Agreement. The Authority shall act through its Board, officers and agents as authorized by this Agreement and the Bylaws and Rules and Regulations of the Authority. The Authority shall not have the power to levy taxes on its own behalf or on behalf of any Contracting Party. 2. Enumerated Powers. The Authority is authorized to undertake all actions reasonably necessary for the installation, operation and maintenance of emergency telephone services within the Authority's jurisdiction, and which the Authority believes are necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Agreement, including but not limited to: a. Imposing and assuring the collection of an emergency telephone charge in the amount and manner provided by Â§29-1-203, C.R.S. and Â§Â§29-11-102 and 29-11-103, C.R.S., as amended, or as may in the future be amended. This charge may be imposed and collected from land based and wireless carriers, as well as from any other telephone service provided as authorized by Â§29-11-102, C.R.S., et seq. and any future amendment thereto. b. Acquire, hold, lease (as Lessor or Lessee), sell, or otherwise dispose of any legal or equitable interest in real or personal property in connection with the installation, operation and maintenance of the emergency telephone services. c. To enter into, make and perform contracts and agreements with other federal, state or local governmental, non-profit and private entities which are reasonably necessary for LETA lGA 11/5/08 5 4- 4, f..> , the acquisition, repair or maintenance of equipment, or the installation, operation or maintenance o f the emergency telephone services. d. To employ agents, accountants, attorneys, engineers, ,consultants and other individuals and entities as the Authority deems necessary for the performance of its obligations under this Agreement. e. to conduct the business and affairs of the Authority. Â£ To incur debts, liabilities or obligations to the extent and in the -manner permitted by law. To borrow money and from time to time, to make, accept, endorse, execute, issue and deliver notes and other obligations of the Authority for monies borrowed, or in payment for property acquired, or for any of the other purposes, services or functions authorized by this Agreement and as provided by law. To the extent permitted by law, to secure the payment of any Authority obligation by mortgage, pledge, deed, indenture, agreement, or other collateral instrument, or by lien upon or assignment of all or any part of the properties, rights, assets, contracts, easements, revenues and privileges of the authority except that no debt, liability, or obligation shall extend to or be an obligation of any Contracting Party unless properly authorized by such Contracting Party and agreed to in writing. g. To issue bonds, notes or other obligations payable from the revenues derived or to be derived from the emergency telephone service charge imposed by the authority, in accordance with applicable law, and subject to voter approval, as may be required. h. To own, operate and maintain real and personal property and facilities individually or in common with others, and to conduct joint, partnership, cooperative or other operations with other individuals and entities, and to exercise all powers and authority incident thereto and authorized by this Agreement. i. To sue and to be sued in its own name. j. To adopt and amend from time to time, by resolution, bylaws, rules and regulations as the Board deems necessary and appropriate for the exercise of the powers granted, and performing the obligations imposed by this Agreement. k. To receive contributions, gifts, bequests, grants, cash, equipment or services from the Parties or any other public or private individual or entity for the furtherance of the intent and purpose of this Agreement, and the Authority's performance of its obligations under this Agreement. 1. Negotiate and enter into agreements with equipment vendors, suppliers and service suppliers for the acquisition or maintenance of equipment, and for the purpose of LETA IGA 11/5/08 6 U obtaining the benefit of technological developments which the Authority deems necessary to improve or enhance the quality and efficiency of emergency telephone services to the Parties. m. Any other act of services which the Authority believes is reasonably necessary for the exercise of its powers and the performance of its obligations under this Agreement. VII. RULES AND REGULATIONS The Authority Board may promulgate and adopt rules, regulations, policies and procedures which the Board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purposes of this Agreement, and to exercise the Authority's powers and perform the Authority's obligations under this Agreement. After their initial adoption, the rules, regulations, policies and procedures may be modified