The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2010-02-23Fltâ‚¬/1 . Prepared 2/12/10 * Revised TOVEN 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, February 23, 2010 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance). PROCLAMATION - CENSUS 2010. PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated February 9, 2010 and Joint Town Board, Estes Valley Planning Commission and Estes Park Housing Authority Meeting Minutes dated February 9, 2010. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, February 4, 2010. 1. 2010 ROAD CLOSURES: Car Shows (100 Block of MacGregor Ave. and Park Lane) Coolest Car Show - July 4, 2010. Parade of Years - May 16, 2010. Parades And Halloween (Elkhorn Ave.) Rooftop Rodeo - July 6, 2010 Scottish Hightand Festival - September 11,2010. Catch the Glow - November 26, 2010. Halloween - October 31, 2010. Fairground Events (Partial Closure of Manford Ave.) Estes Park Wool Market- June 11-13, 2010. Rooftop Rodeo - July 6-11, 2010. Bond Park Events (100 Block of MacGregor Ave.) Estes Park Marathon - June 12, 2010. Auto Extravaganza - August 14,2010. Estes Park Heritage Festival - August 21-22, 2010. Estes Park Elk Fest - October 2-3, 2010. 4 B. Utilities Committee, February 11, 2010. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes January 19, 2010 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes December 1, 2009 (acknowledgement only). 6. Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority Minutes January 20, 2010 (acknowledgement only). 7. Improvements to 18-Hole Golf Course by Estes Valley Recreation and Park District. 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. 2009 FINAL SALES TAX REPORT. Director McFarland. 2. GRANDSTAND PROJECT UPDATE. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, 3. 2010 SHUTTLE SCHEDULE. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Town Administrator Halburnt. 3. 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€¢ Public Testimony â€¢ Mayor - Close Public Hearing â€¢ Motion to Approve/Deny. A. Ordinance #06-10 & #07-10 - Wind Turbine Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code - Second Reading/Public Hearing. 4. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ROOFTOP RODEO FEE STRUCTURE. Director Kilsdonk/Mgr. Winslow. 2. FOREVER RESORTS SERVICE AGREEMENTS. Director Kilsdonk. 3. PROSPECT AVENUE BYPASS RECONSTRUCTION BID. Director Zurn. 4. UPGRADE BEAVER POINT & PEAKVIEW CIRCUIT CONSTRUCTION BID. Director Goehring. 5. GRANDSTAND MISCELLANEOUS FEES. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson. 6. CODE OF CONDUCT. Trustees Blackhurst & Miller. 7. ADJOURN. NOTEÂ· The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared Jackie Williamson From: Admin iR3045 Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 3:28 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 2391 ST. TIME 02/17 15:15 PGS. 2 SEND DOCUMENT NAME TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 6672527 Greg White 5869561 KEPL 5869532 Trail Gazette 6353677 Reporter Herald 2247899 Coloradoan 5771590 EP News ERROR 5861691 Channel 8 1 Town Board, February 25,2010 (#40) Good evening, This afternoon I dropped offmy signed Trustee Candidate Petition with Town Clerk Williamson. My platform will be detailed in the coming weeks, but some may think that I am unqualified because of my past and continuing protest over the single issue of the 'under God' Pledge, so for one more time, in order to better understand the logic behind my protest, I offer this short quiz: â€¢ Does the definition of an American citizen include being a person of faith? â€¢ Is there any part of the United States Constitution, the Colorado State Constitution, or any ordinance of the Town of Estes Park that requires a citizen to affirm his or her belief in a god? â€¢ Is there any oath of office of any American governmental division that requires an affirmation of faith or belief in a god? â€¢ Is an atheist American, in any way, a lesser or second class citizen? â€¢ Should an atheist American citizen experience anything less than equal treatment while attending a meeting of any government division? â€¢ Should any American citizen be confronted with an "official" Pledge of Allegiance which includes a conflicting religious viewpoint? â€¢ Can an atheist American stand and recite the "official" Pledge of Allegiance without confronting a conflicting religious viewpoint? Logic says that any 'yes' answer shows a lack of understanding of what this country stands for, and if you answered all of the questions 'no', you would discontinue reciting the Pledge. So much for logic; and to keep the focus of the upcoming campaign on vital town issues, this is the last mention of the Pledge that I v.411 initiate bet::.een nov: and the election. Thank you, Â£~1, David Habecker - Thank you for allowing Estes Area Lodging Association the opportunity to share ourthoughts on this issue. There is much concern over the proposed suggestion to reduce shuttle hours down to 10am - 7 pm. The reduced ridership in 2009 was due in part to a change in operating hours and new routes. However, we believe it is most/v due to a lack of promotion by our Town and business community. EALA is considering a "Ride the bus" campaign to encourage businesses to promote this great benefit that our guests have. The following is a quote from one of our lodging members: I just see this as more of the typical Estes mentality. Give a good idea sorne thought and possibly a limited trial run, then abandon it. This is something that the town did an exceedingly poor job at promoting Guests simply' didn't know about it. We did our best here at letting people know, either on the phone or once they checked in. And we had a good number take advantage of it! If the town wants to see a better return, they simply need to do a better job of promoting and give it some more time to catch on. Look at ANY other mountain town in the west, and shuttles are an integral part of how tourists, and locals, get around. It's not a new or cutting edge concept that hasn't been proven to be successful just about everywhere else. This echoes the sentiment we have been hearing from the business community. The feedback we have received consistently from the business community is that the 10 am start time and the 7 pm end time is a huge mistake. Most guests have only one vehicle and therefore use the bus system to allow them to split up and do different activities during the day. A 10 am start time eliminates the option for guests to utilize the bus to access hiking. The guests also use the shuttle to go to town to shop and for dinner, as it allows them to relax, have a few drinks and not worry about parking or driving. . The consistent end time that has been suggested is 9 pm. The later end time would encourage people to spend more time downtown and visit the shops after dinner. We believe there are several options to keep costs down while still providing our guests a great vacation experience. Our hope is that you will table this issue to allow EALA and other tourist related associations to share ideas and reach a solution that will better accommodate the tourists and not cost the Town any additional money. We appreciate your consideration in this matter. Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 9, 2010 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 gth day of February, 2010. Meeting called to order by Mayor Pinkham. Present: Mayor Pinkham Mayor Pro Tem Chuck Levine Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer Richard Homeier Jerry Miller Also Present: Greg White, Town Attorney Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: John Ericson, Trustee Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT Mark Elrod/Town citizen questioned the costs associated with the Open Records Policy with regard to documents that already exist electronically. David Habecker/Town citizen requested the Board refrain from reciting the 'under God' pledge. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. Trustee Blackhurst reminded the public that the Estes Park Housing Authority meeting would be held on Wednesday, February 10, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 130. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated January 26, 2010, Town Board Study Session Minutes dated January 12, 2010 and Town Board Special Meeting Minutes dated January 18, 2010. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, January 21, 2010. 1. 2010 Estes Valley Victim Advocates Contract. 2. Intergovernmental Agreement with Colorado State University for Mutual Assistance. B. Public Works, January 28, 2010. 1. Temporary Easement, Undergrounding of Overhead Utility Services i. Lot 1, Elley Subdivision, A Resubdivision of Lots 13, 14 & 15, Thomas Resubdivision, 830 Comanche Street ii. Portion of Lot 16 and 17, Amended Plat of Thomas Resubdivision of a part of Lot 41, Little Prospect Mountain Addition, 880 Comanche Street. 2. Temporary Construction Easement: Board of Trustees - February 9, 2010- Page 2 i. Tract 1, Deats Subdivision, Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Country Club ~ Manor Addition, 401 Elm Avenue. ii. Tract 3, Deats Subdivision, Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 1, Country Club Manor Addition, 411 Elm Avenue. iii. Tract 2, Deats Subdivision, Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Country Club Manor Addition, 408 Fir Avenue. 3. Permanent Access, Utility & Drainage Easement i. Tract 1, Deats Subdivision, Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Country Club Manor Addition, 401 Elm Avenue. ii. Tract 3, Deats Subdivision, Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 1, Country Club Manor Addition, 411 Elm Avenue. iii. Tract 2, Deats Subdivision, Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Country Club Manor Addition, 408 Fir Avenue. 4. Permanent Easement for Underground Electric, Telephone, Fiber Optics and Cable: i. Portion of Lot 16 and 17, Amended Plat of Thomas Resubdivision of a part of Lot 41, Little Prospect Mountain Addition, 880 Comanche Street. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) to approve the consent agenda, and it passed unanimously. 2. LIQUOR ITEMS. 1 RENEWAL APPLICATION FILED BY EVEREST FOOD STORE LLC dba EAST SIDE EVEREST FOOD STORE, 381 S. SAINT VRAIN AVENUE. Town Clerk Williamson stated liquor license renewals are handled administratively through the Clerk's Office, however, the Board requested the licensee come to the Town Board to discuss the recent liquor violation that occurred during the November 14, 2009 alcohol sales compliance check ~ conducted by the State Liquor Enforcement Division. Mr. Shrestha explained the circumstances surrounding the sale to a minor and reaffirmed that identification is checked during the sale of tobacco and alcohol. The Board impressed upon the owner the seriousness of the violation and after further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Blackhurst) to approve the renewal of the 3.2% Off-Premise liquor license for Everest Food Store LLC dba East Side Everest Food Store, and it passed unanimously. 3. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. â€¢ Recent upgrades to the Town Board Room would allow for the meetings to be captured digitally and posted on the Town's website. â€¢ A candidate information forum would be held by the Town Clerk's Office on Thursday, February 11, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. in the Board Room. All interested candidates were encouraged to attend. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. 1. ACTION ITEMS: A. Ordinance #05-10, Amendments to the Wildlife Code Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code - Public Hearing. Director Joseph stated the Town Board approved code changes on September 22,2009 related to wildlife. These changes were reviewed by the County Commissioners in November 2009. Based on public comment, the Commissioners recommended the Development Code retain the ability to require wildlife conservation plans for sites containing raptor nests; staff retain the ability to determine whether a consultant is qualified to prepare Board of Trustees - February 9, 2010- Page 3 a wildlife conservation plan, and for clarity, staff has revised Section 7.8.F.3 by replacing the terms "wildlife studies and mitigation plans" with " wildlife conservation plans" Discussion followed amongst the Board regarding the effects of reinstating raptor nests as a trigger for a wildlife conservation plan and buildable areas related to nesting sites. Trustee Homeier expressed concern with the addition and the possibility of creating more restrictions on the development of private property. Those speaking in favor of the additional code language included Sandy Osterman/Town citizen, Bob Ernst/Town citizen and Fred Mares/Town citizen. Raptor nests need to be identified and care taken to limit human disturbance by creating buffer zones. The reinstatement of raptors as a trigger for a conservation plan would aid staff and the Town Board in making better decisions on development throughout the valley. David Habecker/Town citizen questioned the effect code amendments might have on existing developed properties. The Development Code requires more landscaping that attracts more wildlife. Charlie Dickey/Town citizen encouraged the Board to provide as many opportunities as possible for making decisions relative to development and the conservation of animals. Joanna Darden/Town citizen spoke against any changes to the current wildlife code requirements in the Development Code. She requested the Board reject the code changes, stressing the importance of protecting the wildlife in the valley. After discussion, it was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) to approve Ordinance #05-10 regarding Wildlife Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, and it passed with Trustee Homeier voting "No" 4. ACTION ITEMS: 1. RESOLUTION #05-10 RE-APPROPRIATION OF 2009 ENCUMBERED FUNDS TO 2010 BUDGET. Certain Town departments have entered into contracts for goods and/or services that were not fulfilled by year-end December 31, 2009. In order to keep only one budget year open, 2009 encumbered funds are re-appropriated into the current budget year. Finance Officer McFarland requested Resolution #05-10 be approved, re-appropriating approximately $3.1 million to be carried forward into the current budget year, and explained that the re-appropriation would have no net effect on the fund balances. The bulk of the rollovers for 2009 are due to the following projects/purchases: design for the Multi-Purpose Event Center (MPEC), grandstand construction, water treatment plant construction (one third of total rollover), infrastructure improvements and vehicle replacement. It was moved and seconded (BlackhursULevine) that Resolution #05-10 be adopted, and it passed unanimously 2. EXTENSION OF HDR CONTRACT FOR MARYS LAKE WATER TREATMENT PLANT. Director Goehring stated change orders and the cost of additional construction management services have increased HDR's contract by $94,677.78 due in part to design flaws and subcontractor related issues. HDR has agreed to provide the Water Department with a credit ($89,677.78) toward services renders to include, additional construction management services to complete the MLWTF and to prepare Phase 2 of a feasibility study for the expansion and Board of Trustees - February 9, 2010- Page 4 modification of the Town's treatment facilities and distribution system to identify ~ future needs and costs. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Miller) to approve HDR's proposal for a change order credit in the amount of $89,677.78, to be applied to fees associated with additional engineering services for the commissioning of the Marys Lake Water Treatment facility, and the feasibility study with additional costs of the study from #503-6500-560-22-02, and it passed unanimously. 3. BOND PARK MASTER PLAN. Director Zurn commented the proposed plan was developed by Winston Associates, Inc. during the past six months with public input including focus groups, public meetings and informal surveys. The Master Plan is a flexible plan that may need to be altered as it in implemented. Paul Kuhn/Winston Associates and Jamie Licko/Progressive Urban Management Associates presented the plan that focuses on active and passive use, flexibility, adaptability, limits size of events, year-round activation, and accommodate winter uses. Three designs were presented to the stakeholder group and the public for consideration and all three received positive feedback. The popular design aspects have been included in the final proposed plan, including moving special event tents onto MacGregor Avenue and Park Lane, ice rink with natural ice, fire pit with a shade shelter, diagonal sidewalk through the park, Elkhorn Avenue seating plaza, one-way MacGregor Avenue northbound, rock outcrop stage in northwest corner with a seasonal shade structure, small water feature in northwest corner, gateway shelter, play elements for small children, and relocate statutes and monuments currently in the park. The plan also addresses the need to keep views open to the businesses on Park Lane and preserve most of the green space within the park. The total cost of the phased project would be approximately $2 million and with $250,000 in annual funding would require six phases to complete in the following order: MacGregor Avenue renovations; northeast plaza, Park Lane festival promenade; main park area and Elkhorn Avenue improvements; fire pit, stage, children's sculpture, and the tree plazas on Elkhorn; and gateway shelter, other structures and water feature. After discussion, it was moved and seconded (Eisenlauer/Miller) to approve the Bond Park Master Plan, and it passed unanimously. The Board stated their appreciation for the process and the professionalism of the consultants. Town Administrator Halburnt stated staff would develop a phasing plan and present it to the Public Works Committee. Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. William C. Pinkham, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 9, 2010 Minutes of a Joint Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD, ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION AND ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in Rooms 201/202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 9th day of February, 2010. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Levine, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Ericson, Homeier, and Miller Commission: Commissioners Fraundorf, Hull, Klink, Lane, Norris, Poggenpohl, and Tucker Authority: Directors Blackhurst, Dinsmoor, Heiser, Jensen, and Porter Also Attending: Town Administrator Halbumt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Town Attorney White, Exec. Dir. Kurelja, and Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent Director Dinsmoor Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. HOUSING NEEDS DISCUSSION. Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) Exec. Dir. Kurelja gave a brief history of the Housing Authority which was formed in 2000 by the Town Trustees in response to business owner concerns about housing costs for employees. Currently, the EPHA manages housing units at Cleave Street Apartments, Talons Pointe, Lone Tree Village, Vista Ridge, and The Pines, and administers a Section 8 Voucher Program, and a Down Payment Assistance Program. Exec. Dir. Kurelja said programs serving residents in the 30% Area Median Income (AMI) category are primarily federal programs and Section 8 rental assistance programs; those falling into the 30% to 60% AMI category can qualify for income restricted rental properties and various financing tools: those at 80% AMI and under can take advantage of deed restricted home ownership programs, grant funds and low interest loans; with no public funds or programs currently available to serve those in the 80% to 140% AMI category to assist them with homeownership needs. She reported that, in order to sustain employers, support job growth, and house in-commuters who would prefer to live in town, a 2008 Housing Needs Assessment estimated that 756-959 additional housing units will be needed in the Este*Valley by the year 2015, and gave examples of tools and methods used by other Colorado communities to address their housing needs. These include: Inclusionary Zoning; Linkage or Impact Fees; Incentives, such as density bonuses and fee waivers; Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), donation of publicly owned land; sales tax; and real estate transfer tax. Exec. Dir. Kurelja said the Housing Authority's vision for the future includes finding an ongoing affordable housing funding source; the ability to meet the homeownership needs of people in the 81% to 140% AMI category, and fill the rental housing needs of local workers in all income levels. Discussion is summarized: due to the economic downturn, job growth has declined but housing needs still exist; unemployment in the Estes Valley is estimated at 6.5%; 69% of valley population are homeowners, 31% renters; land cost per unit is an impediment to affordable housing, as is the "not in my back yard' or NIMBY mindset; mixed use in downtown area could provide location for workforce housing; land use tools can be considered as additions to the development code; few local employers provide housing for their seasonal employees; a re-design of development on property owned by the Housing Authority is in progress; and Town-owned property on Fish Hatchery Road may RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - February 9, 2010 - Page 2 be suitable for housing units. The Commissioners and Trustees agreed that from a planning perspective inclusionary zoning, impact fees, and Planned Unit Development (PUD) may play a part in addressing affordable housing issues, as well as less restrictive density and height limitations, and that the current incentive structure included in the Estes Valley Development Code should be reviewed. They also agreed that education will play a key role in achieving buy-in related to housing issues and its importance in creating a balanced community that will attract and sustain young workforce families. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT. In the fall of 2009, a professional review of the Community Development Department's operational practices was performed by Zucker Systems. The purpose of the assessment was to identify areas for improvement that would result in providing better customer service through the Community Development and Building Departments. The review process, which consisted of gathering customer input, policy maker input, staff input and observational activities, resulted in a compmhensive 82-page report and identified five areas of high importance. They are: the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Larimer County; Lack of Long-Range Planning; Timing of Reviews; Technology; and the Planning Process. The Community Development staff is currently working on a timeline to implement the recommendations related to these topics. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson stated that the assessment found the Community Development Department staff to be well-qualified; the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code, while in need of updating, to be good documents; and that planning and building reviews currently meet or exceed state and national standards. A copy of the entire report can be requested through the Town Clerk's office. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 4, 2010 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 4th day of February 2010. Committee: Chair Levine, Trustees Eisenlauer and Miller Attending: Chair Levine, Trustee Miller Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Director Kilsdonk, Managers Mitchell and Winslow, PIO Rusch, Dir. Campbell, and Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent Trustee Eisenlauer Chair Levine called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT. Renee Hodgden, owner of Sphere of Influence located in Lower Stanley Village, asked that enforcement of the sign code be postponed untilthe recommendations of the sign code task force can be evaluated with public input; and asked that further sign code enforcement activities be halted until public discussion can occur. The Committee agreed that pending the sign code discussion at the March Community Development Committee meeting, enforcement activity should stop. Town Administrator Halburnt said some businesses have received notices of non-compliance but that no citations have been issued nor will they be issued prior to next month's discussion. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT. ROAD CLOSURES. â€¢ CAR SHOWS - Coolest Car Show- July 4, 2010. The Coolest Car Show has traditionally been held in Bond Park on July 4th. Weather permitting, cars will be parked in Bond Park as well as along Park Lane and the 100 block of MacGregor Avenue. If the weather does not allow for the use of Bond Park, cars will be parked along Park Lane and along MacGregor Avenue from Elkhorn Avenue, possibly as far north as Wonderview. The number of cars entered in the car show will dictate how much of MacGregor Avenue is used. Merchants in the area will be notified of the closures. Parade of Years- May 16, 2010,10:00 a.m. till 1:00 p.m. In the past, the Parade of Years car show has been held in the Senior Center and Museum parking areas. To provide more visibility for this free event, the event sponsors are requesting the use of the 100 block of MacGregor Avenue and the parking spaces on the south side of Park Lane. Park Lane would be closed to eastbound traffic with appropriate signage displayed. â€¢ PARADES AND HALLOWEEN - Rooftop Rodeo - July 6, 2010, 10.30 a.m. Scottish Hiqhland Festival - September 11, 2010, 9:30 a.m. Catch the Glow- November 26, 2010, 5:30 p.m. The 2010 parades will be run as they have been in the past with staging on West Elkhorn Avenue and the parade route proceeding east along Elkhorn Avenue. The Rooftop Rodeo will end at the fairgrounds access on 4th Street; the Scottish RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development - February 4, 2010 - Page 2 Highland Festival Parade will end at the Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) and; for the first time, the Catch the Glow Parade will continue on to the Fairgrounds to provide a safer environment for participants. Halloween - October 31, 2010, 5:00 p.m. till 9:00 p.m. Elkhorn Avenue will be closed from Riverside Drive to Spruce Drive and at the Moraine Avenue and Big Horn Drive intersections. â€¢ MANFORD AVENUE PARTIAL CLOSURE - Estes Park Wool Market - June 11-13, 2010. Rooftop Rodeo -July 6-11, 2010. Staff requests the closure of the shoulder along both sides of Manford Avenue from the Estes Park Rental to Community Drive for these two events. BOND PARK EVENTS - Estes Park Marathon - June 12, 2010, 2:00 p.m. till 3:00 p,m. MacGregor Avenue will be closed from Elkhorn Avenue to Wonderview and monitored by race officials. Auto Extravaganza - August 14, 2010. Estes Park Heritage Festival -August 21-22, 2010. Estes Park Elk Fest - October 2-3, 2010. Three Town of Estes Park events: the Auto Extravaganza, the Heritage Festival, and the Elk Fest will be run as in the past and will require the closure of MacGregor Avenue from Elkhorn Avenue to Park Lane. The Committee recommends approval of the road closures for 2010 as outlined above. ROOFTOP RODEO TICKET PRICE INCREASE. With Rodeo costs on the rise, staff evaluated Rooftop Rodeo ticket prices by researching admission prices at other area rodeos and found that General Admission tickets ranged from $10 to $25. Staff is recommending the following fee structure that would keep ticket costs within the range of other regional rodeos: Proposed 2010 Ticket 2009 Rooftop Rodeo Ticket Prices General Admission $15 $17 Child (3-11) $5 4*5 Military/Senior NA '1$15 Local $15 $15 Group (5 or more) NA $16 Box Seat $20 $25 (current box holders who have purchased an entire box for the week in the past would continue to pay $20 per seat) Mgr. Winslow stated that the Rooftop Rodeo Committee voted to support the proposed fee structure. Based on 2009 attendance numbers, the proposed fee structure would result in a revenue increase of approximately $10,000. The Committee discussed the general fee structure, the fee structure for box seats, the increase in the total number of seats that will be realized with the construction of the new grandstands, and suggested a larger Military/Senior discount to take ticket prices in this category to $10 each. The Committee requested that the Rooftop Rodeo Ticket Price Increase be included as an action item on the February 23, 2010 Town Board meeting agenda. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Department Annual Report RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development- February 4, 2010 - Page 3 â€¢ Sales and Marketing Quarterly Report Dir. Kilsdonk outlined the format for the new Community Services Department Annual Report. Reports were prepared by the managers of each division within the Community Services Department and highlighted accomplishments in 2009 such as the Rooftop Rodeds recognition as the Best Small Rodeo for 2009, the ground breaking for the new grandstands, and record setting attendance at the Senior Center. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Community Development Financial Report â€¢ Monthly Building Permit Summary Deputy Town Administrator Richardson said that an organizational assessment of the Community Development Department has been completed and will be reviewed at the February 9, 2010 Town Board Study Session. ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT. PARK THEATER MALL FEE WAIVER REQUESTS. Town Administrator Halburnt said that at the January 12, 2010 Town Board meeting, the Trustees considered waiving the business licensing fee for businesses affected by the Park Theater Mall fire. At that meeting Paul Fishman, owner of 14ers Cafa, approached the Board and asked them to delay their decision until they could hear additional requests from the Park Theater Mall business 0Â¥mers. A subcommittee comprised of Mayor Pinkham, Administrator Halburnt, and Tru#fte Eisenlauer met with the merchants and informed them that their next step would be to bring their requests to the Community Development Committee for discussion. Dana Kortokrax, owner of Home for the Holidays and spokesperson for the Park Theater Mall merchants, reviewed a list of proposals that were compiled by business owners affected by the Park Theater Mall fire related to assisting them in getting their businesses back in operation. The proposals include: designating one person as a pointof contact for communication and all issues related to the fire; implementing a sales tax rebate program that would allow businesses that have reopened and resumed collectintsales tax to receive a rebate of a percentage of the Town sales tax they collected; a temporary waiver of fees for 2010 and 2011 for business licenses, permit fees, visitor center advertising space to notify the public of the status of affected businesses, signs, and deposits on utilities; the construction of a temporary walkway to connect to the Riverwalk and provide safe access through the construction area; and to expedite the reconstruction of the Park Theater Mall by waiving construction related fees. Discussion followed and is summarized: the appointment of an appropriate staff point of contact would be determined depending on final outcome; dislike the idea of a sales tax rebate, what is the role of Town government when it comes to helping private businesses; Park Theater Mall is private property; the Town should create a disaster relief program; private insurance does not cover all losses related to the fire or costs to reestablish business; proposals have monetary implications; look for alternative to a sales tax rebate; possibly a donation instead of a sales tax rebate; and everyone is sympathetic to the plight of these business owners. Paul Fishman, 14ers Cafa, stated that the Mall tenants operated established businesses that had been collecting and paying sales tax for many years. He said the community is affected by not having these businesses up and running and said the Town currently RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development - February 4, 2010 - Page 4 invests in the community by using money from the general fund to support local non- profits through Community Service Grants and asked for an investment in the community by supporting a sales tax rebate to help reestablish these businesses. Sharon Seeley, owner of the Park Theater Mall, said she sees this as a time for the community to come together in a positive way to recover from this tragedy. Town Administrator Halburnt read a letter from Charley Dickey, Town resident, into the record. In his comments, Mr. Dickey expressed opposition to the Town and its residents taking on the financial burden of rebuilding businesses affected by the fire. The Committee requested that a separate Town Board Study Session be scheduled, possibly on February 23, 2010, to continue discussion of this topic with the full Board. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Public Information Officer Quarterly Report PIO Rusch reported on her daily responsibilities, projects, and upcoming trainings; and stated that Laurie Button will assume the role of Deputy PIO when assistance with a major incident is needed. MISCELLANEOUS. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ LMD/CVB 2009 Year End Report â€¢ CVB Stakeholders Services â€¢ CVB End of Year Group Sales Report â€¢ CVB Marketing Committee â€¢ Media Relations Report Dir. Campbell reported on the creation of the Local Marketing District (LMD); explained that LMD is the legal entity and that the four LMD employees will function as Estes Park'siDestination Marketing Organization (DMO). She spoke about the collaboration of six tourism-related groups which resulted in the first Winter Festival that was held in January, and outlined LMD goals for 2010 which include increasing group sales and branding. There being no further business, Chair Levine adjourned the meeting at 10:09 a.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 11, 2010. Minutes of a Regular meeting of the UTILITIES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 11 th day of February, 2010. Committee- Chairman Homeier, Trustees Blackhurst and Ericson Attending: Chairman Homeier, Trustee Blackhurst Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Utilities Dir. Goehring, and Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent: Trustee Ericson Chairman Homeier called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None LIGHT AND POWER BIDS FOR BEAVER POINT & PEAKVIEW CIRCUIT UPGRADES 2010. In June 2009, Light & Power (L&P) was authorized to proceed with engineering and design on the remainder of the distribution system improvements funded by Light & Power bond revenues. Three areas have been identified as priorities for upgrades: the Beaver Point Circuit, the Peakview Circuit, and the Fish Creek Circuit. Subsequent to the completed design of Beaver Point and Peakview, the projects were put out to bid in January 2010. The bid results are as follows: Beaver Point Circuit Upgrade Brink Electric Construction Company, Inc. No bid provided Hamlin Electric Company $162,373.34 Selcon Utility $101,914,96 Sturgeon Electric Company, Inc. $281,327.96 Beaver Point material cost estimate from L&P: $73,866.27 Total of low bid and materials: $175,781.23 Peakview Circuit Upgrade Brink Electric Construction Company, Inc. No bid provided Hamlin Electric Company $235,392.38 Selcon Utility No bid provided Sturgeon Electric Company, Inc. $327,752.33 Peakview material cost estimate from L&P: $267,462.35 Total of low bid and materials: $502,854.73 Staff noted that the bids came in lower than expected and requests approval to accept a low bid of $101,914.96 from Selcon Utility, for the Beaver Point Circuit upgrades; and a low bid in the amount of $235,392.38 from Hamlin Electric Company for the Peakview Circuit upgrades. Total cost for both projects including materials is $678,635.96; account 502-7001-580-33-30 contains $1.25 million for distribution system upgrades. The Town has worked with both low bidders on previous projects and staff has no RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Utilities Committee - February 11, 2010 - Page 2 concerns related to their ability to provide good customer service and skilled labor. Rex Poggenpohl, County resident, requested that private property owners in the Peakview area be made aware of the project, as some of the work will take place on easements across private property. Supt. Steichen said a letter to the property owners has been drafted and that he will also be contacting these property owners by telephone prior to the project. The Committee requested that bid approval for the circuit upgrades be included as an action item on the February 23, 2010, Town Board agenda to provide staff an opportunity to present an overview of the project to the full board. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. 1. Prospect Avenue Utility Underqroundinq Update - In October 2009 in preparation for the reconstruction of 2500 ft. of Prospect Avenue, A-1 Excavation began trenching, and installing the conduit required for the undergrounding of all the existing overhead utilities. Progress has been slow, due to weather delays, frost, and blasting necessary to attain trench depths. L&P crews are installing the new equipment required for the underground conversion, and the project is approximately 25% complete at this time. 2. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in 2010 - L&P will continue a partnership with the Colorado Governor's Energy Office (GEO) to receive matching grants for residential photovoltaic installation and for insulation and air sealing. The GEO will administer the program which is expected to begin in late March. In addition during 2010, L&P will partner with Platte River Power ~ Authority (PRPA) and various other agencies to provide 230 compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs to Estes Park Housing Authority properties; provide energy efficient lighting for the Estes Park Museum, and install CFL bulbs, water conservation devices, and smoke detectors to approximately 40 area low-income homes. Staff will be working with the Senior Center, local thrift stores, and Crossroads Ministry to help identify lower income households to benefit from these programs. WATER REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. 1 - Mary's Lake Water Treatment Facility Update - During January testing of the Mary's Lake Water Treatment Facility was carried out during which time the plant produced 3.1 million gallons. The system alarm for the plant was completed in January and added 426 call-out alarms for operators from the SCADA system. Once the alarms were operational, the facility began operating on a 24-hour basis and the Glacier Creek Water Plant was shut down on February 1 st The 28-day acceptance test began on February 8th A grand opening for the facility will be held this spring. There being no further business, Chairman Homeier adjourned the meeting at 8:36 a.m Cynthia A Deats, Deputy Town Clerk ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission January 19, 2010, 6:00 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Ron Norris, Commissioners Doug Klink, Alan Fraundorf, John Tucker, Betty Hull, Steve Lane, and Rex Poggenpohl Attending: Chair Norris, Commissioners Klink, Fraundorf, Tucker, Hull, Lane, and Poggenpohl Also Attending: Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Planner Chilcott The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Norris called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. There were 8 people in attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes from December 15, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) that the consent agenda be approved as presented, and the motion passed unanimously with one abstention; Commissioner Lane abstained. 3. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS (PUDs) Commissioner Hull commended Community Development staff on the thoroughness of the information that was provided to the Commission about PUDs. Director Joseph reviewed the current PUD provision in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), stating the basic purpose of a PUD is to allow for mixing of commercial and residential use. The CO-Commercial Outlying zone district is the only district that currently allows PUDs. The current regulation allows uses permitted by right or by special review in the underlying zoning district, plus residential and accommodation uses. It has been discussed to allow PUDs in A-Accommodations zone district. Referring to the Zoning Map, Director Joseph stated the CO-Commercial Outlying parce\s are fairly constrained, particularly when located next to public lands that have been set aside for uses other than commercial development. An expansion of the PUD allowance into the A-Accommodations zone district would significantly increase the land base for PUD opportunities. Chair Norris directed Staff to provide the total number of acres currently in the CO and A districts, while Commissioner Lane requested information about the number of lots within the CO and A zone districts that fall above and below the minimum three-acre threshold that is currently required. Director Joseph stated this information will be provided at the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Director Joseph stated the parameters of the 3-acre minimum lot area requirement are such that the requirement is not cumulative, meaning a PUD does not enjoy any higher density or floor area ratio than what the underlying zoning would yield otherwise. Director Joseph stated some communities are allowed to negotiate density versus open space in PUD applications, but the EVDC regulations do not have that flexibility. The 30% open space requirement includes park space, public plaza space, public pedestrian space, and ' other areas open to the public. In general, PUDs are intended to produce higher-quality design and innovation, along with better land use. PUDs, as provided for in the EVDC, are a discretionary approval, whereby the Planning Commission could recommend denial of a proposal to the Town Board of Trustees or Board of County Commissioners because the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 January 19, 2010 qualities and attributes do not warrant being in the PUD process. Town Attorney White stated a developer can elect to develop under the traditional zoning rules if the PUD application is approved or denied. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated the current code is well-written though limiting. He pointed out that the Planning Commission will need to decide if they want the flexibility and freedom to have this creative tool to use for future development and redevelopment that is not available with traditional zoning. Director Joseph reiterated that PUDs are a negotiated process between the municipality and the developer and are designed to be a win-win situation for everyone involved. Director Joseph stated there is some constraint, by state statute, in how PUDs are used, but they are permitted inside and outside of Town limits. Commissioner Tucker wanted to consider expanding the PUD capabilities into the Accommodations zone districts. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated PUDs are complex and often misunderstood by the public due to the negotiation process. He mentioned PUDs could be a creative tool that could be used now and in the future with affordable housing issues and redevelopment. Commissioner Hull could envision expanding the PUD code to include Accommodations, Commercial, and Industrial districts. However, she expressed concern about PUD allowance in residential areas as being a way to bypass traditional zoning regulations. Commissioner Lane did not want to eliminate the possibility of PUDs in residential areas, stating PUDs are not required to have a lot of commercial development and could be a valuable addition to a residential area. Director Joseph explained that residential multi-family zone districts are considered residential areas. Chair Norris recapped the study session dialogue with Trustee Miller. The PUD process was explained, pointing out a PUD allows for negotiation between the Town and the Developer. Trustee Miller stated in the study session this was a tool for the Town to have input in the development and redevelopment of the Estes Valley. Director Joseph added in the study session that a balance has to be struck between predictability of fixed zoning and the creativity that is allowed with a PUD. Chair Norris suggested the next step would include two Commissioners meeting with Trustee Miller to review input and begin work on a problem statement to present to the Town Board. Public Comment: Johanna Darden/Town Resident inquired how zoning changes made in a particular area in the past might affect any future zoning changes in the same area. Director Joseph explained that any property owner can request a zoning change to any zone district, and the process for doing so is outlined in the EVDC. Fred Mares/Town Resident appreciated discussion on PUDs and asked the Planning Commission to think about what the community should look like in the future, and how PUDs could be used for that process. Frank Theis/County Resident wanted Planning Commission to consider structuring the PUD to allow for easier financing methods for developers. Commissioner Poggenpohl pointed out that Planning Commission considerations and decisions should not be made on financial bases. Chair Norris closed the public hearing. 4. ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (EVCP) REVIEW COMMITTEE Chair Norris stated it was discussed at an earlier Town Board Study Session to begin an effort to review areas of the EVCP that may need updating. It was suggested to form a task force comprised of two Town Trustees, two Planning Commissioners (one County, one Town), two Town staff members, one County Commissioner, and Larimer County Chief Planner Russ Legg. This task force would review the EVCP and make --h.\ recommendations to the Planning Commission and Town Board. Commissioner Poggenpohl referred to a letter he wrote to the Town Trustees dated October 27,2009 that proposed a task force consisting of community leaders and citizens be created to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 January 19, 2010 review the EVCP. Subsequently, on December 15, 2009, Commissioner Poggenpohl outlined a proposed process for the review of the EVCP for the Planning Commission, which was discussed at an earlier Planning Commission Study Session. The outline included: (1)Values, mission, and goals for the valley on the Comprehensive Plan; (2)Initial Problem Statement, with an emphasis on minimum or no consultant costs and a rough, adequate overall time frame; (3)Brief review by Planning Commission of the existing comprehensive plan to identify areas needing attention and possibilities for additions or deletions; (4)Brief report on the findings of the Planning Commission with a rough review and outline of the proposed detailed steps, resulting in a comprehensive problem statement for approval by Town and County officials; (5)Committee formation and committee meetings for a more detailed review; (6)Periodic progress reports from the committee to the Planning Commission, periodic summary reports by the Planning Commission to the Town and County officials, and a final report with recommendations from the Planning Commission near the end of 2010. Revisions to the Comprehensive Plan would be made the following year, including an update of the statistics using the results of the 2010 Census. Although this can be a very complex process, Commissioner Poggenpohl thought this proposal could be accomplished as written with minimal expense. Commissioner Klink thought it would be unwise to move forward on a review without accurate and current data. Director Joseph indicated there was a review of Chapter 3 and Appendix 1 in 2008. His view of this proposed task force was to look at the statistics and recommend updating them. Commissioner Hull was confused as to why this process was not initiated at the Planning Commission level, and thought the Town Board of Trustees should proceed and make recommendations to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Lane had no strong feelings on the topic. Commissioner Fraundorf stated the entire report was 85% data with a few sections of recommendations. He thought there was a discrepancy with using the word "Policy" when in general, the Comprehensive Plan is a "Guide". Director Joseph stated the chapter on future land use required intensive effort and resulted in the first ever unified development code and zoning scheme for the Estes Valley. He emphasized the importance of this document, which required state legislation to allow a joint Planning Commission between the Town and the County. Commissioner Fraundorf stated some data sections drive decisions. He was accepting of forming a review task force, and thought any new data would be expensive to compile. He thought the end result would be limited to a few minimal changes and/or updates. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated mission statements have more value than the establishment of a task force and questioned the order of the process. Commissioner Tucker stated the fundamental document was good, and it was his desire to not conduct a formal review of the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Norris summarized by stating the general consensus of the Commission was to conduct a review as cost-effectively as possible, with focus on key areas based on good data. Town Attorney White thought the purpose of the task force was to inform the Town Board, through a brief review, what accomplishments have been made in the Comprehensive Plan and what needs to be discussed. After receiving that information, the Town Board could then decide whether or not to conduct a more detailed review. Town Board Liaison Homeier agreed with Town Attorney White's statement. He envisioned the task force to be short-term with no specific agenda. Director Joseph stated this would be a valuable opportunity to open a different line of communication with the Town Board and County Commissioners about the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Norris summarized stating this proposed task force would conduct a preliminary review to engage Trustees and Town Staff prior to gathering new data. Meeting recessed at 8:00 p.m. and reconvened at 8:10 p.m. A motion was made to appoint Chair Norris and Commissioner Lane to the Comprehensive Plan Task Force. Chair Norris reviewed the study session conversation stating the Planning Commission would be focusing on communicating as well as possible with Town staff, Larimer County RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 January 19, 2010 officials, and the public. Priorities were also reaffirmed. Future agendas were modified to place Staff Reports immediately following the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Poggenpohl expressed strong feelings that the existing Comprehensive Plan needs work in that completed items should be removed and incomplete items should be addressed. He stated the proposed task force is not properly balanced and would not serve the public in the best interest. He disagrees with the formation of the Comprehensive Plan Task Force. Public Comment: Johanna Darden/Town Resident agreed with Commissioner Poggenpohl and suggested he be on the task force. She thought the review of the Comprehensive Plan should be narrowed down to those items that are most important to the community. Fred Mares/Town Resident acknowledged that the Comprehensive Plan is a relevant document. He questioned the purpose and timing of the review. Mr. Mares suggested creating a good legal definition of the use or purpose of the Comprehensive Plan that would stand up in court. He questioned how any potential changes would be reviewed and approved, and also how changes might affect zoning and development in the future. He was pleased to hear the Planning Commission and Town Board would be working together on this task force. Public comment closed. Chair Norris announced his willingness to accept participation on the task force if it was a short-term commitment. Commissioner Lane thought he understood the confusion with the issues, and would welcome the opportunity to better the communication with the other Boards. As a representative from the County, he would do his best to bring as much County power and representation as was needed to this task force. j Commissioner Poggenpohl stated he has a high level of respect for the Town Board and the Planning Commission. His resistance to this issue is the process and procedure of the task at hand. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hull) to appoint Chair Norris and Commissioner Lane to serve on the Comprehensive Plan Task Force, and the motion passed with five in favor, one abstention, and one against. Commissioner Poggenpohl was the abstaining vote and Commissioner Tucker voted against the appointments. Director Joseph explained the Comprehensive Plan was built on consensus between the County and the Town, and was successful in bridging trust between those two entities. Without the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, there would be no Estes Valley Development Code. 5. ESTES VALLEY HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Chair Norris opened discussion asking for comments from the Commissioners. The Commissioners would appreciate more information from Rita Kurelja, Director of the Estes Park Housing Authority. Specifically, they would appreciate information about how much land in Estes Park has been set aside exclusively for affordable housing development, along with any information about waiting lists, taking into consideration the accuracy of these lists and ways to increase the reliability of the data. The Commissioners also requested information on rental-unit availability, including statistics on any backlogs of affordable properties. Commissioner Poggenpohl expressed concern about the future pressures on the need for local affordable housing and how the concepts of affordable housing could be improved and expanded. Commissioner Fraundorf was interested in learning more about what was in the purview of the Planning Commission for affordable housing. Director Joseph explained that affordable housing is typically about economics, and the Planning Commission's impact on affordable housing is through avenues such as land use allocation. As an example, development applications that include affordable housing components often require difficult decisions for the Planning Commissioners. It is . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 January 19, 2010 sometimes necessary to filter contentious dialogue that revolves around the site specific proposals to determine whether or not the plan would advance the housing needs of the community as a whole. Commissioner Lane would like to see a current snapshot that shows where the specific need for affordable housing lies; multi-family rentals or single- family home ownership, various income levels, etc. He was also interested in knowing what alternatives or incentives the Planning Commission could use with land use options in order to address the affordable housing situation. Chair Norris expressed the desire to understand the top three or four needs, the extent of those needs, and the options available to the Planning Commission to meet those needs. Public Comment: Sandy Osterman/Town Resident would be interested in seeing the vacancy rates on affordable housing properties. She stated there are some people who work in Estes Park that choose not to live here, and those people should not be considered as needing affordable housing. She also pointed out that there are some areas listed as affordable housing options that have yet to be built. Fred Mares/Town Resident mentioned the need to understand the fundamentals of affordable housing and the factions that need to be addressed; summer housing, families versus singles, working-class housing. He stated that steps taken to solve these issues may be very different depending on the issue. He suggested a possible solution may be a subsidized bus that goes up and down the canyon for summer employees. Chair Norris closed public comment. 6. MEETING TIMES There was discussion among the Commission concerning keeping the meeting time in the evening or reverting back to the afternoon timeline. Consensus was to continue evening meetings until further notice. 7. REPORTS Planner Shirk stated the Haber Motel was a Staff-level Development Plan that was reviewed and approved. This project includes remodeling the existing building behind "Tulum's" and the "Egg and I" and converting it to a 6-8 unit motel. They will use the existing footprint. There are guest parking spaces provided on site, and no parking requirements in the downtown area. Staff has accepted an application to amend Development Plan 2010-01 Rippling River Estates. The development plan has been approved for seven units, and the developer wants to make some minor changes to the footprint. The February meeting will include a Special Review for the "Circle of Friends Montessori School". A similar review was approved last year, and the current review requests to continue existence in the Masonic Lodge for an extended time period. Upcoming Town Board hearings of proposed code changes are as follows: January 26 - Accessory Kitchens, 2nd reading Short-Term Rentals, Vacation Homes, and B&Bs, 2nd reading Wind Turbines - 1St reading February 9 - Wildlife Habitat Protection final reading February 23 - Wind Turbines - 2nd reading Upcoming County Commissioners hearing of proposed code changes are as follows: March 8 - Meeting in Estes Park to hear Wildlife Habitat Protection Code Amendments, and possibly Accessory Kitchens; Short-term Rentals, i Vacation Homes, and B&Bs; and Wind Turbines . Chair Norris reported a Joint Study Session between Planning Commission, Estes Park Housing Authority, and Town Board is scheduled for Tuesday, February 9, 2010. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 January 19,2010 Town Attorney White reported the Town Board approved the first amendment to the Inter- Governmental Agreement between the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County to extend the agreement and keep the Estes Valley Planning Commission viable. The County Commissioners will hear this item on January 26, 2010. Chair Norris recognized former Chair Doug Klink for his service to the Commission. There being no further business, Chair Norris adjourned the meeting at 8:27 p.m. Ron Norris, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment December 1, 2009, 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Chuck Levine, Members John Lynch, Bob McCreery, Wayne Newsom, and Al Sager; Alternate Member Bruce Grant Attending: Chair Levine, Members Lynch, McCreery, and Sager Also Attending: Director Bob Joseph, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent: Member Newsom, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott Chair Levine called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes dated September 1,2009 It was moved and seconded (McCreery/Lynch) to APPROVE the minutes as presented, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. METES & BOUNDS PARCEL LOCATED AT 2025 MORAINE AVENUE, Owner: Stonewood Properties, LLC, Applicant: Don Chasen - Request for variance from Â§7.5.F.2.b(6), which requires a 25' Landscape Buffer from the property line. Request to allow an access drive to be located within the Landscape Buffer Zone. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. The purpose of this variance request was to allow an access driveway to be located within the required 25-foot Landscape Buffer Zone in order to develop this property with nine residential/accommodations units in an A- Accommodations zoning district. Director Joseph stated this same variance request was before the Board of Adjustment on October 2, 2007, under a different property owner/applicant, and the variance was approved unanimously, with the following condition: District-buffer landscaping standards shall be applied in place of arterial-street standards. The original development never came to fruition and, therefore, the variance approval expired on October 2,2008. The applicant's property lies between the river and Spur 66. Staff's view was the property had some constraints due to the narrow width, which, combined with the required setbacks, created a limited developable area. The proposed site plan kept the footprint of the buildings in compliance with all applicable setbacks by pushing them north closer to the highway. Part of the driveway on the east end needs a variance requiring Board approval. In accordance with Section 3.6.C, Standards for Review of the Estes Valley Development Code, staff has determined that special circumstances exist that are not common to other areas of buildings similarly situated. This parcel has a steep drop from the road, and the lot is significantly narrow, considering the river and arterial road setbacks. In determining practical difficulty that may result from strict compliance with this Code's standards, Director Joseph stated the property is currently undeveloped and could be designed to meet all setbacks. Staff has determined this variance is not substantial. Also, because of the slope and the grade difference between the driveway and the highway, you tend to look out across the site and would probably not be aware of the encroachment, which RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 December 1,2009 mitigates the negative impact of the variance. Therefore, staff believes the essential character of the neighborhood will have minimal impact, and can be minimized further by ~ using the district buffer landscape requirement instead of the arterial street standard. This should conceal any off-site visual impacts of the encroachment. The applicant purchased the property in 2008, with knowledge of the setback requirements. Staff feels this variance request is minor with very few complications. The sewer easement is already in place and there is no encroachment into the right-of-way. Staff recommends approval of this variance with one condition. Public and Board Member Comment: Member McCreery was concerned about the density level, and Director Joseph explained this zoning district could actually support more density than what was proposed. This particular development plan was a staff-level review, and proposes a much lower density than a previous proposal. The applicant was not in attendance. Director Joseph stated this was the second development plan for this property by this applicant, who decided to change the plans for marketability purposes. Dave Ranglos, adjacent property owner, expressed concern about the density and preferred to see only three homes on the property. Ann Toft, previous owner of the property in question, also preferred a three-house plan. It was moved and seconded (Sager/Lynch) to APPROVE the request for a variance from EVDC Â§7.5.F.2.b(6) to allow an access drive to be located within the 25-foot Landscape Buffer, with the following condition and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. CONDITION: 1. District Buffer landscaping standards shall be applied in place of arterial street ~ standards. 4. REPORTS None. 5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chair Levine announced that two officers were to be elected. According to the Inter- Governmental Agreement, the incoming Chair is required to be a county resident, while the Vice-Chair is required to be a town resident. Member McCreery was nominated to serve as Chair, and Member Levine nominated to serve as Vice-Chair. It was moved and seconded (McCreery/Sager) to elect Member Bob McCreery as Chair and Member Chuck Levine as Vice-Chair of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment for 2010, and to elect the Community Development Department Administrative Assistant as the Recording Secretary. The motion passed unanimously with one absent. There being no further business, Chair Levine adjourned the meeting at 9:27 a.m. Chuck Levine, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 20, 2010 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 20*day of January, 2010. Commissioners: Chairman Newsom, Commissioners Blume, Halburnt, Little, White and Wilcocks Attending: Chairman Newsom, Commissioners Blume, Halburnt, White and Wilcocks Also Attending. EPURA Executive Director Richardson, Finance Officer McFarland, Attorney Benedetti and Town Clerk Williamson Absent: Commissioner Little Chairman Newsom called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. COMMUNITY COMMENTS. Charles Dickey/Town citizen urged the EPURA Board to pursue the current court case to determine the validity of the Initiated Ordinance passed by the citizens of Estes Park to abolish EPURA. He expressed concern with the inaccurate statements presented during the election, including the false statements related to the increase in taxes. He stated EPURA is one tool the Town has to grow the economic base of the town during tough economic times. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioners White & Wilcocks spoke to the Initiated Ordinance election results and expressed concern with the inaccurate and misconstrued information presented during the election. Both raised concern for the future of Estes Park without EPURA to grow the business community. MINUTES. The minutes of the regular meeting held December 16, 2009, were approved. RESOLUTION #394 -POSTING DESIGNATION FOR MEETINGS. It was moved and seconded 0/Vilcocks/White)to approve Resolution #394, and it passed unanimously. COOPERATION AGREEMENT. Executive Director Richardson stated the agreement was reviewed by the Commissioners in December and would provide EPURA with staff support from the Town at no cost, more specifically Executive Director support from Deputy Town Administrator Richardson. It was moved and seconded (Halburnt/Blume) to approve the Cooperation Agreement between EPURA and the Town of Estes Park, and it passed unanimously. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. None. AVAILABILITY OF FUND. Finance Officer McFarland reported EPURA has $784,650 in fund balance prior to the payment of construction invoices for December 2009. The Authority has received approximately $20,000 in TIF funding year to date. Commissioner Little joined the meeting at 8:15 a.m. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority - January 20, 2010 - Page 2 The Commissioners discussed the future of the fagade program. Commissioner comments included whether or not the fagade funds should be transferred to the grandstand project; need to determine the fund balance for the project; reassess program once the fate of EPURA has been determined by the Town Board; the program should continue as long as EPURA exists, and the additional funds should be used for other programs or the grandstand project. UPDATE - GRANDSTANDS AT STANLEY PARK FAIRGROUNDS. Roger Thorp, Thorp Associates, provided an update on the grandstands project. The foundation of the structure continues; however, progress has been slow due to the cold weather. The drawings for the steel structure have not been completed and were anticipated in December. The first set of drawings should be available for review and if corrections are minimal the steel structure should be ready in March. The contractor has stated they would provide the necessary personnel to complete the project by early June without impacting the scheduled events at the Fairgrounds. Once the shop drawings are completed a schedule for the project would be available. Commissioner Wilcocks requested the schedule be provided to the Authority with a list of key milestones. LOCAL ROOTS CO-OP AND CULTURAL ARTS CENTER. Executive Director Richardson reported funds approved by EPURA have been distributed to the Local Roots Co-Op/$18,000 and the Cultural Arts Council of Estes Park/$5,000. The Arts Council has provided a letter stating the funds have been secured in a special bank account awaiting project implementation. The Local Roots Co-Op has experienced financial issues and may be on the verge of closing. It would appear the EPURA funds committed to the completion of a mural have been expended without the project being completed. The Commissioners requested staff and Attorney ~ Benedetti review what legal steps need to be taken to ensure the project is completed or that EPURA's money be refunded. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: 24-6-402(4)(b) C.R.S., for the purpose of conference with the EPURA Attorney to receive legal advice on specific legal questions regarding the Initiated Ordinance. It was moved and seconded (Halburnt/Blume) the EPURA Board enter Executive Session for the purpose of a conference with the EPURA Attorney to receive legal advice on specific legal questions regarding the Initiated Ordinance, and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Chairman Newsom adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 8:33 a.m. Chairman Newsom reconvened the meeting to open session at 9:32 a.m. Chairman Newsom stated the Authority would wait for the Town Board to make a final decision on the disposition of EPURA before making any final decisions related to the Initiated Ordinance election results. Whereupon, Chairman Newsom adjourned the regular meeting at 9:33 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk 4 . TOWN or ESTES PARIL Memo Community Development Â» TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: David Shirk, Planner'~ig Date: February 23, 2010 RE: IMPROVEMENTS TO 18-HOLE GOLF COURSE BY ESTES VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT Background: In January 1990, the Town of Estes Park and the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District entered into an operating agreement regarding the ground lease agreement for the operation of the 18-hole golf course (town owns the property, recreation district operates the golf course). Section 17 of the operating agreement specifies "the District may modify the Facilities only upon written approval of such modification by the Town." Because of this language, the Recreation District requests such approval. Section 3.13 of the Estes Valley Development Code requires Location and Extent approval for all public uses not specifically exempt (such as trails or public streets). Location and Extent Review requires development plan review and approval. Due to the small size of the structure, the development plan was subject to Staff level review. Staff has approved the submitted Location and Extent Review, with conditions outlined below. During review of the Location and Extent Review, Staff received email correspondence from the Treasurer of the Sixth Fairway Condominium Association, who "has no objection to the request." Two adjoining property owners to the south visited staff in office, and expressed no objection. They did express support for the proposed color and lack of exterior lighting. Budget: N/A Recommendation: Staff has approved the Location and Extent development plan 2010-01 "18 Hole Golf Course", subject to certain conditions. Staff recommends the Board approve the proposed modification to the golf course facilities subject to the conditions of development plan 2010-01. Sample Motion: I move to approve the proposed modification to the facilities at the 18-Hole Golf Course conditional to: Page 1 1. No exterior lighting shall be allowed. 2. Building finish shall be a matte/flat tan color, or alternative approved by Staff. 3. Per Section 7.13, conduit, meters, vents and other equipment attached to the building or protruding from the roof shall be screened, covered or painted to minimize visual impacts. 4. Landscaping shall be installed to provide screening from Fish Creek Road. 5. Compliance with Light and Power Department requirements regarding the relocation of the existing overhead power line. 6. The property owner shall apply for a change of address through the Building Department. Page 2 TOWN oF EST ES PARI<L 2***Â·Â·. r . -2 - .+5384%Â«15; :* ~*1*Â·i- 'itiFINANCE.* '1+32-' Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Steve McFarland - Finance Officer Date: RE: 2009 FINAL SALES TAX REPORT Background: Attached please find the report on sales tax progress through the fourth quarter of 2009, as well as data for YTD details and results. Documentation Key points of the attached Powerpoint presentation: 1. 2009 sales tax was $6.85m, which was -0.7% less than the 2009 revised budget, and -5.5% less than the original 2009 budget. Real growth was -5.0% (CPI was 0.4%). 2. All four 2009 quarters trailed respective 2008 quarters to varying degrees. By any definition, this qualifies as a recession. 3. As can be seen in the "Sales Tax, 2009 vs 2008" slide, Estes Park compared very favorably to the plight of other mountain communities. 4. The "Sales Tax Trends" slide shows the trend (blue) and strength of trend (maroon) of sales tax. The blue line is below the black trend line, which means that the direction of sales tax is down. The maroon line shows that the blue line is declining at an unprecedented rate of nearly 5%/year. The velocity of the trend seems to be seeking a bottom of around 5%. Hopefully it will hold, and both the blue and maroon lines will head north in 2010. 5. The "sales tax 1985-2009" and "sales tax factoring cpi" graphs show the steady growth of sales tax, but also reveal that about 40% of the growth is actually related to CPI (inflation). Note that sales tax levels are now at approximately 2006 levels. Page 1 TOWN oF ESTES PARIÂ© FINANCE Memo 6. The effect of CPI is also seen when comparing the two "trends" graphs. RMNP visitation and US 34/36 traffic counts are actually quite flat over the past 10-15 years, while sales tax has increased. Sales tax seems to most closely mirror hotel occupancy %, a primary component in our forecasting models. Factoring CPI, sales tax is still increasing, but at a much slower pace. 7. The "sector analysis" portion of the report discusses our major sales tax categories. a. The "annual sector comparisons" graph show that the established "food up" trend continued through 2009. b. The "Sales tax 2007-09" graph illustrates how important it is to look at trends from multiple viewpoints. Although food is taking up a larger portion of the pie, the reality is that food merely declined at a slower pace than other sectors in 2009. The sobering "sales tax, 2009 vs. 2008" slide at the beginning of the presentation makes one consider what would happen if Estes Park suffered the same fate as the other mountain communities (a sharp drop in sales tax). It is somewhat heartening to know that even with a 5.5% vs. budget (nearly $400,000) drop in sales tax in 2009, staff was able to compensate through prudent management/trimming of expenditures. General Fund's fund balance should not suffer in 2009. Of course, the recession cannot continue indefinitely without consequences to Town budgets and ultimately services. Staff hopes for a rebound in sales tax revenues in 2010. Budget N/A Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends acceptance of 2009 Sales Tax Report. Sample Motion: N/A Page 2 .. 93 U1 is 1./ i 4 9 L) CD CL bo L) 2 32 LL J .0 .. 01 O L 91: Al 110 111 X v =451# (10) . c 6% 2 %40 .!2 0 M L LU . 00 0 > -1 (DO 2 -0 W N O Al OO E>> 61 7 O Â£ 32 0 ~Cl > a Cl 01 M E 0 0 r-Lm Ch fill 6/5 N.. N.. .. b - *M i '" " KÂ»Â»-'y.5.f :< 62: .L.1,2 ..4.21,411.74':~% .: 1911?'.Â¢:11,:Â·;'t:li~'Â·fi P~+~4,2-~Â·Â·, .,tigi' tÂ¢,~Ai,~,~;Â·,1.'5Â· ..i,5..14â€¢j:,~tÂ·Â·Â·:cÂ·Fkf,Â»T'#1Â¢7 PyÂ·,i lit~'~ :,Â« y;!04-,*Â·':1+<- ti*;**I'"t'f D puE D 4117 %9I L- JIN BOOZ SA %IOS- ' 33 ' 2 4 1 It 0 X... 0 Â§2 1 1 4% U O 40 1 9 F O - r--- Al -V 5 0 701 1 1 (A 34 1 F > 2.4 6 /6+ 7 8 1 â‚¬5) e 0 49& ..4 10'i .1 - i r.v >f mÂ©,6: ./. 44 4 23,+: 4 9,) 4 1 - 1,/â‚¬ 0 OP 00 4. 4 -9, LLI 9 0 /1 1 8% i O rt!,~~ 12. 1 1 E-ilm 14 . t . :-75'SNE KI h I I i 2 2 2 1.,1 0 8 Lr, 01 1 1 '.â€¢Dpâ€¢Mi*IÂ¢~â€¢'â‚¬ ~72â€¢Er ~ ~,~.Aq**'*1-1 ... 4.9.4Â«'.4''.A&vAMAf . ....~1**MXMVE? %ZE- %I I- %Â£ I- , 1'1 Yall JAVJO %42) % 01% ZI 2 lr) Ir, O 1 1 1 % iA - % -2-n - e..1. I - 40 -02 ~~* u 5 + -34+ - <10-4 $ 9 U -9 9., 01 * 42 - 94 OA 4.4 13, - 6 4 D- 2 0%14' 6'-r-42 - 4 /4 Voe V 006 9 - 'X, 600er .P Fi 9( 9/ - r 't O- r 43.1 10 + - C>, 42 a .<31 0% 4 &9 .267 00 r- -0/22 b t. 0. 3UIOOUI %02 - 15% - 10% %0 I- - 000'003$ %9I- - 000'00 I$ i - -20% -4.61 % =OOH 'OW EI 60-1@quloo@CI SALES TAX TRENDS December-09 12 Mo Rev. $6,852,574 (ok OUI Z I) 11?ou!1 - (OAV OWEIDEOU!1 0/O OLU ZI- aAÂ¥ OR ZI- ~ $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 000'00*$ 000'00Â£$ - . lili - . * ..4. t. a r .P-Al 1 92="r'* f;S. fid 1 1 1 - 1 -I k. ./.Ill#.i/Â£,-0. 1*' ~C . *AIL 2:9-Â·,~Â¥:r .I.-Â· I 1 4 1, 4. T b~N r * * . 1 & T i /7.9 1 -/47-9- -IM .L 52 1 bt f 65 - [ 7...'-* 0*"a"=.<.'----&.A-'~~, m*3~.I r 1 . lill./."./.W ..I/, 1 1 1 1 1. . r'.*r ~~~~~~~ 44. + I-I....I-* ..=. - ISA, '51 - . R i t. ..=,Ii'il.& a..M..WI. - a 3. 9.'m-- 79 r- 11 + I. 60 - 14 Â» 4. 0 0 O 0 0 0 000 880 9000* 9 0 Â° Â° 8 8 0 088 0 0 0 00000900 00 rÂ·-- d â‚¬e â‚¬e â‚¬e 8 2 1,4 I, 1 .., ,1'J,W./A.+ 44 SALES TAX 1985-2009 600E 800Z ZOOZ 900E SOOZ *002 COOZ ZOOZ L00Z0001666L 866L Z66 L 966 L 966 L t,66L Â£66L 166L L66L066:686L886L 286L986L986L 2 0 ro CD 0 1 1 Illf..b/# 1~-:.0*'4- 1 64 - '41 4 I/Al//<P~/~3.. tb/7 1 11 4 CL <22 3/.~ 1 - 02 a .. 5 1 U - 4 - VOCJ 6041 CX: - Vot e f Ll- - Uâ‚¬/ .,~1 4 e 9 6> tEm 4 - Uâ‚¬/ 1--1 1 - 44 4 vâ‚¬, 99 do - Vâ‚¬, 46 LLI 2. L r vâ‚¬, ~ 6?n 4:1 E- %1 L F 62 12 HMwildoâ€¢ i 250.00% 200.00% - I %00.091. %00 00 L %00'09 L %00-0 EP 0 0 1 *] r--. 3/ 4.t: fl F 41 0 Â»It_Z tt. %00-0* - H) senueAe xe} Sales - slunoo uo!jelis!/\ dNI/\Ibl - 000'000'17 98/*â‚¬ Sn sjunooo!#ejl- Aouednooo lejol-4 - 8,000,000 60.00% - 50 00% %00-0 L t'1000-0 TRENDS '.~042%.li!* 7,000,000 000'000'9 000'000'9 000'000'Â£ 000'000'Z 000'000'1 Im W lill 2 A. U I C 1 O 1 441 U LL '*I U-1 6- E Â§88808Â§Â§ 8 O O 0 d O 8 Â§Â§8Â§Â§8 0 0 ->cd K cd tri 4 Cd N =: â‚¬ 01 -4. 44:- 3 . 1 - Â·Â·i .f %'P De.: â‚¬77% fÂ·RN kc- 1; :R: 2009 SALES TAX SISA1VNV kIO1)3S Â¤ 62 011~ Â·'Â·,0.+4. 1.45 m & 1 U) 0 ro U) 1- 0 32 r .. 0 32 O 0 *2 Lk pOOH - Bu!6 Pol -Ii- %91 Je 410/1!ewbl se!1! I!Wl - UO!:lonnsuo0 - 01nv - %9L 6001 8001 ZOOZ 9002 9001 *001 â‚¬002 1001 LOOZ 00oz ANNUAL SECTOR COMPARISONS Â©aÂ·.**407 . 40% 35% Rot $1 53 ./ k â‚¬ g Z O W F 2O 4 1- D CD 0 Of 9 $ 1- k J g 1 00=.200 f H Z 21_ O 0 DO H LU O O < O D 05 _1 00000. 0.2 00 8 0 1 1 g 3') O 2 1.0 0 0 , 319 i 01 06 LO (9 r-00 FLO 4-CO LO 1.0 r. 4 13 .-CO Â· to -0>64'64 9- r U â‚¬* 69 1 11 X LO XÂ· UD CD LO O 11 00 - ci r 4 + A A 0 r =t- CD O 5- CD . 4. lo â€ž-2 2 /1 1 fle 68 â‚¬e ce ,#gi *8 94~ U-1 --1 . 00 0 1 =CO O 2- * ce f, C) O CO f' CD O ai i g CO =i: r N Lf)- â€ž 4 00 1 00 00 . '09 0 - IN + â‚¬Â» 60 - r- #A +A â‚¬A '01 O 088880 8 0 - 00000090 0% 80088 0 Itii ~ go g O 0 90 - od O M r- â‚¬n â‚¬6 te 69 09 â‚¬,9 g 9/ TOWN op ESTES PARIÂ© Memo ** + w .:..+B.â€¢MU k . TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Lowell Richardson Date: February 19, 2010 RE: Report - Grandstand Project Update Background: The foundation work is winding down. The footers, pillars and utility conduit is in place for the building. Over the past month the contractor, architect and steel manufacture have coordinated their efforts to complete the shop drawings. The end result is we will start to see delivery of components of the metal building sometime towards the end of next week. This means the contractor is now coordinating their efforts to complete the shop drawings for the bleachers (which is provided by another sub-contractor)so they can be fitted and installed. All parties (contractor, architect, owner and client) continue to meet weekly to review project schedule, request for information log, change order request logs and approve change order request. It should be noted that change requests are reviewed at two different levels. First, change orders are reviewed between the contractor and the architect. Second, the change orders recommended for approval by the architect are then reviewed by the owner's representative (Scott Zurn) and the client before any approvals are authorized. To date most change orders have been affiliated with the foundation work of the project. Proiect Schedule The contractor has provided an updated schedule with a completion/delivery date of June 14, 2010. This date, as I am discovering, could change depending how quickly the building is erected. We are still two weeks behind hence the June the 14th date. Concession Stands Staff acquired a few tenant finish items at a local liquidation sale held at the Local Roots Coop building on West Elkhorn. A triple sink and one stainless steel table were acquired for $300. That is an estimated savings of $1,200. We hope to find similar savings as we expend the committed funds for the approved tenant finishes. Other Items The architect billables are not updated. There are questions under review I am hopeful resolution will occur within the next week or two so an accurate reporting can be provided. Page 1 ADMi~iNZER~9 Budget Update: To date expenditures for the project are at 52% of the approved budget. Important to note is the amount of $265,000 on the contractor's monthly application for payment found on page 1 of 1, for the pre-engineered metal building labeled item #00-0019. This amount covers the cash on delivery requirement by the steel manufacturer when the building arrives starting next week. Staff Recommendation: N/A Sample Motion: No Motion - Report Only PROJECT OVERVIEW 2/17/2010 BY TYPE Budget Actual Balance Demolition * $35,500 $35,500 $0 Grandstand 1,635,012 846,816 788,196 Contingencies/Change orders 99,854 64,516 35,338 Supplemental Items 350,113 12,319 337,794 Architecture Fees 74,800 179,479 (104,679) Total: $2,195,279 $1,138,631 $1,056,648 * no details AVAILABLE BY FUNDING SOURCE EPURA $1,121,000 $1,138,631 ($17,631) EPURA (concessions) 50,000 0 50,000 Town of Estes Park 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 Tota 1: $2,171,000 $1,138,631 $1,032,369 DEMOLITION 2/17/2010 Description Budget Actual Balance No details available $35,500.00 $35,500.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Totals $35,500.00 $35,500.00 $0.00 STANLEY PARK GRANDSTAND 02/17/10 A B C D|E FGHI Item # Description Total Work Completed Presently Total Balance Contract This Stored Completed % to Retainage Amount Previous Period Materials & Stored Completed Finish Balance (not in D or E) D+E+F (G / C) C-G 1 Insura nce $27,500.00 $27,500.00 $0.00 $27,500.00 100% 50.00 $2,750.00 2 Overhead 45,000.00 25,000.00 12,500.00 37,500.00 83% 7,500.00 3,750.00 3 Project Management 96,250.00 50,000.00 17,500.00 67,500.00 70% 28,750.00 6,750.00 4 Mobilization & Temp Facilities 55,000.00 45,000.00 5,000.00 50,000.00 91% 5,000.00 5,000.00 5 TK Equipment & Vehicles 15,000.00 5,500.00 3,000,00 8,500.00 57% 6,500.00 850.00 6 Safety 1,550.00 250.00 500.00 750.00 48% 800.00 75.00 7 Photographs 550.00 300.00 100.00 400.00 73% 150.00 40.00 8 Temporary Protection 7,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 5,000.00 67% 2,500.00 500.00 9 As-Builts 387.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 39% 237.00 15.00 10 Cleanup 4,500.00 1,000.00 1,500.00 2,500.00 56% 2,000.00 250.00 11 Surveying 130,000.00 90% 15,000.00 13,000.00 7,500.00 5,500.00 1,500.00 7,000.00 93% 500.00 700.00 12 Demo/Earthwork/Utilities 145,000.00 100,000.00 30,000.00 13 Bldg Foundation Concrete 105,000.00 85,000.00 15,000.00 100,000.00 95% 5,000.00 10,000.00 14 Bldg Interior Flat Concrete/Trench Drain 50,000.00 12,500.00 0.00 5,000.00 17,500.00 35% 32,500.00 1,750.00 15 Trench Drain 10,000.00 O.00 O.00 O.00 0% 10,000.00 O.00 16 Stonework 42,750.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 42,750.00 0.00 17 Structural Steel/Misc Metal 55,675.00 12,300.00 0.00 13,200.00 25,500.00 46% 30,175.00 2,550.00 18 Wood, Lumber/Plywood 60,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 60,500.00 0.00 19 Pre-engineered Metal Bldg 365,000.00 80,000.00 0.00 185,000.00 265,000.00 73% 100,00000 26,500.00 20 Site Concrete 55,000.00 0.00 0.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 9% 50,000.00 500.00 21 Plumbing 75,000.00 0.00 0.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 13% 65,000.00 1,000.00 22 HVAC & Mecha nical 40,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 40,000.00 0.00 23 Walk-In Cooler/Freezer 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 10,000.00 0.00 24 Electrical 140,000.00 7,500.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 22,500.00 16% 117,500.00 2,250.00 25 Bleachers 135,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 135,000.00 0.00 26 Framing & D,ywall 15,350.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 15,350.00 0.00 27 Doors/Hrdware/Hollow Metal 12,250.00 O.00 0.00 0.00 0% 12,250.00 O.00 28 Insulation 2,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 2,500.00 0.00 29 Aluminum Windows & Glazing 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 5,000.00 0.00 30 EPDM Roofing 3,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 3,500.00 0.00 31 Plam 3,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 3,500.00 0.00 32 Toilet Partitions & Accessories 8,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 8,500.00 0.00 33 Tile 2,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 2,000.00 0.00 34 Flooring 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 5,000.00 0.00 35 FRP 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 5,000.00 0.00 36 Painting/Staining & Coatings 15,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 15,000.00 0.00 37 Signage 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 1,000.00 0.00 38 Fence&Gates 3,750.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 3,750.00 0.00 39 Landscaping 2,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 2,500.00 0.00 40 Bike Racks 500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 500.00 0.00 41 (70 #1 PCO #4 Bldrs Risk 1,735.00 1,735.00 0.00 1,735.00 100% 0.00 173.50 42 C/O #1 PCO #8 Standpipe 5,619.10 2,500.00 0.00 2,500.00 44% 3,119.10 250.00 43 C/O #1 PCO #9 NW Grading 3,156.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 3,156.80 0.00 44 C/O #1 PCO #12 Precon Addtl 74.49 74A9 0.00 74.49 100% 0.00 7.45 45 C/O #1 PCO #13 Bldg Elevation 641At 0.00 320.71 320.71 50% 320.70 32.07 46 C/O #1 PCO #14 Flowfill 3,995.15 3,995.15 0.00 3,995.15 100% 0.00 399.52 47 C/O #2 PCO #15 Added Formwork 1,885.20 942.60 942.60 1,885.20 100% 0.00 188.52 48 C/O #2 PCO #16 Water & Sanitation 6,842.50 6,842.50 0.00 6,842.50 100% 0.00 684.25 49 (70 #2 PCO #17 Minor Utility Changs-Gerr 1,365.00 0.00 1,365.00 1,365.00 100% 0.00 136.50 50 C/O #2 PCO #22 Addtl Survey Costs for Ma 2,295.68 2,295.68 0.00 2,295,68 100% 0.00 229.57 51 C/O #2 PCO #30 Pothote & Excavate Existir 1,367.41 683.71 683.70 1,367.41 100% 0.00 136.74 52 C/O #3 PCO #46 Larger Pier Footings 30,000.00 0.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 100% 0.00 3,000.00 53 C/O #4 PCO #10 Water & Gas line to Unde 5,659.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 5,659.39 0.00 54 C/O #4 PCO #11 NE Entrance 4,695.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 4,695.89 0.00 55 (/0 14 PCO #19 Year Round Use Power Ch 12,430.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 12,430.06 0.00 56 70 #4 PCO #23 Water Room Larger 1,465.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 1,465.90 0.00 57 C/O #4 PCO #25 Credit PCO from C/O #2 [2,307.60) 0.00 (2,307.60) (2,307.601 100% 0.00 (230.76) 58 (/0 #4 PCO #27 HW Heater Exhaust Flues 734.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 734.24 0.00 59 C/O #4 PCO #28 Light Ballast Change - PRP 57316 0.00 573.16 573.16 100% 0.00 57.32 60 C/O #4 PCO #31 Revised Storm Sewer 3,176.84 0.00 3,176.84 3,176.84 100% 0.00 317.68 61 C/O #4 PCO #35 Bldg Elevation Cert 640.78 0.00 640.78 640.78 100% 0.00 64.08 62 C/O #4 PCO #38 Rock Excavation Water Lir 6,390.52 0.00 6,390.52 6,390.52 100% 0.00 639.05 63 C/O #4 PCO #39 Rock Excavation Storm Lin 2,697.05 0.00 2,697.05 2,697.05 100% 0.00 269.71 64 C/O #4 PCO #47 Install Modified Type C Inl 3,755.S9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 3,755.59 0.00 65 C/O #4 PCO #48 Storm Protection Flow Fill 964.56 0.00 964.56 964.56 100% 0.00 96.46 66 C/O #4 PCO #52 12" Foundation Wall 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/ot 0.00 0.00 ~Totals | $1,734,866.12 | $478,969.13 I $144,647.32 | $223,200.00 | $846,816.45 | 49% | $888,049.67 | $84,681.65 | CURRENT APPUCATION FOR PAYMENT 1 ORIGINAL CONTRACT SUM $ 1,635,012.00 2 Net Change by Change Orders 99,854.12 3 CONTRACT SUM TO DATE (1+/-2) 1,734,866.12 4 TOT COMPUSTORED TO DATE 846,816.45 5 RETAINAGE (10% OF 4) 79,181.67 (excludes GC's & Fee) 6 TOTAL EARNED LESS RETAIN (4-5) 767,634.78 7 LESS PREVIOUS PMNTS 431,072.22 8 CURRENTPAYMENTDUE 336,562.56 9 CURRENT SALES TAX DUE 0.00 10 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE | 336,562.56 | 11 BAL TO FINISH (3-6) $ 967,231.34 CONTINGENCIES/CHANGE ORDERS 2/17/2010 Description Budget Actual Balance C/O #1 PCO #4 Bldrs Risk $1,735.00 $1,735.00 $0.00 C/O #1 PCO #8 Standpipe $5,619.10 $2,500.00 $3,119.10 C/O #1 PCO #9 NW Grading $3,156.80 $0.00 $3,156.80 C/O #1 PCO #12 Precon Addtl $74.49 $74.49 $0.00 C/O #1 PCO #13 Bldg Elevation $641.41 $320.71 $320.70 C/O #1 PCO #14 Flowfill $3,995.15 $3,995.15 $0.00 C/O #2 PCO #15 Added Formwork $1,885.20 $1,885.20 $0.00 C/O #2 PCO #16 Water & Sanitation $6,842.50 $6,842.50 $0.00 C/O #2 PCO #17 Minor Utility Changs-Gerrard $1,365.00 $1,365.00 $0.00 C/O #2 PCO #22 Addtl Survey Costs for Major Util $2,295.68 $2,295.68 $0.00 C/O #2 PCO #30 Pothole & Excavate Existing Sani $1,367.41' $1,367.41 $0.00 C/O #3 PCO #46 Larger Pier Footings $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $0.00 C/O #4 PCO #10 Water & Gas line to Underground $5,659.39 $0.00 $5,659.39 C/O #4 PCO #11 NE Entrance $4,695.89 $0.00 $4,695.89 C/O #4 PCO #19 Year Round Use Power Changes $12,430.06 $0.00 $12,430.06 C/O #4 PCO #23 Water Room Larger $1,465.90 $0.00 $1,465.90 C/O #4 PCO #25 Credit PCO from C/O #2 ($2,307.60) ($2,307.60) $0.00 C/O #4 PCO #27 HW Heater Exhaust Flues $734.24 $0.00 $734.24 C/O #4 PCO #28 Light Ballast Change - PRPA Rebate $573.16 $573.16 $0.00 C/O #4 PCO #31 Revised Storm Sewer $3,176.84 $3,176.84 $0.00 C/O #4 PCO #35 Bldg Elevation Cert $640.78 $640.78 $0.00 C/O #4 PCO #38 Rock Excavation Water Line $6,390.52 $6,390.52 $0.00 C/O #4 PCO #39 Rock Excavation Storm Line $2,697.05 $2,697.05 $0.00 C/O #4 PCO #47 Install Modified Type C Inlet $3,755.59 $0.00 $3,755.59 C/O #4 PCO #48 Storm Protection Flow Fill $964.56 $964.56 $0.00 C/O #4 PCO #52 12" Foundation Wall $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Totals $99,854.12 $64,516.45 $35,337.67 SUPPLEMENTAL ITEMS 2/17/2010 Description Budget Actual Balance Drainage Study/Improvements $25,000.00 $0.00 $25,000.00 Materials Testing 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 Design Fees 15,000.00 O.00 15,000.00 Construction Management 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 Water Tap Fees 109,000.00 0.00 109,000.00 Foundation 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 VIP Chairs 30,000.00 O.00 30,000.00 Sound System 60,000.00 0.00 60,000.00 Use of Existing Facilities 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 Builders Risk Insurance 1,700.00 0.00 1,700.00 Landscaping 60,000.00 0.00 60,000.00 Community Development 14,413.00 0.00 14,413.00 Geotechnical