or amended, provided any such modification or amendment: (a) is approved by a majority vote o f the Board; (b) is consistent with the purpose and intent of this Agreement; (c) is not in conflict with any of the provisions of this Agreement; and (d) is in compliance with any and all applicable state and federal laws. VIII. CHARGES TO BE IMPOSED BY THE AUTHORITY The Parties agree that the Authority, by and through the Board, may establish a charge for emergency telephone services up to the amount authorized by Â§29-11-100.5, C.R.S., et seq., as amended from time to time. Said charge shall be assessed on a uniform basis for all Parties within the Authority's jurisdiction. The Authority shall not establish a charge in excess of the amount authorized by Â§29-11- 102, C.R.S., as amended from time to time, unless the Authority: (1) first obtains approval by two-thirds (2/3) of the Parties; and (2) obtains approval from the Public Utilities Commission pursuant to Â§29-11-102(2)(b), C.R.S., as may be amended from time to time. The Authority may invest funds received from any source in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado for investments by a public entity, and properly adopted investment policies consistent therewith. IX. USE OF FUNDS - CONTRIBUTIONS The Authority shall use the funds generated by the charges imposed in Section VIII, above, and all funds received by the Authority from any other source, to pay for the costs of acquiring, maintaining, upgrading and enhancing equipment related to providing emergency telephone services, and/or the installation, operation, maintenance, upgrade and enhancement of emergency telephone services, including, but not limited to, administrative costs of the Authority, in accordance with, and as authorized by, Â§29-11-104, C.R.S., as amended from time to time. Notwithstanding the foregoing, neither the Authority nor its directors, officers, agents or employees shall use Authority funds or property to conduct political lobbying activities. In LETA IGA 11/5/08 7 0. Â¢- addition, . Authority funds shall not be used to lease or purchase vehicles for the personal convenience of the Authority's directors, officers, employee, agents or representatives. No disbursement shall be made from the funds of the Authority without appropriate supporting documents in accordance with the properly adopted bylaws, rules, regulations and policies of the Authority. The Authority may carry over funds which have not been used in a given fiscal year to the following fiscal year. X. BOOKS AND RECORDS The Authority shall provide for the keeping of accurate and correct books of account on a modified accrual basis, showing in detail the capital costs, costs of services, installation, maintenance and operating costs, and the financial transactions of the Authority. The Authority's books of account shall correctly show any and all revenues, costs, or charges paid to or to be paid by each of the Parties, and all funds received by, and all funds expended by the Authority. The Authority's books and records shall be open to inspection during normal business hours upon reasonable notice by the Parties, their attorneys, accountants or agents. The books and records of the Authority shall also be made available to the public in accordance with the provisions of Â§24-72-201, C.R.S., et seq. (the "Open Records Act"). The Authority shall cause an annual audit to be conducted by an independent Certified Public Accountant licensed to practice in the State of Colorado. The Authority shall comply with the provision of Â§29-1-601, C.R.S. et seq., as may be amended from time to time. The Authority shall comply with all federal and state financial reporting requirements. XI. REPORTS TO PARTIES On an annual basis the Authority shall submit a comprehensive annual report to the Parties summarizing the activities of the Authority and containing information concerning the finances of the Authority. XII. ASSETS OF THE AUTHORITY 1. Assets. Any assets purchased or received by the Authority subsequent to the formation of the Authority shall be owned by the Authority for the mutual benefit of the Parties. Assets purchased with funds of the Authority and one or more Parties shall be owned jointly in proportion to the amounts contributed. 