fees 0.00 2,400.00 (2,400.00) Traffic Analysis 0.00 575.00 (575.00) RFP Ad 0.00 366.00 (366.00) Foundation design criteria 0.00 105.00 (105.00) Ad 0.00 58.00 (58.00) Asbestos Abatement O.00 3,050.00 (3,050.00) Lead based paint removal 0.00 1,555.00 (1,555.00) Mitigation removal hazardous material 0.00 4,210.00 (4,210.00) Totals $350,113.00 $12,319.00 $337,794.00 ARCHITECTURE FEES U17/2010 Description Budget Actual Balance Project Programming $5,984.00 $5,984.00 $0.00 Schematic Design 3,740.00 3,740.00 0.00 Design Development 7,480.00 7,480.00 0.00 Construction Documents 41,140.00 41,140.00 0.00 Bidding or Negotiation 2,244.00 2,244.00 0.00 Construction 14,212.00 2,132.00 12,080.00 Additional Recoverables Original Contract 0.00 7,771.00 (7,771.00) Ad Hoc Committee 0.00 17,844.00 (17,844.00) Height variance 0.00 26,872.00 (26,872.00) Parking lot design 0.00 2,000.00 (2,000.00) Water detention pond 0.00 5,533.00 (5,533.00) Smoke detection sign 0.00 5,469.00 (5,469.00) Water system redesign 0.00 4,841.00 (4,841.00) Year round use 0.00 3,450.00 (3,450.00) Standpipe design 0.00 3,582.00 (3,582.00) Additional structural designs 0.00 11,024.00 (11,024.00) Other recoverables 0.00 2,067.00 (2,067.00) Professional services 0.00 22,334.00 (22,334.00) Extra bid analysis 0.00 2,507.00 (2,507.00) Alt Value engineering 0.00 1,465.00 (1,465.00) Totals $74,800.00 $179,479.00 ($104,679.00) TOWN OF GrES PARit_ CIfEII-21183<,JI,N*IjIO Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Lowell Richardson Date: February 19, 2010 RE: Report - 2010 Shuttle Schedule Background: Each year Town staff reviews and revises shuttle routes and times based on fiscal considerations and ridership. The first three years (2006-2008) were agreed upon trial years for the system using excess buses for free from Rocky Mountain National Park. At the end of the 3 year trial, in 2009, the board agreed that the shuttles were important for mobility in the busy summer months, but also recognized the town now had to pay for buses. Staff recommended slight changes to the schedule, including reduces hours based on low ridership numbers, to avoid large increases to the 2009 shuttle budget. Following is a history of the shuttle routes: 2006: two shopper shuttles, ran 8 a.m. - 7 p.m., one bus ran until 10 p.m., through Labor Day, budget $99,710, cost per passenger $5.31 2007: two shopper shuttles, one campground route ran 8 a.m. - 10 p.m., budget $169,564, cost per passenger $4.90 2008: two shopper shuttles, one campground route, ran 10 a.m. - 9 p.m., budget $169,000, cost per passenger $5.25 2009: first year to pay for buses, two shopper shuttles, one campground route, ran 10 a.m. - 8 p.m., budget $186,427, cost per passenger $7.10 2010: two shopper shuttles 10 a.m. - 7 p.m., one campground route, proposed 10 a.m. - 8 p.m., budget $177,555 Following are the minutes from the October 2009 budget study session when shuttles were discussed: TRANSPORTATION Deputy Town Administrator Richardson reviewed the changes made to the shuttle system in 2009, including the new Fall River Road route, smaller vehicles, new shuttle signs at each stop with the route and pick up times, and a loss of $10,000 in advertising Page 1 revenue with the use of smaller buses. The shuttle system was down 29% in ridership most likely due to a change in operating hours and a new route. Cost of ridership was up significantly in 2009 by almost $2.00 per rider. The 2010 budget includes $177,555 for buses, fuel, drivers, office supplies and signage with a reduction in service days. Staff would review options for making the buses more distinctive to the riders. With the need to present a flat budget for 2010, the transportation budget was presented to the Town Board during the budget study sessions in October 2009 with a recommended reduction in the overall budget. Staff recommended reducing the hours of operation and the number of days to reduce costs. The ridership numbers provided by Rocky Mountain Transit suggested two things: 1) The camper route should not change times based on ridership numbers. July and August suggests ridership averages 9.6 and 10.6 during the times of 7PM-8PM. 2) The shopper routes (red and blue) do not support maintaining hours to 8PM. July numbers are 5.2 riders from 7PM-8PM for two buses and August is 3.2 riders. Ridership numbers suggest reducing the days of Operation in September to the Labor Day weekend (3 days) then discontinuing the remaining weekends in September. The Scot fest weekerid retains buses for service. While the shuttle route and camper route numbers reduce by 35% compared to August weekends. Budget: There would only be a budget implication if the board wanted to add more hours to the shopper shuttle route. One business suggested we start the shopper shuttle one hour later (11 a.m. - 8 a.m.) Staff is amenable to this suggestion, as it would not increase costs. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends reducing the shuttle route schedule by one hour ending at 7PM and keeping the camper schedule ending at 8PM due to low ridership numbers. Sample Motion: Report only - No motion required. . TOWN oF ESTES PARIÂ© m.-'mÂ»lnÂ·w=..9/4 :.1,3 Memo .*Emt:&*ity Devotopment TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Robert Joseph, Director David Shirk, Planner*# Date: February 23, 2010 RE: Wind Turbine Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code - Second Reading/Public Hearing Background: This is a proposal to adopt regulations pertaining to Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems ("wind turbines"); the development code currently does not specifically address wind turbine regulations. This is the second reading for wind turbine regulations; the first reading was January 26. At the January 26 meeting, the Board discussed separating micro wind systems from the discussion of larger units. Therefore, Staff has prepared two attachments. Exhibit A addresses micro-wind. Exhibit B is the Planning Commission recommended language, amended to account for Town Board comments from the January 26 meeting. History. On August 11, the Town Board issued a 120-day moratorium on the issuance of any building permits for the installation of any wind turbine within the Town of Estes Park; on December 8, the Board extended this moratorium to March 8, 2010. The moratorium was intended provide the Board of Trustees an "opportunity to review the input received from the public process concerning potential impacts of wind turbines on properties within the Town and consider adoption of any necessary regulations addressing any negative impacts of the location and operation of wind turbines within the Town." Following the moratorium, the Planning Commission drafted this problem statement: "Identify the needs and issues associated with potential regulation of residential wind turbines. Recommend appropriate code language, if necessary, to the Town Board and County Commissioners." To this end, the Planning Commission has conducted three public hearing to gather input from members of the public. As a result of those hearings, the Planning Commission recommends the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners approve an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code to allow and regulate wind turbines. TB Memo Feb 23 - Wind Turbine 1 ., Basis of Recommendation. The Planning Commission drafted a "Basis for Recommended Wind Turbine Regulations," which outlines the use of the problem statement, researcM, basis for recommendation, and key conclusions (attached for reference). Meeting Dates. Estes Valley Planning Commission - â€¢ November 12, 2009: Initial discussion, set parameters â€¢ November 17, 2009: After public input regarding "micro-wind", opted to continue to December meeting â€¢ December 15, 2009: Unanimous vote to recommend approval. Town Board - â€¢ January 26, 2010: First Reading â€¢ , February 23, 2010: Second Reading Board of County Commissioners- â€¢ TBD Budget: N/A Planning Commission Recommendation: At their regularly scheduled December 15, 2009 meeting, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted unanimously (5-0 with two absent) to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed changes to Section 5.2 of the Estes Valley Development Code to allow Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems. The Planning Commission findings and recommend language were included in the January 26 memo. The language has been amended by Staff to account for Town Board requests. Sample Motions: Micro Wind: I move to approve (disapprove, table) the proposed amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code Section 5.2 'Wind Turbines", as delineated in Exhibit A (micro wind). Small Wind: I move to approve (disapprove, table, remand) the proposed amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code Section 5.2 "Wind Turbines", as delineated in Exhibit B (small wind). Page 2 Exhibit A: Micro Wind FORMAT: 1) Existing text in black font. 2) Proposed text in blue underlined text. 3) Text to be removed in feâ‚¬1-strikethrewgh. Â§ 5.2 ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES A. General Standards. [No Changes] B. Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. 1. Table of Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. Table 5-1 Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts Residential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted Additional Accessory Use RE-1 RE Ed E R R-1 R-2 RM Requirements Micro Wind Yes ~ Yes |Yes |Yes |Yes |Yes |Yes |Yes Â§5.2.B.2.q Energy Conversion Systems 2. Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. q. Micro Wind Enemy Conversion Systems. (1) Size. The swept area of any individual micro wind energy conversion system shall not exceed fifteen square feet. Exhibit A - Micro Wind 1 . (2) Height. Height shall be measured from original natural grade to the highest point of the structure moving or fixed, whichever is greatest, and shall not exceed thirty (30) feet. (3) Ridgeline Protection Areas. Micro wind enemy conversion systems shall be subiect to Ridgeline Protection Standards set forth in Section 7.2.C. (4) Noise. All systems outside the Town limits of the Town of Estes Park shall comply with the noise standards found in Larimer County Ordinance 97-03 (as amended). All systems located within the Town of Estes Park shall comply with the noise standards found in the Municipal Code of tlie To*n of Estes Park. (5) Lighting Prohibited. Lighting, graphics, signs and other decoration are prohibited on the system, nor shall lighting be located in such a manner to illuminate the structure. (6) Operating Condition. All systems shall be kept in safe operating condition. a. Systems found to be unsafe bv an official of the Town of Estes Park Light and Power Department, or the Protective Inspection Divisions of the Town of Estes Park or Larimer County, shall be subiect to emergency enforcement processes set forth in Section 12.6. b. Inoperative systems shall be repaired within three (3) months of becoming inoperative, or be subsequently entirely removed bv the owner, at the owners expense, within six (6) months of becoming inoperative. If the installation ceases to function as intended and designed by the manufacturer it shall be deemed inoperative. (7) Limit on Number. Multiple micro-wind systems mav be installed on a lot, but shall not exceed, a cumulative aggregate swept area of forty-fivd square feet. (8) Swept Area.shall mean the largest vertical cross-sectional area of the wind-driven parts as measured by the outermost perimetet of blades. Exhibit A - Micro Wind 2 . (9) Electrical Connections. Electrical connections and lines shall be placed below ground. C. Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. 1. Table of Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 5-2 Accessory Uses Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts Nonresidential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted Additional Accessory Use A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Conditions Micro Wind Energy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5.2.8.2.q Conversion Systems Chapter 13- Definitions Section 13.3 â€¢ Micro Wind Enemy Conversion System (MWECS). A wind energy conversion system consisting of a wind turbine with a swept area less than fifteen (15) square feet, including appurtenant equipment, and which is intended to primarily reduce on-site consumption of utility power. Such systems are accessory to the principal use or structure on a lot. Exhibit A - Micro Wind 3 Exhibit B: Small Wind The following language reflects changes requested by the Town Board at the January 26, 2010 public hearing: operating condition ("safe" or "inoperative"); electrical connections below ground. 1 . FORMAT: 1) Existing text in black font. 2) Proposed text in blue underlined text. 3) Text to be removed in Fed-strike#geugh. Â§ 5.2 ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES A General Standards. [No'Changes] B. Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. 1. Table of Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. Table 5-1 Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts Residential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted Additional Accessory Use RE-1 RE E-1 E R R-1- R-2 RM + Requirements Small Wind Yes ~ Yes |Yes |Yes |Yes | Yes | Yes |Yes Â§5.2.8.2.h Energy Conversion Systems 2. Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. h. Small Wind Enemy Conversion Systems (SWECS, or "system", including micro-wind). Exhibit B - Small Wind 1 (1) Size. The swept area of anv individual small-wind enerqv conversion system shall not exceed four hundred (400) square feet. (21 Height. Height shall be measured from original natural grade to the highest point of the SWECS structure moving or fixed, whichever is greatest, and shall not exceed thirty (30) feet. (3) Setbacks. a. Setbacks from property lines shall be five times the structure height. For example: a thirty (30) foot tall system shall have a minimum setback of 150-feet from the nearest property line. b. This setback requirement shall also apply to public or private roads that serve more than four adiacent or off-site lots, and shall be measured from the edge of public or private roads, the edge of the dedicated right-of-way or recorded easement or the property line, whichever produces a greater setback. (4) Ridgeline Protection Areas. a. SWECS shall not be permitted on land designated as a ridgeline protection area. b. If the site contains an identified ridqeline protection area, the Applicant may, by site-specific analysis, demonstrate that the location of the proposed system is not on a ridgeline. c. This shall require development plan review and approval of the Estes Valley Planning Commission. d. The development plan application shall include a visual analysis, including photographic simulations, from viewpoints as determined bv Staff. e. In determining the system is not on a ridqeline, the Planning Commission shall find the system has been sited to avoid the visible intrusion of the structure above the designated ridgelines or above existing ridge-top trees or vegetation, and thus preserve identified scenic views across or through the site. Compliance with this standard requires siting the structure such that the highest point is below a ridgeline so there is a solid, mountain backdrop behind the structure. (5) Noise. All systems outside the Town limits of the Town of Estes Park shall comply with the noise standards found in Larimer County Ordinance 97-03 (as amended). All systems located Exhibit B - Small Wind 2 within the Town of Estes Park shall comply with the noise standards found in Â· the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park. (6) Lighting Prohibited. Lighting, graphics, signs and other decoration are prohibited +on the system, nor shall lighting be located in such a manner to illuminate the structure. (7) Operatinq Condition. All systems shall be kept in safe operating condition. a. Systems found to be unsafe bv an official of the Town of Estes Park Light and Power Department, or the Protective Inspection Divisions of the Town of Estes Park or LArimer County, shall be subiect to emergency enforcement processes set forth in Section 12.6. b. Inoperative systems shall be repaired within three (3) months of becoming inoperative, or be subsequently entirely removed bv the owner, at the owners expense, within six (6) months of becoming inoperative. If the installation ceases to ~ function as intended and designed bv the manufacturer it shall be deemed inoperative. (8) Ground C/earance. The minimum distance between the ground and anv blades or moving parts utilized on a system shall be ten (10) feet as measured at the lowest point of the swept area. (9) Blade Speed. Systems shall be equipped with controls to limit the rotational speed of the blade within the design limits of the rotor. (10) Permit Required. A building permit shall be required for the installation of all Small Wind Enerqv Conversion Systems. (11) Limit on Number. There shall not be more than one (1) system on a lot. (12) Swept Area shall mean the largest vertical cross-sectional area of the wind-driven parts as measured bv the outermost perimeter of blades. (13) Electrical Connections. Electrical connections and lines shall be placed below around. Exhibit B - Small Wind 3 C. Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. 1. Table of Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 5-2 Accessory Uses Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts Nonresidential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted"No" = Not Permitted Additional Accessory Use A A-1 CD CO O CH I.1 Conditions Small Wind Energy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5.2.B.2.h Conversion Systems D General Dimensional and Operational Requirements. The following standards shall apply to all accessory uses and structures in all zoning districts, except for: (1) Satellite antenna dishes accessory to residential uses that are one (1) meter or less in diameter; and (2) Satellite antenna dishes accessory to nonresidential uses that are two (2) meters or less in diameter. (Ord. 15-03 #1) 1. Time of Estab#shment. No accessory use shall be established and no accessory structures shall be allowed on the subject parcel until after all required permits and approvals for the principal use or activity have been obtained. (Ord. 15-03 #1) 2. Setbacks. No accessory use, structure or activity, except for permitted fences or walls shall be located or take place within a required setback. On residential lots of less than one (1) acre all accessory buildings, excluding detached garages, shall be located no closer to the front property line than the residential dwelling. Small Wind Enemy Conversion Systems shall be subiect to setback requirements set forth in Section 5.2.B. (Ord. 15-03 #1) 3. Setbacks from Easements. No accessory structure shall be located within any platted or recorded easement or over any known utility. (Ord. 15-03 #1) 4. Maximum Building or Structure Size for Nonresidential Uses. \No Changes] Exhibit B - Small Wind 4 5. Maximum Cumulative Gross Floor Area Allowed for all Accessory Uses in Accessory Buildings, Accessory Structures and/or Principal Buildings for Residential Uses. INO Changes] 6. Maximum Number of Freestanding Accessory Buildings and Structures, Including Detached Garages, Pet Single-Family Residential Lot. No more than one (1) accessory building or structure less than or equal to one hundred twenty (120) square -feet and no more than two (2) accessory buildings or structures greaterlhan one hundred twenty (120) square feet shall be allowed on a lot of two-and-a-half (2.5) acres or less. Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems and "micro-wind" systems shall be exempt from this limitation. 7. Building or Structure Height. The height limitations set forth in the underlying zoning districts shall apply to all accessory buildings and structutes located therein. (Ord. 15-03#1) 8. Dwelling Unit Prohibited. [No Changes] 9. Operations. Accessory structures, buildings and uses shall be constructed, maintained and conducted to avoid production of noise, vibration, concussion, dust, dirt, smoke, odors, noxious gases, fly ash, heat or glare from artificial illumination or from reflection of natural light. 10. Limits on Mob#e Homes/RVs. [No Changes] Chapter 13- Definitions ' t Section 13.3 â€¢ Small Wind Enertly Conversion System (SWECS). A wind energy conversion system consisting of a wind turbine with a swept area less than 400 square feet, including appurtenant equipment which has a rated capacity of not more than 25 kW and which is intended to primarily reduce on-site consumption of utility power., Such systems are accessory to the principal use or structure on a lot. Exhibit B - Small Wind 5 . Renewable Energy Survey This Renewable Energy Survey is a non-scientific survey of interested individuals conducted from September 15 through midnight on October 15. Responses were collected through the web service www.surveymonkey.com and print surveys were available in the Town Administration office for individuals without internet access. The survey was promoted through newspaper articles, radio, utility bill messages, at public meetings and on the Town website. The website displayed a prominent link on the homepages as well as links from the News Desk, Utilities and Community Development pages. A search for "survey" on the Town site provided the page as the first result. Survey results indicate the level of public support for existing and potential Town-sponsored renewable energy and efficiency programs and gather opinions on how the Estes Valley Development Code should address residential wind turbine installations. Response 804 responses were received and 746 surveys were completed through the final page. If the online survey was exited at any point before clicking "done" on the final page, answers were recorded as valid results, but the survey was not counted in the total of completed surveys. Included in these totals are 12 surveys that were completed in the print format; data was entered by staff. Value of Data Voluntary response surveys, such as this, tend to over-represent individuals with strong opinions; individuals who are less-opinionated do not tend to respond. Thus, the results are only descriptive of the self-selected sample and should not be used to make generalizations about the larger population that did not respond. Given time and financial constraints, staff used www.surveymonkey.com to make a survey available to the public quickly and with minimal cost ($19.95/mo). The survey was available to all interested individuals. Staff was reliant upon the integrity of the individual members of the public in filling out the survey once. Staff did investigate the distribution of responses against I.P. (Internet Protocol) addresses and there was not significant concern of multiple identical responses from a single I.P. address. Further, it should be noted that a single I.P. address may represent multiple individuals using a common network, such as the Town offices or even an Internet Service Provider's private network. Five instances of obscene language and references to specific individuals were edited and noted within the original comment. All instances occurred in the "final comments" section of the survey results. Summary of Results The Planning Commission is presented with the following survey results pertinent to the wind turbine issues. Survey results pertaining to renewable energy programs were not included as they were irrelevant to this particular discussion. While comments from survey respondents were included in the results packet, it is important to note that pertinent data is best represented by the quantifiable responses to the questions. Comments generally reinforce the respondents' responses to each question. Residence: The majority of respondents (63.3%) said they live full- or part-time within the Town limits while 32.8% said they live in the county area. Wind Turbine Visual Impact: When asked about the visual impact of a wind turbine on a 30-foot pole, 33.6% of respondents felt the visual impact is positive while 32.3% felt the visual impact is negative and existing views should be protected by not allowing wind turbines. Wind Turbine Ban: The majority of respondents (65.1%) felt the Estes Valley Development Code should NOT be amended to ban the installation of wind turbines at any height. + Respondents who felt wind turbines should be banned were not asked subsequent questions about regulations as they were irrelevant to those respondents. Wind Turbine Regulations: Of those who felt wind turbines should NOT bebanned, 53.7% felt wind turbines should be regulated by the Code. Respondents who felt wind turbines should be regulated were asked to indicate why they should be regulated by choosing one or more pre-defined options. 