2. Asset Inventory Schedules. The Authority shall maintain an asset inventory list for any and all real and personal property acquired by the Authority in whole or in part. LETA IGA 11/5/08 8 ' t fo . XIII. DEFAULT OF PERFORMANCE 1. In the event any Contracting Party fails to perform any of its covenants and undertakings under this Agreement, this Agreement may be terminated as to such Contracting Party. The Authority shall cause written notice of the Authority's intention to terminate said Agreement as to such Contracting Party to be given to that party's governing body identifying the matter in default. Upon failure to cure any such default within thirty (30) days after such notice is given, the membership in the Authority of the defaulting party shall thereupon terminate and said Contracting Party shall thereafter have no voting rights as a member of the Authority, nor be entitled to representation on the Board, and said Contracting Party may thereafter be denied service by the Authority. Furthermore, any Contracting Party whose participation is terminated under the provisions of this article of the Agreement shall forfeit all right, title and interest in and to any property of or within the Authority to which it may otherwise be entitled upon the dissolution of the Authority. This article is not intended to limit the right o f the Authority or any Contracting Party under this Agreement to pursue any and all other remedies it may have for breach of this Agreement. 2. In the event of litigation between any Parties hereto concerning this Agreement (or between the Authority and any Contracting Party), the prevailing party may recover its costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred therein. XIV. DURATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall be in effect from the time it is fully executed and shall continue on a year-to-year basis, unless sooner terminated in accordance with Section XV of this Agreement. XV. WITHDRAWAL, TERMINATION AND DISSOLUTION 1. Individual Party's Withdrawal. Any Contracting Party may withdraw from this Authority and terminate its membership under this Agreement by providing written notice to each Contracting Party and the Board at least ninety (90) days prior to August 1 of any given year. Withdrawal from the Authority shall become effective on January 1 of the year in which a timely notice of termination is given. A Contracting Party which withdraws from the Authority shall retain all right, title and interest to any real and personal property, if any, which it has contributed to the Authority and which is located within the withdrawing party's jurisdiction; however, the withdrawing Contracting Party shall make the property available for use by the Authority to the extent necessary for public safety. 2. Termination by Mutual Agreement of the Parties. Upon a three quarters (3/4) majority vote of all Parties, this Agreement shall be terminated and the Authority dissolved. The effective date o f termination shall be December 31St of the calendar year in which the three quarters (3/4) majority vote for termination occurs. LETA IGA 11/5/08 9 .ke' 4,7 . + 3. Dissolution of Authority. Upon the termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section XV(2) above, the Authority Board and the Parties shall take such actions necessary to finalize and conclude the Authority's operations and effect the orderly dissolution ofthe authority. All contributions of real and personal property, all revenues received by the Authority, and all assets of the Authority shall be distributed on a proportional basis. The Board shall be responsible for inventorying the revenues, property and assets of the Authority, making distributions to the Parties and concluding the affairs of the Authority. A Contracting Party which has made a contribution toward a jointly owned asset (as defined in Section XII) shall be entitled to retain ownership of the asset upon termination; however, the Contracting Party must account to the Authority for the amount of the Authority's contribution toward purchase of the asset upon distribution of the other assets of the Authority. Upon termination, any revenues derived from emergency telephone service charges imposed pursuant to Â§29-11-102, C.R.S. will be distributed on a proportional basis in accordance with Â§29-11-104(3), C.R.S. Such funds can be distributed to the Parties only if the emergency telephone service is discontinued. All other real and personal property, and all contributions and revenues, shall likewise be distributed on a proportional basis. If a Contracting Party does not agree to the Authority' s division o f assets within six (6) months from the effective date of termination, the Parties shall engage in mediation on all unresolved issues prior to engaging in legal proceedings. In any legal proceeding, the Court may award attorney fees, expenses and costs of the prdceeding to any Contracting Party or the Authority if the Court determines that the proceeding was necessitated by an unreasonable position, or unreasonable demands of a Contracting Party. The rights and duties of the Parties related to apportionment, division, transfer and ownership of assets upon termination shall survive termination of this Agreement. The Parties agree that during the period following the Vote to terminate the Authority, the Authority will continue to provide