58% chose to protect views. An equal proportion chose to protect wildlife including birds. 42% chose to protect property values. 71.4% chose for human safety. , Respondents who felt wind turbines should be regulated were also asked to indicate how they should be regulated by choosing one or more pre-defined options. 65.2% chose by height. 66.9% chose by setbacks from property line. 63.9% chose by noise. 34.4% chose by lot size. 45.2% chose by the color of the turbine. 43.6% chose by requiring neighbor notifications. 85.2% chose by requiring removal of inoperable installations. Respondents who felt wind turbines should not be regulated were not asked questions about why and how to regulate as they were irrelevant to those respondents. Respondents who felt wind turbines should be regulated were also asked to indicate if they should be regulated by setbacks from property lines given the example of a 30-foot tall unit. The majority of respondents (40.1%) felt the setback should be equal to the height of the unit (30 feet) while 28.6% specified they didn't believe setbacks should be regulated in this case. Respondents who felt wind turbines should be regulated were asked to indicate preferred height limits for wind turbines inside the Estes Valley Planning area. 25.3% believed it should be 30 feet or less. A similar proportion (24.9%) had no opinion. Respondents were also asked to provide this answer for installations outside the Estes Valley Planning Area. Those results have not been included here as they are irrelevant to the discussion. Solar Panels: All survey respondents regardless of the responses on banning and regulating wind turbines were asked their opinion of ground-mounted and roof-mounted solar panels. 68.8% supported the use of ground-mounted solar panels on all local-properties and 78.8% supported the use of roof-mounted solar panels on all local properties. Swept Area shall mean the largest vertical cross-sectional area of the wind-driven parts as measured by the outermost perimeter of blades. Horizontal Axis: ' .14 -2 - -r. i F . 4 . ...... 4Â· KI ljll 1!1/ lili X 1 t 1.1 UPWIND TWO THREE MULTIBLADE BLADES BLADES PASSIVE Â¥AW WITH TAIL VANE Vertical Axis: ~#St:43:#rK. i VE "..,IM -7-22.1.-- - C... V * agn -401*Â«:. ~A~, thy..x,.* > .1 11 - lllill 111111 /j///t ljil1j ll11ll DIAMOND DELTA "Y" PHI * . Basis for Recommended Wind Turbine Regulations From 12/15/09 Planning Commission Study Session / 51 Use of the Problem Statement: â€¢ Task: Â°Identify the needs and issues associated with potential regulation of ... wind turbines. 1 Recommend appropriate code language, if necessary, to the Town Board and County Commissioners." â€¢ Received input from both Staff and Trustees that helped guide our effons. â€¢ All elements of the task have been completed. Research: â€¢ 9 months of work by Staff and Commissioners â€¢ 5 public meetings, with dozens of letters and in-person comments from citizens â€¢ On-line sulvey with over 1100 comments. â€¢ Review of an entire year's worth of Estes Valley wind data, collected by CSU. â€¢ Visit to National Renewable Energy Laboratory. â€¢ Worked with Utilities Department to determine how regulations will best lit in with our building codes. â€¢ From this research, the Commission and Staff have developed a clear understanding of the community's views on this issue, an up-to-date understanding of the current state of wind turbine technology, and implications for the use of wind turbines in the Estes Valley. Basis for Our Recommendations: â€¢ Planning Commission's role: t. consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also the effect a particular develogment will have on the surroundina area and the communitv as a whole." (Ref.: Planning Commission Handbook, p. 1, March 24,2000) â€¢ Citizen input: Many citizens do not want to ban wind turbines, but do want to regulate them, to protect the visual character of the Valley, and the fact that alternative wind energy purchase programs are available. There was significant interest by some citizens in small micro.turbines. â€¢ Status of technology: NREL input, technical literature, and local wind data suggest that wind turbines are not likely to be sianficant sources of alternative enemy for most Estes Valley locations. â€¢ Wind-generated power is available through the Platte River Power Authoritv's wind enerav Droaram. Key Conclusions: To appropriately balance individual interests and the interests of the community: o Restrict the use of large (>15 sq. ft. swept area) turbines to the larger lots in the valley, via setbacks. o Allow use of micriturbines (<15 sq. ft. per tulbine, with a maximum total swept area of 40 sq. ft.) on most lots by reducing setback limits. Problem Statement on Wind Turbines, Rev. 1: 11/4/09 Issue: (Describe the issue being addressed and why/reasons change is needed.) . Current Estes Valley Development Code does not regulate installation of residential wind turbines by individual property owners. It is pot immediately obvious whether reglilation of these turbines is needed, and if so, what regulations would be appropriate. Community"opinion is divided, with some residents supporting installation, and others concerned about the impact of these turbines on views, noise, and wildlife. Purpose: (State problem to be solved in 2-3 sentences.) Identify the needs and issues associated with potential regulation of residential wind turbines. Recommend appropriate code language, il necessary, to the Towrl Board and County Commissioners. Scope: (Explain: 1. What is and is not to be considered. 2. Any other constraints or boundaries within which the work is to be kept. 3. Desired timing. 4. Suggested priority for this change.) 1. Collect community input on potential benefits and problems associated with residential turbines (includes on-line survey and two public hearings in November). 2. Assess the current state of residential wind turbine technology and economics. 3. Summarize key findings. 4. Recommend any action needed to regulate these turbines, and reasons why. 5. Provide recommendations to the Town Board befare expiration of the current wind turbine moratorium. 6. If the Town Board concurs with these recommendations, work with Staff to develop specific code language (if required) for presentation to the Town Board in December 2009. 7. If meaningful recommendations cannot be developed before the moratorium expires, request an extension of the moratorium. Desired Outcomes: (Describe the benefits to be gained by solving this problem.) â€¢ Clear understanding of the community's views on this issue. â€¢ Understanding of the current state of wind turbine technology and economics, in order to provide a sound basis for recommendations. â€¢ A recommendation on whether these turbines should be regulated, and why or why not. â€¢ A list of any specific recommendations for regulations, the reasons for these regulations, and benefits to the community for having them. â€¢ A list of any potential adverse consequences of these regulations, and how they can be avoided or mitigated. â€¢ Public awareness of any proposed regulations, reasoning, and benefits. A LARIMER AILIA# COUNTY www.larimer.org Planning & Building Services 200 W. Oak Street - 34 Floor P.O. Box 1190 1 -2-Ill Fort Collins, CO 80521 970-498-7683 Windmills and Wind Generators ~ Updated: 3/19/2009 I Wind Generator Definition Small Wind Energy Facility Definition A generator specifically designed to convert kinetic A facility which Is used for the production of electrical i energy in wind into electrical energy. A wind energy from energy supplied by the wind including I generator may include a generator, tower, and any transmission Ilnes, and developed for the I associated control or conversion electronics. The ! purposes of supplying or distributing electrical energy ~ height of a wind generator is measured at the hub of to a customer or customers, and in which there are Â£ the generator. no more than three wind generator towers and the | i hub height of the wind towers does not exceed 80 1 Accessory Wind Generator - Land Use Code, feet. Section 4.3.10.1 Minor Special Review Approval Each lot may include a wind generator for the use of Section 4.3.7.N of the Larimer county Land Use Code the property owner. requires Minor Special Review application and An accessory wind generator that cannot meet all the approval for a Small Wind Facility. This approval following standards requires review and approval must be obtained prior to submitting a building through the Minor Special Review Application permit application. process. Approval of the special review must be obtained prior to submitting a building permit application. Building Permit Wind generator standards: Wind generators greater than twelve (12) feet in hub height are required to obtain a building permit. All 1. One wind generator per lot is allowed. building permits will be reviewed for compliance with 2. The lot must be at least one acre. zoning setback requirements and zoning use as 3. The hub height of the wind generator must not designated by the Land Use Code. exceed 40 feet. Building Permit Submittal Requirements 4. The wind generator must be setback from property lines, public right of way and access 1. Four Plot plan drawings showing the location of easements at least 2 times the hub height of the the wind generator tower, any accessory generator. generator or buildings. Include the hub height in 5. The wind generator must be painted or coated a plot plan drawing. non-reflective white, gray or other neutral color. 2. Two sets of engineered construction drawings 6. The wind generator must not be artificially 1 including calculations for wind design according to illuminated. 1 the high wind speed map with 1/2" ice retention i and engineered foundation plans. 7. The wind generator must not be used to display advertising. 8. Electrical controls must be wireless or Electrical Permit underground and power lines must be underground except for an interconnection to an ; Wind generators need to obtain an electrical permit existing above ground power grid. for inspection of electrical work. 9. Noise emanating from the wind generator must i Colorado State Electrical Board be in compliance with Larimer County Code 1 1560 Broadway, Suite 1500 Chapter 30, Article V, Noise. Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: 303-894-2985 For additional information on Land Use Code Electrical Permits Online: requirements contact: www.dora.state. co.us/electrical Larimer County Planning Department - 200 West Oak Street, 3rd floor Fort Collins, CO 80521 970-498-7683 0-3 Email: www.planningoncall@larimer.org ORDINANCE NO. 07-10 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 5.2 ACCESSORY USES AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO INCLUDE SMALL WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 5.2 Accessory Uses and Accessory Structures ; and WHEREAS, said amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code are set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 5.2 Accessory Uses and Accessory Structures set forth on Exhibit "A" and recommended for approval by the Estes Valley Planning Commission be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully set forth on Exhibit "A". Section 2: 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 ,2010. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: 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 , 2010 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2010, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 06-10 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 5.2 ACCESSORY USES AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO INCLUDE MICRO WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 5.2 Accessory Uses and Accessory Structures ; and WHEREAS, said amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code are set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 5.2 Accessory Uses and Accessory Structures set forth on Exhibit "A" and recommended for approval by the Estes Valley Planning Commission be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully set forth on Exhibit "A". Section 2: 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 ,2010. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: 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 2010 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, ColArado, on the day of , 2010, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk a. . Exhibit "A from Staff Report " to be attached to Ordinance #06-10 as Exhibit "A" if approved by the Board. Exhibit "B" from Staff Report to be attached to Ordinance #07-10 as Exhibit "A" if approved by the Board. February 23, 2010 The Honorable Mayor Bill Pinkham The Honorable Estes Park Board of Trustees Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Sirs & Madam: (1 am unable to appear personally Tuesday evening (Feb. 23rd) to offer my comments due to my commitment as a "regular" performer with the Village Band, rehearsing Tuesday for a joint concert with the High School Band on March 8th. Therefore, I ask you to accept my written comments for the record, as read by MS. Shari Kleist.) I write with interest in the proposed changes to the Estes Valley Development Code as it relates to Wind Turbines. It is my firm conviction that the adaptability of this alternative means of power generation, as it could be used in Estes Park, has not been adequately researched and considered. We must not adopt the changes proposed to the Estes Valley Development Code by the Community Development Department with regard to the proliferation of wind turbines in the Estes Valley. At your January 12, 2010 meeting, a memorandum from the Town Utilities Engineer cited the wind study conducted by experts at Colorado State University. In this study Estes Park winds were determined to be completely unsuitable for the optimum use of small wind turbines in the generation of electric power. This verdict was acknowledged at that same meeting by a member of the Estes Valley Planning Commission. One wonders why, if wind turbines are deemed by experts citing reputable research to be an inefficient and inappropriate means of alternative energy generation in this incomparably lovely mountain area, residents and visitors should then be subjected to the inherent danger and irritation incumbent upon their use. Unproven in geographic conditions such as ours, wind turbines would then be merely an experiment in the imposition of a visual blight in order to satisfy the current and unrealistic fad to be "green" at all costs. We must also consider the introduction of new forms of pollution created by increased use of aluminum whirligigs--hydrogen emissions from the multitude of new batteries that will be necessary for power storage; the visually offensive imposition of fan blades interrupting our views of the Back Range, of Long's Peak and the Twin Sisters, of the Twin Owls, of the massive glacially carved hanging valleys that make Estes Estes; not to mention the infernal whap whap whap of the turning blades superimposed on the verbalizations of the wandering elk and deer, as well as the sounds made by the hawks, eagles, and song birds (if any of them survive after meeting up with the twirling guillotine blades of the wind turbines). The Honorable Mayor Bill Pinkham The Honorable Estes Park Board of Trustees Page 2 Many generations of families have come to Estes Park as residents and visitors because it was a source of beauty and tranquility, because it soothed the soul and was a place to get back to what was "real" in a world of increasingly mechanized and chaotic modernization Many before you, and you yourselves, have worked diligently to preserve and enhance that experience. We must speak up, and be heard - in the face of just another unproven and inadequate piece of technology, which would endanger these precepts we have labored to protect for so many years ... our natural setting, our unique character, the environment, and our position as a premier mountain resort community. Thank you. Sincerely, Bob Rising - 3150 Carriage Drive Estes Park, CO 80517 TOWN of ESTES PARK.- 1 - t--7 - Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Bo Winslow, Fairgrounds and Events Manager Date: February 23, 2010 RE: Rooftop Rodeo Fee Structure Background: With Rodeo costs rising, the Events Department has been evaluating fees for the Rooftop Rodeo tickets. Staff has researched other rodeos in our region and is recommending a fee increase that would keep ticket costs within the range of what others are charging. Cheyenne GA tickets: $12-$24 Eagle County GA tickets: $16 Greeley GA tickets: $15; box seats: $20 & $25 Cody GA tickets: $20 & $24 Colorado Springs GA tickets: $10, $15 & $25 Steamboat Springs GA tickets: $20 Ticket 2009 Proposed 2010 Rooftop Rodeo Ticket Prices GA $15 $17 Child (3-11) $5 $ 5 *Military/Senior (over NhA $15 60) Active Military with ID N/A $10 with Town giving a $7 subsidy to Rodeo Committee Local $15 $15 Group (5 or more) $16 $16 Box Seat $20 $25 (if purchasing a box seat for all 6 performances, the fee would remain $20 per seat) *US Veterans, non active military, and Seniors over 60. . This fee structure was discussed at the Rooftop Rodeo Committee Meeting and the committee voted in the majority to support these fee increases. 4 - At the Community Development Committee Meeting, the Committee discussed the general fee structure, the fee structure for box seats, and the increase in the total number of seats that will be realized with the construction of the new grandstands, and suggested a larger Military/Senior discount to take ticket prices in this category from $15, which staff had initially recommended, to $10 each. The Committee requested that the Rooftop Rodeo Ticket Price Increase be included as an action item on the February 23,2010 Town Board meeting agenda. It was mentioned that a family of 4, with 2 kids ages 3-11, could still come to the rodeo for under $50. Budget: At the time budgets were prepared, the events department estimated an increase of $10,000 in revenues to the Events Department budget, account # 222-5500-342.20-40. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approving the Rooftop Rodeo's proposed ticket prices. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny the proposed Rooftop Rodeo ticket prices. TOWN or ESTES PAIU<L 21. Â·... Â«Community Services Department Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Betty Kilsdonk, Community Services Director Date: February 15, 2010 RE: Approval of Forever Resorts Service Agreements - Food & Beverage Background: The Town of Estes Park has had a legal and business relationship with Forever Resorts, dba Holiday Inn, since 1989. A Food and Beverage Concession Agreement for the Conference Center was renewed in January, 2008 and is in effect for five years. An annual review of performance under the terms and conditions of the agreement is to be held each January. This year the meeting was held on January 20. Participants included Forever Resorts Vice Presidents Bill Butts and John Schoppmann, Holiday Inn General Manager Chris Cook, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Sales & Marketing Manager Pickering, and Community Services Director Kilsdonk. Under the terms of the agreement, the Town shall give annual written approval to the proposed food and beverage cost on or before March 1St. If said approval is not given by March 1 st, the Forever Resorts' proposed pricing shall be deemed approved. Attached is the 2010 proposed food and beverage cost for the Conference Center. The cost is the same as in 2009. Budget: NA Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the 2010 proposed food and beverage cost. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny the proposed 2010 Conference Center food and beverage cost. illae I . -1-J 14 Breakfa,t Buffet: AÂ·la Cake Brealifagt Optiong Please choose from one of the following categories * Continental Breakfast $10.00 per person : i * {200 (Dptions $3.00 extra per person Assorted Danish, Muffins, & Croissants : Seasonal Sliced Fresh Fruit Tray : : Fit,ffy Scrambled Eggs Coffee, Hot Tea, & Orange Juice : Eggs Benedict : Denver Scrambld + Longs Peak $11.50 per person Â· Ham & Cheese Omelet --- Egg & Che@se Croissant Sandwiches Assorted Danish, Muffins, & Croissants Boulder Granola with Mountain High Yogurt B Assorted Cereal & Milk .> bweet Spot $3.50 extra per person Seasonal Sliced Fresh Fruit Tray Coffee, Hot Tea, & Orange Juice Cheese Blintzes with Warm Berry Con,pote Silver Dollar Pancakes 4. /114 orn $12.50 per person E Belgian Waffies : Assorted Fruited Yogurt Assorted Danish, Muffins, & Croissants : Thick Cut French Toast Breakfast'Potatoes with Peppers & Onions : -Served with Warm Syrup Scrambled Eggs with Cheese & Chives : Seasonal Sliced Fresh Fruit Tray : Coffee, Hot Tea, &Orange Juice * 9*ealifad- Fliat, $4.25 extra per person â€¢> Tail Riiver $15.00 per person : Applewood Smoked Bacon & Sausage : Grilled Ham Steaks Assorted Danish, Muffins, & Croissants : 3-ounce Top Sirloin Steak Biscuits with Sausage Gravy : Spicy Chorizo Scrambled Eggs with Cheese & Chives : Breakfast Potatoes with Peppers & Onions i Applewood Smoked Bacon & Sausage Seasonal Sliced Fresh Fruit Tray i + Starch Options $3.00 extra per person Coffee, Hot Tea, & Orange Juice .. . Oven Roasted Breakfast Potatoes 4 94 Th ompson $16.00 per person i : Shredded Potatoes .. Assorted Cereals Assorted Danish, Muffins, & Croissants .: Oatmeal Fluffy Pancakes with Maple Syrup :. Potatoes Lyonnaise Scrambled Eggs with Spinach, Artichoke & Hollandaise i i Breakfast Potatoes with Peppers & Onions : i Grilled Ham Steaks Â· : Seasonal Sliced Fresh Fruit Tray .. Coffee, Hot Tea, & Orange Juice : E *> Dig klorn $17.00 per person E i Assorted Danish, Muffins, & Croissants i i French Toast with Maple Syrup .. Eggs Benedict , Breakfast Potatoes with Peppers & Onions . Applewood Smoked Bacon & Sausage Seasonal Sliced Fresh Fruit Tray .. Coffee, Hot Tea, & Orange Juice i i .. All pricing is subject to a service charge of 20% and applicable state i i i All pricing is subject to a service charge of 20% and applicable state & local taxes. Pricing is subject to change . i & local taxes. Pricing is subiect to change .- .'â€¢ Â·- .t /Â·â€¢..1~h :ikrt:X :tulÂ·2 .......... U U - _-1 -Breali Suggestions A la Carie Beverageg : + Freshly Brewed Coffee $30.00/gallon + 4-lealth Nut $8.50 per person i * Assorted Hot Tea $23.00/gallon * Assorted Coke Products $2.75/each Assorted Granola Bars, Rice Cakes, Bottled Waters, & i Assorted Juices. : + Bottled Water $2.25/each * ~icnic in ike ~arli $9.00 per person i * Mineral Water $3.00/each Assorted Cheeses with Crackers & Toast Points, : + Bottled Juices $3.25/each Seasonal Fruit, Assorted Coke Products, & Bottled : Waters. - : + Carafe Jules $17.00/each Â·> Milk $25.00/gallon * Cookie Mongter $10.00 per person i : + Iced Tea $22.00/gallon Freshly Baked Cookies & Brownies, Assorted Coke : Products, including Diet & Mineral Waters : Â·> Lemonade $22.00/gallon â€¢> Fruit Punch $23.00/gallon * Sugar Rix $10.00 per person j : + Hot Chocolate $2.50 per bag of cocoa Rice Krispie Treats, Peanut M&M's, & Assorted Coke : Products : Â·> Oregon Chai Tea $2.50 per bag of tea : Â·> European Coffee Bar $9.00/per person Meeting pl anner 5 Pacuge I i A la Capie Snack: This package includes all three of the breaks listed .. below. $21.00 per person j + Assorted Muffins $17.00/dozen i â€¢> Assorted Danishes & Breakfast Breads $18.00/dozen * ~xecutive ~ontinental i i .. : Fresh Baked Scones with Preserves $23.00/dozen . A Variety of Muffins, Danish, & Breakfast Breads with Butter and Preserves. Assorted Bagels with Cream : E * Bagels with Cream Cheese $21.00/dozen Cheese. Fresh Seasonal Sliced Fruit Display. Fresh Â· i i *> Rice Krispie Treats $17.00/dozen Brewed Regular & Decaffeinated Coffee as well as .. Assorted Herbal Teas. i *> Assorted Cookies $21.00/dozen . i i + Chocolate Frosted Brownies $22.00/dozen * IMIGI Morning Refre,k : i + Assorted Individual Yogurts $2.50/each .. Assorted Granola Bars, Freshly Brewed Regular & i Â·> Assorted Whole Fresh Fruit $1.50/each .. Decaffeinated Coffee, and Assorted Herbal Teas. i 3 + Bowl of Chips & Salsa (serves 25 people) $15.00 i i *> Assorted Candy Bars $2.50/each * AR ernoon Break : i * Seasonal Vegetable Cruditas with Pesto Aioli. . 100 people/$150.00 Assorted Freshly Baked Cookies & Brownies. Assorted i E Coke Products, including Diet and Bottled Waters. Fresh i i * Fresh Sliced Seasonal Fruits with Minted Honey Yogurt Brewed Iced Tea and Lemonade. i i Dip. 100 people/$175.00 i i + Domestic & Imported Cheese Display. 100 people/$225.00 : Italian Antipasto Display with Warm Artisan Breads All pricing is subject to a service charge of 20% and applicable state i i 100 people/$275 & local taxes. Pricing is subject to change -JKY I.le ' .1'N PARK PÂ·o'-Â·4 -5 92 ;.- Un ..tio ....... ....... *al ft,37 Pack Meals Brunch Boxed for groups on the go! : + Forever Brunck $29.00 per person + Trail el Oz er $15.00 per person : : Assorted Fresh Baked Breakfast Pastries Turkey, Bacon & Avocado Sandwich on Rustic French : Fresh Seasonal Sliced Fruit Baguette. Topped with Lettuce, Tomato & Chipotle : Mayonnaise. Served with Gourmet Chips, an Apple & : Eggs Benedict : Applewood Smoked Bacon & Sausage Chocolate Chip Cookie. : : Crisp Hash Brown Potatoes Belgian Waffles with all the Toppings i Granola & Yogurt â€¢> ~roifgant ~reatiiOn5 $13,00 per person : Mixed Micro Green Salad with Balsamic Vinaigrette : Mediterranean Salad Choice of One: Turkey & Swiss, Roast Beef & Cheddar, : Shrimp Cocktail or Chicken Salad on a Buttery Croissant with Lettuce, : Chef Carved Prime Rib with Au Jus & Horseradish Tomato, & Pickle. Served with Gourmet Chips, an Apple i Chicken with Champagne Cream Sauce & Chocolate Chip Cookie. : Chefs Choice of Seasonal Vegetables & Starch Chocolate Kahlua Cake : NY Style Cheesecake : Coffee, Hot Tea, Iced Tea & Orange Juice + Wrop 60 Roll $15.00 per person i Warm Rolls & Butter Grilled Chicken & Roasted Pepper Wrap with Chipotle : Add on one of these three options for only $2.50 per Mayonnaise, Lettuce, Tomato, & Jack Cheese. Served : person: with Gourmet Chips, an Apple & Chocolate Chip Cookie. Chef Prepared Omelets OR for vegetarians... Smoked Salmon & Bagels Chef Carved Bone-In Ham Grilled Portobello Wrap with Provolone Cheese, Lettuce & Tomato in a Tomato Flour Tortilla. Served with Gourmet Chips, an Apple & Chocolate Chip Cookie. Outdoor Menu : Enhance the flavor of your menu with fresh mountain air! . r 01 *.â€¢ Laegar oalao| $12.00 per person : Tte Great Old oorâ‚¬ $24.00 per person Crisp Romaine Lettuce Tossed in a Creamy Caesar : Dressing, Shredded Parmesan, & Garlic Bread. Served i with an Apple & Chocolate Chip Cookie. : Mixed Greens with Ranch Dressings Add Steak, Chicken, or Salmon -$3.00 extra per person i Fresh Seasonal Sliced Fruit : BBQ Pork Loin with Chipotle BBQ Sauce Baked Chicken with Texas Bourbon Spice Rub : Mixed Seasonal Vegetables with Tarragon Butter * C.66 Salao| $14.00 per person i Roasted Garlic Mashed Potatoes : Corn Bread Muffins Cobb Salad with Ham, Turkey, Swiss Cheese, Cheddar i Carrot Cake Cheese, topped with Avocado, Blue Cheese & Bacon : Iced Tea Crumbles. Served with Gourmet Chips, an Apple & : Chocolate Chip Cookie. : All pricing is subject to a service charge of 20% and applicable state E All pricing is subject to a service charge of 20% and applicable state & local taxes. Pricing is subject to change : & local taxes. Pricing is subject to change ROCKY MOUNTAIN PARK ;NN 3 -1.-Â·Â·-n.- Py:,Â·i. f.O.':Â·a:13 ......... ................................ ........................................ liu 1 42 Luncheon Buffet: I plateol 1_yncheong : Lunch entrees are served Rolls, Butter & Iced Tea. * Tarte of lia|4 $21.00 per : person i i + Chicken Rettuccini AlfreJo $14-00 per person Classic Caesar Salad - : Crearrly Alfredo Sauce combined with Grilled Chicken : & Fettucdni Noodles, served with Garlic Bread & Antipasto Tray : i Saut6ed Italian Vegetables. Fettuccini & Spaghetti -- Alfredo Sauce Â· Add Char-Grilled Shrimp for $2.00 extra per person Bolognese Sauce Meatballs : i + Chicken T aos 46,ap $13.00 per person Saut6ed Vegetables i : Chicken Taos Wrap with Chipotle Aioli, Corn, Black Garlic Bread : Iced Tea : Beans, & Tomato. Chefs Choice of Vegetable & Starch. â€¢> ~rient ~xpregg $23.00 per i i â€¢> CJkictien (IJaegar Salaol $14.00 per person person ~ : Crisp Romaine Lettuce Tossed in a Creamy Caesar Spring Rolls ~ : Dressing, Shredded Parmesan, & Garlic Bread. Mixed Greens Salad with Sesame Vinaigrette : : Add Char-Grilled Shrimp for $2.00 extra per person Steamed Japanese Rice : Spicy Beef & Broccoli : Sweet & Sour Chicken i i *> ~egetarian Lagagna $14.00 per person Stir Fry Vegetables : Iced tea : : Lasagna with Three Cheeses, Roasted Vegetables : and a Marinara Sauce. Chefs Choice of Vegetable & : Starch. * South of ike Bo-rder $24.00 per i + Champagne Chicken $16.00 per person person Tri-Color Tortilla Chips & Salsa ' Lightly Saut*ed Breast of Chicken served with : Mushrooms, Shallot Frexienet Sauce, and Chefs Chicken & Beef Fajitas with Peppers & Onions : : i Choice Pasta & Fresh Seasonal Vegetables. Shredded Lettuce, Olives, Guacamole, Shredded : Cheese, & Sour Cream. i i + Ziti $17.00 per person Cheese Enchiladas : Refried Beans & Spanish Rice : Ziti with Grilled Italian Sausage, Chicken, Roasted iced Tea i : Peppers, Tomato & Garlic. Chefs Choice Pasta & : Fresh Seasonal Vegetables. * ~icnic ~ri|1 $24.00 per person : i + Lona|on Broil $18.00 per person Country Potato Salad : London Broil, Char-Grilled, with Teriyaki Ginger Crisp Cole Slaw : Ponzu. Chefs Choice of Vegetable & Starch. Mixed Green Salad with Ranch Dressing : Char-Grilled Hamburgers i + Grilled Beef Tenderloin $22.00 per person BBQ Chicken Quarters with Texas Seasoning & Sauce . Grilled 6oz. Beef Tenderloin with Mountain Mushroom Corn on the Cobb : Sage Demi Glace. Chefs Choice of Vegetable & Baked Beans : Starch. Iced tea All pricing is subject to a service charge of 20% and applicabie i i All pricing is subject to a service charge of 20% and applicable state & local taxes. Pricing is subject to change : state & local taxes. Pricing is subject to change 4. I .. 7...."12:N ....... iÂ·it;*.-4.--:39,4.. *SD ~ liD 1-lop, D' O euvreg Coclitail Receptiiong 6Â« Serviceg Pricing Based on 100 Pieces * t-louse Liquor $4.50 each * Spanikopita $125.00 i Jim Beam, J&B Scotch, Skyy, Beefeaters, Bacardi, Jose Â·> Tomato & Basil on Crostini $125.00 : Cuervo â€¢> Orange Spiced Chicken Skewers $150.00 * Vegetable Spring Rolls with Soy Sauce $150.00 * Call Liquor $5.00 each â€¢> Seafood Stuffed Mushroom Caps with Hollandaise - Buschmills, Jack Daniels, Chivas, Dewars, Absolut, $200.00 Bombay Sapphire, Captain Morgan, Malibu, Baileys, â€¢> Assorted Mini Quiches $150.00 Frangelico, Kahlua â€¢> Italian Sausage Stuffed Mushrooms $200.00 + Aemium Liquor $8.50 each â€¢> Teriyaki Beef Skewers $200.00 Crown Royal, Glenfiddich, Kettle One * Scallops Wrapped in Bacon $250.00 + Fire Cracker Shrimp with Thai Chili Sauce $250.00 * Domestic BottleJ Reer $3.50 each * Mini Beef Wellington with Red Wine Rosemary Jus $250.00 Budweiser, Bud Light, Coors Light, MGD, Miller Light + Crab Wontons with Sweet Chili Ponzu $250.00 * BottleÂ¢1 Import/MicrotÂ·rew Beer $4.25 each * Cab Cakes with Roasted Com Relish $250.00 Assorted Varieties. Please ask for current options * Elk Tenderloin Sliders with Balsamic Onions $300.00 available Â·> Chilled Lemon Poached Shrimp Cocktail $300.00 â€¢ BottleJ (Duinners $6.00 each : * Hunan Lamb Chops $350.00 : . / D : 7 keg Deer Reception Disp|(49 i Domestic Keg $375.00 (approx. 150, 12oz glass) Domestic Pony Keg $200.00 (approx.75, 12oz glass) Â·> Seasonal Vegetable Cruditas with Pesto Aioli. ImporUMicrobrew Keg available upon request 100 people/$150.00 Â·> Fresh Sliced Seasonal Fruits with Minted Honey Yogurt Dip. 100 people/$175.00 W Ine Â·> Baked Brie en Croute filled with Raspberry & Almond. Pricing Varies according to selection $6.00 to $7.50 per 50 people/$150.00 glass or $22.00 to $52.00 per bottle. Please ask to see our current wine list. Â·> Domestic & Imported Cheese Display. 100 people/$225.00 â€¢> Italian Antipasto Display with Warm Artisan Breads : Â· -A $100 Bar set up fee will be charged for all bars. 100 people/$275.00 Bartender is charged at $50.00 for 2 hours or $75.00 for . 3 hours.- + Warm Artichoke Dip with Crackers & Warm Pitas : 100 people/$150.00 .. .. Â·> Chocolate Fountain with all the Fixins $10.00 per person. i i -Cocktail Servers are available for tableside service at (minimum 50 people) : : $15.00/per server, per hour. If a Hosted Bar, Cocktail : Servers tally all beverages sold and add this cost to the final bill- All pricing is subject to a service charge of 20% and applicable state i : All pricing is subject to a service charge of 20% and applicable state & local taxes. Pridng is subject to change & local taxes. Pricing is subject to change SKY : SUNTAIN PARK if EN 5 fle> ' I'6312;~1'.0.~c''t,;':'-t -10 . - 43 i i i : : Dinner Buffete i i + The Great Outd oors $41.00 per person : Mixed Greens with Assorted Dressings . Chilled Pasta Primavera Grilled New York Strip Steak with Green Peppercorn * Buffet Ole $27.00 per person i i Sauce Chips & Salsa : Zesty BBQ Chicken . Mixed Greens Salad with Com, Fried Tortillas and :. Grilled Filet of Salmon with Chipotle Cherry Glaze Cheese : i Baked Potatoes . Warm Buttermilk Biscuits Pork Camitas with Warm Tortillas : : Grilled Chicken with Achiote Sauce : : Jalapeno Combread with Whipped Honey Butter Spanish Rice Warm Fruit Cobbler Black Beans with Roasted Red Peppers .: Cinnamon Vanilla Swirl Ice Cream . Key Lime Cheesecake : . Iced Tea Iced Tea : i i + Italian Riviera $29.00 per person Â·> coloraolo (Drill $35.00 per person i i Antipasto Tray . Ca@sar Salad with Anchovy-Parmesan Dressing Chips with Hummus . Baked Ziti with Italian Sausage, Grilled Chicken, Olives Mixed Greens Salad with Balsamic Vinaigrette : Roasted Colorado New Potatoes with Garlic & .: & Roasted Peppers Rosemary : Chicken Marsala with Shitake Mushrooms Grilled Elk Tenderloin with Juniper Port Wine Demi Mixed Steamed Seasonal Vegetables Glace Â· . Roasted New Potatoes with Rosemary & Garlic Pan Seared Colorado Trout with Sundried Tomato Ciabatta Rolls Pesto Â· .: Tiramisu Grilled Chicken Breast with Cognac Wild Mushroom :. Iced tea Sauce $28,00 per person Mixed Seasonal Vegetables with Tarragon Butter ~ ~ * t-tria n Luigne .. Ciabatta Rolls - :. Egg Rolls with Ponzu Dipping Sauce Chocolate Truffle Cake Â· iced Tea :. Mixed Greens with Roasted Sesame Dressing Grilled Flank Steak with Hoison- Teriyaki Glaze 4 94 8-4 Tur[ $39.00 per person i i . Grilled Salmon with Ginger Garlic Scallion Sauce . Mixed Stir Fry Vegetables Mixed Greens Â· : Steamed Rice with Sesame Seeds Seafood Pasta Salad Assorted Rolls Grilled NY Strips .. Chocolate Kahlua Cake :. Iced Tea Shrimp Scampi .: Grilled Mahi Mahi with Pineapple Salsa IRice Pilaf i i Â·> Lano' 6- Sea $32.00 per person Roasted Red Pepper Mashers .: .. Roasted Vegetables .. Rustic Baguette with Brushetta Tomatoes . Assorted Rolls :. Mixed Organic Greens with Balsamic Vinaigrette Â· Chef Carved Prime Rib with Au Jus & Horseradish NY Style Cheesecake : Iced Tea .. Grilled Mahi Mahi with Pineapple Poblano Salsa :. Seasonal Steamed Vegetables . r 0.. :. Colorado Roasted Potatoes with Rosemary & Garlic v Lorrii~hean Luistne $31.00 per person : i Ciabatta Rolls Fried Tortillas Chips with Salsa :. Carrot Cake Mixed Greens Salad with Vidalia Onion Dressing .: Iced Tea . Pulled Jamaican Jerk Pork with Cilantro Grilled Chicken with Curry Coconut Sauce .. Grilled Shrimp Skewers Steamed Rice with Mixed Peppers & Toasted Almonds E i Mixed Vegetables with Cinnamon Butter : Key Lime Cheese Cake :. ted Tea : All pricing is subject to a service charge of 20% and applicable state i i All pridng is subject to a service charge of 20% and applicable state & local taxes. Pricing is subject to change Â· & local taxes. Pricing is subject to change .......... r.4 'AOUNTAIN PARK :NN FAN'. f"'.1-Â·,41(, t, )4,it-f 1,/14'. 4 . .4 11 ServeJ Dinner * Crat Stuffed Tilapia $32.00 per person All Entrees are served with a Crisp Garden Salad, Crab Stuffed Tilapia with Orange Lemon Sauce. Chefs : Rolls, Butter, Iced Tea, & Choice of Dessert Choice of Vegetable & Starch. i + Chicken [Diccatta $23.00 per person : Buff~1O 12:6 Eye $34.00 per person : Tender Breast of Chicken, Lightly Floured and Saut6ed. Buffalo Rib Eye served with Warm Gorgonzola Cream. : Served in a Lemon Caper, White Wine Sauce. Chers i Chefs Choice of Vegetable & Starch. : Choice of Vegetable & Starch. ; 1 + Grdled portotello Stack $24.00 per person ; + Chicken Margala $23.00 per person -- - - - A tower of Grilled Vegetables induding, Portobello, Chicken Marsala with Shitake Mushrooms in a Marsala Fresh Mozzarella, Red Peppers and a Roasted Red Reduction Sauce. Chefs Choice of Vegetable & Starch. Pepper Sauce. * (Drilled NY Strip $31.00 per person Grilled New York Strip with Green Peppercorn Sauce. Des:epts Chefs Choice of Vegetable & Starch. * Rilet Mignon $33.00 per person * plated Desseric $6.00 each Grilled Filet Mignon with Port Wine Demi Glace Sauce. Chefs Choice of Vegetable & Starch. Carrot Cake Chocolate Kahlua Cake + Atlantic 90|mon $28.00 per person : Lemon Cheesecake : Crane Brule Seared Atlantic Salmon with Lemongrass Beurre Blanc. : Bourbon Pecan Pie Chefs Choice of Vegetable & Starch. : + Roclig Flountain Trout .$23.00 per person : i * Display De,gert, Seared Pepita- Crusted Rocky Mountain Trout with : Brown Butter Sauce. Chefs Choice of Vegetable & i Assorted Petit Fours $175.00 per 150 pieces Starch. : Eclairs & Cream Puffs $200.00 per 100 pieces : Lemon Bars $125.00 per 100.00 pieces : 9||i Tenderioin $36.00 per person : Chocolate Strawberries $30.00 per dozen Grilled Elk Tender16in with Fig Balsamic Demi Glace. : Chefs Choice of Vegetable & Starch. 1 + Deggert Stations * Coconut Shrimp $27.00 per person Chocolate Fountain with Imported Belgian Chocolate, Strawberries, Bananas, Marshmallows, & Pineapple Coconut Shrimp with Ginger Curry Sauce. Chefs Choice of Vegetable & Starch. $10.00 per person (minimum of 50ppl) Dessert Tray of Tiramisu, Chocolate Dipped *Surf U Turf $40.00 per person Strawberries, & Petit Fours. $8.50pp Beef Tenderloin and Australian Lobster Tail with Drawn Butter and Rosemary Demi Glace. Chefs Choice of Vegetable & Starch. All pricing is subject to a service charge of 20% and applicable state : ~ All pricing is subject to a service charge of 20% and applicable state & local taxes. Pridng is subject to change :. & local taxes. Pricing is subject to change In-vv ..21- th,"14'fi P.ARK jur.3 7 D-:Â·*.: ily,Â·4,< 1'/ 44 ............................ Ila TOWN op ESTES PARI< Memo Community Services Department To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Betty Kilsdonk, Community Services Director Date: February 15, 2010 RE: Approval of FR Service Agreements - Conference Room Rental Rates Background: The Town of Estes Park has had a legal and business relationship with Forever Resorts, dba Holiday Inn, since1989. A Service Agreement was renewed in January, 2008 and is in effect for five years. An annual review of the Holiday Inn performance under the terms and conditions of the agreement is to be held each January. This year the meeting was held on January 20. Participants included Forever Resorts Vice Presidents Bill Butts and John Schoppmann, Holiday Inn General Manager Chris Cook, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Sales & Marketing Manager Pickering, and Community Services Director Kilsdonk. During the annual review, Forever Resorts is required to provide the following (attached): 1. Proposed conference room rental rates for 2010 2. List of routine preventive repairs and maintenance 3. 2010 operational guidelines 4. Reviews and guest comment cards from 2009 5. Data on the financial performance of the Conference Center 6. Certificate of insurance Under the terms of the agreement, the Town shall give written approval to the proposed room rental costs on or before March 1St. If said approval is not given by March 1St, the Forever Resorts' proposed pricing shall be deemed approved. The Conference Center proposed room rental rates are the same as in 2009. Budget N/A Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the 2010 proposed conference room rental rates. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny the proposed 2010 room rental rates. *l ROCKY MOUNTAIN PARK HOLIDAY INN & ESTES PARK CONFERENCE CENTER ROOM RENTAL GRAND BALLROOM - $ 1,200 HALF OF GRAND BALLROOM - $600 JR BALLROOM - $600 COLUMBINE, LAKE ESTES, OR TRAIL RIDGE - $200 each BIG HORN - $125 BLUE SPRUCE - $125 BIG HORN AND BLUE SPRUCE - $250 $35 VENDOR TABLE CHARGE $15 ELECTRICITY CHARGE/TABLE **PRICING SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON LENGTH OF STAY, F&13, & ROOM BLOCK** *L O-M CU Af AA-4 1/20/10 Estes Park Conference Center Holiday Inn Rocky Mountain Park The following Companies have service contracts for preventative maintenance on the Conference Center as well as the meeting space located inside the Holiday Inn. Long and Associates Mechanical Solutions: HVAC (Heating and Air Conditioning) 1795 W Yale Ave Englewood, CO 80110 303-975-2108 Tolin Mechanical AC/Heating Jr. Ballroom and Big Horn/Blue Spruce 225 9th Street Fort Collins, CO 80524-2555 (970) 482-5064 Vill. GROUPS AND MEETINGS Philosophy. . Groups and meetings need a "Constant Caring Ffiend" to take care of them too. That means they can count on Holiday InnÂ® hotels to help them plan for success and follow through correctly. When problems do occur, hotels resolve them quickly and to the event leader% satisfaction, or the refund provision of the Holiday InnÂ® Meeting PromiseSM applies. Holiday InnÂ® Meeting PromiseSM All hotels worldwide must participate in the Holiday InnÂ® Meeting PromiseSM program, which requires that if any of the individual requirements specified in a meeting contract are not fulfilled, the hotel must correct the problem or not charge the customer for that item. A refund is not required if the customer has not given hotel management the opportunity to correct the problem. The Meeting Promiseâ„¢ must be attached to or incorporated into the hotel's meeting contracts and must state the following: The Holiday:InnÂ· Meeting PromisesM YourMeeting Guarantee, ~ Every time you plan your meeting with us, we guarantee it! Than because not only are we the experts at handling small and mid-size meetings, but we also offer the exdusive Holiday InnÂ® Meeting PromisesM program at Holiday InnÂ® hotels worldwide. It's our guarantee-in writing-that everything will go exactly as agreed. If not the problem will be corrected to your satisfaction, or you don't pay for that item. ~ Specifically: â€¢ Your meeting room(s) will be (1) available at your specified time, (2) set up per your specifications and (3) refreshed during meal breaks, or you pay no rental on that room for that day. * * â€¢ Your coffee breakG) will be served as specified in the meeting contract and on time, or theret no charge for that break that day. â€¢ Your audiovisual equipment will be set up in accordance with the meeting contract and, where the hotel is responsible for specific equipment the equipment will be in good working order. If not, you pay no rental charges on that room for thal day. ./ We're confident you'll be pleased with our meeting expertise at Holiday InnÂ® hotels. You can expect everything you were promised or you don't pay. Guaranteed. * Your meeting contract is with an individual Holiday InnÂ® hotel. Each hotel is responsible for honor- ing the terms as stated in the Holiday InnÂ® Meeting Promisesâ€¢. Most hotels are independently owned and/or operated. * * In the event this aspect is not as you agreed and the meeting contract with the hotel did not specify a rental fee for this item, a planned coffee break will be provided by the contract hotel at no charge. Â© 1999 InterContinental Hotels Group. All rights reserved. , 1 1 Meeting Planner Loyalty Program No later than Aprill, 2007, all Holiday InnÂ® hotels must participate in and support the Holiday Inn Meeting Planner Loyalty Program (a member designAtion within the Priority , ClubÂ® Rewards Program structure). The program is designed to repard meeting planners for their loyalty. Each hotel must provide Priority ClubÂ® Rewards Â·points to program members who book and consume qualified meetings based on the terms and conditions t of the program. (See complete Meeting Planner Loyalty Program standards on page 31 j Meeting Set-Up 1 â€¢ Linen napkins and tablecloths are required for all banquet services. Paper beverage napkins are acceptable for coffee breaks. â€¢ Head tables must be skirted; others as appropriate. â€¢ A professionally lettered meeting identification sign must be posted outside each > meeting room when a meeting is in progress. The sign must indicate the room is "in use" and by whom. â€¢ A hotel must have a defined and published operating procedure for receiving and â€¢ Hotel must have a centrally located event/reader board listing all meeting functions for the current day. â€¢ At the Meeting Planner's request, a separate group registration area must be provided. * Luggage storage (other than meeting room) must be available upon Meeting Plannert request. securely storing meeting materials. â€¢ Dance floor, staging and platforms must be available upon 24 hours notice. 