emergency telephone services in accordance with this Agreement until the effective date of termination. XVI. LIABILITY OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE AUTHORITY As a non-profit public entity, the Authority and its directors, officers and employees shall be immune from civil liability in accordance with, and the extent provided by Â§24-10- 101,C.R.S., et seq. (the Governmental Immunity Act), Â§Â§13-21-115.5, 13-21-115.7 and 13-21- 116, C.R.S. (the Volunteer Service Act), as these statutes may be amended from time to time and any other applicable law. LETA IGA 11/5/08 10 e. 1. In addition, the Authority shall purchase insurance for the Authority and its Board, officers and employees which insurance will provide reasonable coverage against any claims, suit or proceeding arising out of or relating to any act or omission under this Agreement. XVII. AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be amended upon the affirmative vote of three-quarters (3/4) of the Parties eligible to vote. XVIII. SEVERABILITY In the event any provision of this Agreement is determined to be illegal or invalid for any reason, all other provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect unless and until otherwise determined. The illegality of any provision of this Agreement shall in no way affect the legality and enforceability of any other provision of this Agreement. XIX. SUCCESSORS AND THIRD PARTIES This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors of the Parties. This Agreement is not intended to, and does not, inure to the benefit any individual or entity who is not a Party to this Agreement. XX. ASSIGNMENT AND DELEGATION No Contracting Party shall assign any of the rights nor delegate any of the duties created by this Agreement without the written approval of three quarters (3/4) of the other Parties to this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused their representatives to affix their respective signatures hereto, as of the day and year hereinafter set forth. LETA IGA 1 1/5/08 1 1 t. 44.V COUNTY OF LARIMER TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO STATE OF COLORADO By By ATTEST: ATTEST: Date: Date: TOWN OF WELLINGTON, COLORADO CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO By By ATTEST: ATTEST: Date: Date: TOWN OF BERTHOUD, COLORADO CITY OF LOVELAND, COLORADO By By ATTEST: ATTEST: Date: Date: LETA IGA 11/5/08 12 TOWN OF JOHNSTOWN, COLORADO TOWN OF WINDSOR, COLORADO By By ATTEST: ATTEST: Date: Date: ALLENSPARK FIRE PROTECTION TOWN OF TIMNATH, COLORADO DISTRICT By By ATTEST: ATTEST: I)ate: Date: BERTHOUD FIRE PROTECTION POUDRE VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT PROTECTION DISTRICT By By ATTEST: ATTEST: I)ate: Date: LETA IGA 11/5/08 13 A r.rvf LOVELAND RURAL FIRE PROTECTION RED FEATHER LAKES FIRE DISTRICT PROTECTION DISTRICT By By ATTEST: ATTEST: Date: Date: PINEWOOD SPRINGS FIRE WELLINGTON FIRE PROTECTION PROTECTION DISTRICT DISTRICT By By ATTEST: ATTEST: Date: Date: GLACIER VIEW FIRE PROTECTION HEALTH DISTRICT OF NORTHERN DISTRICT LARIMER COUNTY By By ATTEST: ATTEST: Date: Date: LETA IGA 11/5/08 14 ff . 4 LYONS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT THOMPSON VALLEY HEALTH SERVICES DISTRICT By By ATTEST: ATTEST: Date: Date: POUDRE CANYON FIRE PROTECTION PARK HOSPITAL DISTRICT DISTRICT By By ATTEST: ATTEST: Date: Date: WINDSOR-SEVERANCE FIRE JOHNSTOWN FIRE PROTECTION PROTECTION DISTRICT DISTRICT By By - ATTEST: ATTEST: I)ate: Date: LETA IGA 11/5/08 15 ..+4'#4Â·. t. COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY : By: ATTEST: Date: LETA IGA 11/5/08 16 =r .,1- . r 4 ALFRED E. PERSONS ASSOCIATES . * Consultation and Training for Increasing Organizational Effectiveness January 7,2008 To the Estes Park Board of Trustees, for its January 8th meeting: . Re our Wapiti Crossing issue I believe our town is at a crucial crossroads: shall we work to retain the unique beauty of . our community at the cost of losing new tax monies from new development, or shall we welcome new development at the cost of losing the unique natural beauties of flora and fauna with which we are so richly blessed? Of course, in our names you have to do some of both. 1 However, if you sharpen this question to the specifics of the Wapiti Crossing proposal, I believe the wisdom and deep yearnings ofthe 700-plus citizens' petitions against it and the Planning Commission's denial of the proposal are of sufficient merit to announce to the world that we consider. all our habitat criticaljy important for sustaining the ambiance of life we find in our town and for which we give our daily thanks and praise. . Thanking you in advance for your faithfulness to dur town and our habitat. Yours for an ever greater Estes, . 4 4. : A/L-P , Al Persons+ ... 1000 Woodland Court Box 1741 Estes Park, CO 80517 C I & -rr