1 - Meeting Personnel At least one hotel contact must be assigned to each meeting function. This person must do the following in accordance with the Holiday InnÂ® Service Philosophy: â€¢ Greet the group contaa upon arrival. â€¢ Inspect meeting and banquet set-ups one hour prior to the start of the planned function for accuracy. â€¢ Establish a message delivery procedure with the meeting contact. â€¢ Be easily accessible before and during the function. â€¢ Ensure the function room amenities are replenished at scheduled breaks or upon l request. â€¢ Thank the meeting contact upon departure and answer any questions concerning billing procedures and materials shipping. â€¢ A card (business card size minimum) should-be presented to the meeting contact with the hotel's "point of contact" person's name and contact procedure. e . Audiovisual Services A person capable of operating and maintaining audiovisual equipment must be available before and during a meeting where audiovisual equipment is used. Meeting Room Supplies, Amenities and Equipment The following items are required for all banquet services at each hotel: Meeting Setup: Required Amenities 0 Ice water Of pitchers/containers are directly on the meeting table, an underliner is required). â€¢ Glasses â€¢ Notepads and pens of full-size #2 lead pencils 0 Individually wrapped candies 0 Meeting Amenities Kit - A "business appropriate" container with an adequate supply of: 14" masking tape, paper clips, highlighter marker, additional pens/ pencils, stapler with extra staples, 8.5 " x 5.5 ' legal lined pad, staple remover, sticky notes, rubber bands, scissors, and cellophane tape. Supplies and Miscellaneous Equipment 0 Coat racks available upon request I Ashtrays available upon request as local ordinances allow * Complimentary name tags and place cards available upon request 0 Linen napkins and tablecloths for all banquet services; paper beverage napkins are acceptable for coffee breaks â€¢ Table skirts I A centrally located evenUreader board for listing the current day's meeting functions 0 Dance floor, staging and platforms available upon 24 hours notice I)...42'.._--1'~ I.-73Â· j * 4 . High Speed Internet Access â€¢ High Speed Internet Access (HSIA) js required for all meeting rooms. The HSIA can be wired, wireless orboth. â€¢ All wireless meeting rooms must have at least one dedicated Ethernet/wireless â€¢ bridge. â€¢ For wired rooms, at least one Ethernet port per meeting room must be dedicated to that room. â€¢ Hotels may charge for HSIA in meeting rooms in accordance with local market demand. l Audiovisual Services The following items must be available immediately upon request: â€¢ Telephone â€¢ Speakerphone â€¢ Acetate sheets for overhead projectors â€¢ Flipcharts and stands â€¢ Multi-colored markers â€¢ Podium (table top or full) â€¢ Extension cord5/power strips 1 â€¢ Laser pointer â€¢ Standard microphone â€¢ Legal pads â€¢ Projection screen â€¢ Overhead projector The following items must be available with 24 hours notice: â€¢ Speaker phone â€¢ Slide projector 8 BUVER â€¢ Wireless microphone 11 â€¢ LCD Screen â€¢ Computer projector -: /-* ..:I.-4* Â· :82- 1_~ Holiday Inn Rocky Mountain Park: Traveler Reviews Call now to book: 877-270-6397 TripAdvisor Popularity Index from Holidayinn.com #18 of 31 hotels in Estes Park Ranked #5 for business in Estes Park TripAdvisor Traveler Rating 00Â®(DO 61 Reviews 1 1 ' Free Estes Park Guide : i Get your quick guide to the top hotels, restaurants and things to do. IMIIIBIR,imieit-r r-r~Na!Â¥2 Hotel class #** 101 South St. Vrain Avenue, PO Box 1468, Estes Park, CO 80517 Reviews you can trust 49 Older hotel, clean, good value in winter YY Fort Collins, Colorado Jan 1, 2010 I Trip type: Family Our family stayed at the Holiday Inn in Estes Park in December, 2009. The hotel is an older property that shows its age. However, the off-season rates were extremely attractive (first night inexpensive, second night almost free), including kids eating free, and two free drinks per room. We encountered nothing but friendly staff. We were pleasantly surprised that the hotel restaurant had good service and reasonable food, even with the low level of guests. The front desk staff was also helpful and courteous. The indoor pool, hot tub, and games facilities were great for kids. Our room was clean. This isn't a shiny new property and does feel at least a few decades out of date. This is not the place to http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-960945-d83186-r52338114-H... 1/3/2010 00 Absolutely Awesome! 52 Woo-stah Mass. Oct 31,2009 1 Trip type: Business, Family Nothing better in Estes! The Holidome rocks! No where else could we find an indoor pool/hot-tub. This made the trip for the kids. Even when the weather is bad (as it always seems to be on our vacations) this immediately holds them over till the clouds clear. Staff was great at check-in, very eco-friendly type lobby and everything in our room seemed new. Even the bed was great this time around. We stayed here in the past, but nothing stood out like it did on this trip. If you haven't been in a while, definitely worth a second look. I know no one in our party was disappointed. -JD My ratings for this hotel **DE+D Value Â®.***â‚¬â‚¬e Rooms Â®Â®â‚¬<DÂ® Location <ix**FKD Cleanliness Service Date of stay September 2009 Visit was for Leisure Traveled with Extended Family Age group 25_34 Member since March 23,2009 Would you recommend this hotel to a friend? Yes This review is the subjective opinion of a TripAdvisor member and not of TripAdvisor LLC. Was this review helpful? Yes View profile I Send message i Compliment reviewer Report Inappropriate Content (9 Have stayed at better 1*,SA#LAJ Dallas, TX Oct 12, 2009 I Trip type: Couples 1 : person found this review helpful This is an older hotel, with a wing with no elevator. To ask an older couple to carry their own bags up a flight of stairs is sad, especially as a long time member of their Priority Club. The hotel clerk could not give us a room on the ground floor, and didn't seem to try too hard to find one either. He did give us two free drink tickets, but the bar and hotel restaurant were dank and dismal. The room itself was fine. My ratings for this hotel **900 Value *Â®Â®00. Rooms Â®Â®10 Location â‚¬**X> Cleanliness 93â‚¬-CEO Service Date of stay August 2009 http://wv,Av.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-960945-d83186-r52338114-H... 1/3/2010 My ratings for this hotel 0#02)00 Value Â®Â®CEO Rooms %<F<*KE<> Location *filÂ®CIO Cleanliness Â®COX> Service Date of stay September 2009 Visit was for Leisure Traveled with Family with Young Children Age group 35_49 Member since September 29, 2009 Would you recommend this hotel to a friend? No This review is the subjective opinion of a TripAdvisor member and not of TripAdvisor LLC. Was this review helpful? Yes View profile I Send message i Compliment reviewer Report Inappropriate Content Check Rates and Availability ~ Check-in: Check-out: Adults: ~ 1/8/2010 I ~1/10/2010 f *~2_* ~ LI~'I--Ty.-i-ita ~ i mmiddlyyyy mm/dd/yyyy @ Holidayinn.com Â® Expedia.com 81 ORBITZ.com 41 Travelocity lEi Hotels.com Â® Priceline.com About TripAdvisorÂ® TripAdvisorTM provides impartial traveler reviews of Holiday Inn Rocky Mountain Park. Recommendations for hotels, resorts, inns, vacations, travel packages, travel guides and lots more! Â© 2009 TripAdvisor LLC All rights reserved. TripAdvisor Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. * TripAdvisor LLC is not a booking agent and does not charge any service fees to users of our site... (more) TripAdvisor LLC is not responsible for content on external web sites. Taxes, fees not included for deals content. Certain content on this page is Copyright Â© 2009 Expedia, Inc http://www.tripadvisor.corn/ShowUserReviews-960945-d83186-r52338114-H... 1/3/2010 :: sign in ~ 4 my profile ~ :: my trips ! check your request 4 h yl : Â·Â·7, 1 W Â· Â· n help flights hotels I rental cars I vacation packages j cruises I tours & attractions I pricebreakers I city guides I g roups ~ Check-in: 01/12/2010_ _ *b Check-out: 01/13/2010 ~ ~ Rooms 1 ; %4*4,i~ I Â» new hotel search j < Holiday Inn Rocky Mountain Park rooms from 1 1 1A *?A ** *.QY,1-,*:r.L~331~~'~~~~~~~----~ $69 IFf,421//1-1 1 101 South Saint Vrain 4=mult,H#*i>*4+ ' EN=r/.W#l,Hll::;k-ti 428=*.25==y i 1 F ..i Â« back to hotel rr -r {al:,All;2:1144â€¢A-fr 31-0.%7,00*="a-- i results ! i zir,k711**<4 Welcome to the Holiday Inn Rocky Mountain Park 261>1*? 1 1 The Holiday Inn-Rocky Mountain Park is a 100% smoke-free hotel with I everything under one roof! Enjoy free high-speed wireless Internet access . i.:w, aÂ£Â· ~ct*tl.-r-...9 ' !*:11.-9~ ~Â· ~- i-?33844 ... ' ~ throughout our hotel. Kids 12 & under always eat free and kids 19 & under always i See this Hotel on a Map 1 stay free! PCR members ...read more i i Book Online or Calll-866-PRICELINE ! ff -- 1 LIfikrally -#.*MedÂ·Â·%=,0."r ~ * more photal ' j Similar hotels you might like 11 1 15 ! i Best Westem Silver Saddle ** ~ from $80 (0.7mi) Top Amenities (see all) i i Stantey Hotel *** from $119 High-speed Internet Access Cable / Satellite TV (0.5mi) 1 Indoor Pool Hairdryer i Rodeway Inn Estes Park * from I { Pets Allowed Room Service $65 (0.9mi) Car Parking Available .-e= el 1 .1 ~..1 i.Airs: .4:I ., g-:1 -1- 3 - . Recent Name Your Own imv i . PriceÂ® Winning Bids Estes Park - Estes Park, CO ** 2 2 i from $64 Priceline Guest Score Card 41-7, -Â·145~4~ *0.> # 3 of 13 hotels in Estes Park Overall Quality *,E *"Z "19< 1 7.7 i Hotel Cleanliness 2*10*11,%*./3 â€ž 7.8 i Hotel Staff ./.2 Avt al*. 151 Â¥â€¢Ims i 1 http://travela.priceline.com/hotel/hoteIReviewsGuide.do?key=9404430b&... 1/3/2010 4 ~ Family with Young ChildrenThe two (2) room we received was of lesser i ~,~11 quality than the other rooms which were closer to the office. Our rooms L___1 were not as newer as these other rooms. - Rod from Blair, NE ; ~ 21. l October 7,2009 9.0 ] Traveling as Couple Well located, reasonably priced. 1 Ifs starting to show its age, rooms will need refurbished soon. r--1 Nancy from Rapid City, SD 10.0 Q September 14,2009 L U;3 1 Group Traveler ~ Location was wonderful. The setting was amazing. Estes Park was wonderful, i amazing view. i f--1 Paul from Crook, CO 7.0 i ~ Q,~ | September 14, 2009 ] Traveling as Couple E It has plenty of amenities. 11 Brent from Centennial, CO 9.0 ~,~ September 10,2009 -J Family.with Teens Easy to find, location was great, restaurant available. I would recommend the hotel for it's price and the staff was more than helpful. 1 ~ was surprised pets were allowed, that is a good thing. Reviews of Holiday Inn Rocky Mountain Park next 10 >> (1 - 10 of 91 reviews) < back to search results choose a room new hotel search > investor relations I terms and conditions I privacy policy I adware/spyware policy I travel affiliate program |advertise with us | TV ads |jobs |site map cheap flights I cheap tickets | cheap air travel I cheap airplane tickets airfare I vacations I rental cars I cruises I hotels I Discount Hotels I Cheap Airfares uk hotels IBooking.com I pliceline.co.uk I priceline.com.hk I priceline.com.tw ~priceline.com.sg I MYTrave;Guide.com All material herein Â© 1998 - 2010 priceline.com Incorporated, all rightsreserved. PRICELINE, PRICELINE.COM and NAME YOUR OWN PRICE are registerediervice marks of priceline.com Incorporated. U.S. Patents 5,794,207.5,897,620; 6,085,169; 6,510,418 and 6,553,346 (CST 2040530-50) ws-92 http://travela.priceline.com/hotel/hoteIReviewsGuide.do?key=g404430b&... 1/3/2010 i Overall satisfaction Hoter service Hotel condition Room cleanliness Room comfort ., 2 2,0 10 1.0 3.0 Posted: 29-JutÂ·09 Never going to stay at this place again Usually, Holiday Ims are easy on the budget, adequate and are usualty dean. This was not andwas a blot on our otherwise wonderful trip to Estes Park The bathroom reeked of mildew. No excuse for this in a dry dimate. The bed was comfortable which was a positive. It would have been worthitto pay a little more. We did not ty the restaurant - very few guests ate there It seemed A traveler from La. recommends this hotel Overall satisfaction Hotel service Hotel condiljon Room deanliness Room comfort 4 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Posted: 7-Jul-09 We enjoyed our stay at this hotel. We were treated like we were family. A traveler from Redmond, WA does not recommend this hotel ~ Gmvie~' s:tisfaco~ Hote|~rvice Hotel ~tdiljon # Room ttliness R/m/Z#r Posted: 1-Ju;-09 Not impressed . Not like other Holiday Inns that I've stayed at. Was expecting more for the money. This was as basic as they get nothing more. It might be location because Estes Park is GreaL But next ~rne rd stay someplace else Traveler's tip on dining Penelope's has great bugers irs located on fle main road though town. (down at the end) KATHY M from FARIBAULT, MN does not recommend this hotel Overall satisfaction Hotel service Hotel condition Room deaniiness Room comfort i- 30 '1.0 Ta 3.0 Posted: 30-Jun-09 cleanliness : THE HOTEL tS KINDOFOLD AND NEEDS SOME UPDATING. THE HOTTUB WAS DIRTY AND OVERCROWDED V,11-H NO ONE WATCHING. MOST NIGHTS THE POOL AREA WAS -TAKEN OVER' BY ONE OR TWO FAMILIES AND THERE WAS NO ROOM FOR US. VERY FEW PLACES TO SIT POOLSIDE HOTEL ROOMS WERE QUESTIONABLY CLEAN. E LOOKED LIKE THEY OUSTED AROUND THINGS._ALOTOF DUST UNDER TV. THE WORSTWAS WHEN WEE FOLNE) 190 DROPS OF BLOOD ON OUR QUILT. THESE WERE NOT"BLOOD STAINS" ...THIS QUILT HAD NEVER BEEN LAUNDEREDIn I USUALLY REMOVE THE SPREAD AT ALL HOTELS DUE TO RUMORS THAT THEY ARE NOTALWAYS CLEANED BETWEEN GUESTS..BUT I SURE WAS HOPEFUL THAT THE SHEETS : AND QUILTS ARE LAUNDERED. 1 GUESS IN THIS CASEâ€žAT LEAST THE QUILT WAS LEFT OVER : FROM SOMEONE'S LASTSTAY...GROSS! THEYWERE VERY NICE TO QUICKLY REMOVEE IT AND + GIVE ME ANOTHER BUT THAT WAS THE LAST I HEARD OFF fT. YOU WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT THE MANAGEMENT WOULD HAVE CALLED ME THE NEXT MORNING TO ADDRESS IT. ON A BETTER NOTE..THE STAFF WERE ALL VERY FRIENOLY AND HELPFULI 1 JUST FELT KIND OF -DIR-Tr STAYING THERE. Traveler's tip on local atiractions ESTES PARK.-MUST SEES: THE STANLEY HOTEL. THE AERIEL TRAM. THE NATIONAL PARKAND HIKING TRAILS Bob S from Vietnam recommends this hotel OveraN satisfaction Hotel senlice Hotel condition Room cleantiness Room comfort 4-0 40 - 5.0 4.0 Posted: 10-Jur,-09 No View Nice H.1 but no view. For the money 1 think a person could get Into one of the hotels on the other side of the take and have as nice a stay but have a view too. None of these hotels were listed on Expedia.whan l search I for a hotel. A traveler from Los Angeles recommendsthis hotel Overall satisfaction Hotel service Hotel condition Room cleanliness Room comfort 4 3.0 46 4.0 40 - Posted: 21 Jan-09 Great location, quiet My mom and I stayed at this hotel in January and had a great tinne. Thelobby has a nice cabin feel to it : Interesting indoor pool area, with pool tables right next to the poot-we got a kick out of Olat. Rooms were ~ nothing special, but were comfortable and dean. I don't know how quiet this hotel is in the summer when Estes Park gets busy-there were very few people there during our stay. But we enjoyed our time at this very reasonablrpriced hotel. Write a review of this hotet (You may be required to sign in lo verify your stay) Have a question or comment about his page? Let-us-know. Continue to Booking (Rates Dom $69.95) Or call 1 -800-551-2409 http://www.expedia.com/pub/agent.dll/qscr=dspv/from=f/shtl=1/fgds=0/f... 1/3/2010 . . ' Description , Photos Map i: Reviews ~ Book it I Chance search: Estes Park, Colorado, United States: 01/12/10 - 01/13/10,1 room l adult Need help? Our experts can call vou ! Reviews post a Review i Review FAQi Filter brAII (25)- Recommended (201 | Not recommended (51 Sort by: {5j~tf<Woo~~- - - Guestreviewsummary 3.8 Average rating: All Trip Types Recommended | 1-fip type: WiO, Friends Overall Rating 80% Recommended | 25 Reviews 4.0 4.0 Hotel Service 4.0 Room Comfort Reviewed by a Hotels.com guest on Aug 23.2009 3.6 Hotel Condition 4.0 Room Cleanliness This guest did not leave a comment 4.0 Hotel Service 4.0 Hotel Condition Average rating by Guest Trip Type 4.0 Room Comfort Select a tip type to see only mose reviews 4.0 Room Cleanliness All Trip Types (25) 3.8 Busings; (1) 3.0 anming (3) 4.0 Emild (12) 3.8 Recommended I Trip type: Romance Overall Rating With Frlencb (3) 4.3 "It will do" 4.0 All Other, (6) 3.8 Reviewed by a Hotels.corn guest on Aug 19.2009 Not the greatest hotel, especially considering the price. however if you are 4.0 Hotel Se,vice not looking for a fancy stay, it is more than adequate. 4.0 Hotel Condition 4.0 Room Comfort 4.0 Room Cleanliness Not recommended I Trip type: Family Overall Rating "Do not stay here In the summer" 2.0 Reviewed by a Hotels.corn guest on Aug 13,2009 This hotel was run very poorly. We stayed here 4-nights in July 2009. The 2.0 Hotel Service housekeeping staff did not place any wash clothes in our room. And they 1.0 Hotel Condition kept running out of clean towels atthe pool/hottub. We weretold they 3.0 Room Comfort would have dean towels within a haff hour. But mat does not work when you are dripping wet We waited but left before they arrived. And Ule hot 2.0 Room Clean!!ness Why book with us? tub was a poor excuse, few jets and very old. And their policy for allowing Hotels.corn doesn't charge cancellation fees dogs leaves much to be des,red There were dogs in the rooms across the Price Match Guarantee hall and 2-doors down. I would never stay here again. We're just a phone call away; 800-2-HOTELS (800-246,8357) Recommended I Tap type: Family Overall Rating -Don't get room adjacent to indoor pool" 4.0 Reviewed by a Hotels.corn guest on Aug 7,2009 When we booked the hotel wi# a room overlooking the pool we did not 4.0 Hotel Service realize the pool was indoors. We could smell the chlorinated water in our 4.0 Hotel Condition room and in the hallways of that part of the hotel. Our air condltion'heater 3.0 Room Comfort also faced the pool area so when we used it the pool air was pulled into room. We did ask for anolher room for our second night but they were 4.0 Room Cleanliness booked full. They did give use free breakfast vouchers for the inconvenience. Recommended I Trip type: Family Overall Rating "Visit to RMNP" 3.0 Reviewed by a Hotels.corn guest on Aug 7,2009 Okay place to stay in Estes Park. You have to drive if you want to visit 4.0 Hotel Service downtown. On east side of city. Coffee pot was not cleaned, but otherwise 3.0 Hotel Condition okay. 4.0 Room Comfort 3.0 Room Cleantlness Recommended I Trip type: Family Overall Rating 5.0 Reviewed by fred of Hollywood on Aug 3,2009 This guest did not leave a comment 5.0 Hotel Service 5.0 Hotel Condition 5.0 Room Comfort 5.0 Room Cleanliness Not recommended I Trip type: Romance Overall Rating "Utilitarian" 3.0 http://www.hotels.com/hotel/details.html?reviewOrder=date_newest_first ... 1/3/2010 Tria:.SQKhay *26*194*47 Jul 16.2009 5.0 Hotel Service 5.0 Hotel Condition I had no complaints at alt... hotel bed was very comfortable, and the view Hume aftkz,80(Dailltle#21:i,t Bathmggecew,ye#*n anddecgditud#,edback 'ditO1!&%'1 Ge*#Condmons 087 FEMers 5.0 Room Cleanliness Arrâ€¢Mlip Tr:nA,fwiÂ«r CHvct,Arrh rinceir~imrÂ·*inne; r,Â·Im Fr,pnriA intortginmwt Fâ€¢Al* (Rift, H,1*tro HAN imorovements Catalog LendinaTree LiveDailÂ·v Match Orlando Hotels ReaIEslate ReserveAmerica Shoes Ticketmastef Trave!Now.com For s,fpW,mifinmmQEPaAJO?efiNI' 0~ers Overall Rating "We wanted a view of the mountains" 3.0 Add Hotel *mliate 'Mth.Us Pro,noteâ€¢Atb.Usm:Uavel Agents Press Office newewed uy d nOv=.u,In gue:l un Jul 7 0, ZUM Â© 2002-2010 Hotels.com L.P. All flahts res,ved Ha@80Â£44*898* :Marks and/Â¢0Â·ANRiphbR*PHolels.com L.P.. a subsidiary of Expedia. Inc. windows. We overlooked a roof which we 1bund unattractive. We did like 4.0 Hotel Condition the fad that there was an elevator and a washer and dryer available. 3.0 Room Comfort 4.0 Room Cleanliness Recommended I Trip type: Business Overall Rating 3.0 Reviewed by a Hotels.com guest on Jun 28,2009 This guest did not leave a comment 3.0 Hotel Service 3.0 Hotel Condition 3.0 Room Comfort 3.0 Room ClearIllness Recommended I Trip type: With F,lends Overall Rating "Nice motel added to great mini vacation to Estes" 4.0 Reviewed by a Hotels.com guest on Jun 22,2009 Houday Inn was In a great location for us while we stayed in Estes for 2 4.0 Hotel Service nights. Quiet and comfortable. it was always nice tocome back and relax in 3.0 Hotel Condition the clean rooms and swim In #le "very warm' Indoor pool! Beds slept great 4.0 Room Comfort and moms very dean for the age of the motaL Restaurant was a plusfor us. 1 went with my 2 younger kids who could eat in the motel restaurant 4.0 Room Cleantiness FREE!!! Food was good. Not recommended I Trip type: All Others Overall Rating "Below par" 3.0 Reviewed by a Hotels.com guest on Jun 16,2009 The room and hotel were a bit erect The resturant service was slow. 2.0 Hotel Service 2.0 Hotel Condition 3.0 Room Comfort 2.0 Room Cleantiness Recommended I Trip type: Al Others Overall Rating 4.0 Reviewed by a Hotels.com guest on May 21, 2009 This guest did not leave a comment 4.0 Hotel Service 4.0 Hotel Condition 5.0 Room Comfort 4.0 Room Cleanliness Recommended I Trip type: All Others Overall Rating "Great Room....Would Recommend" 5.0 Reviewed by a Hotels.com guest on May 11,2009 We stayed at lilli property fortwo evenings...the rooms we had were 5.0 Hotel Service clean, and the staff was friendly. The pool was nice..and warm! We had 4.0 Hotel Condition reserved two rooms and requested that they be adjoining. 171ey gladly 5.0 Room Comfort fulfilled our request The elevators are small and slow...so we took the stairs most of the time. Otherwise...no complaints at all. Would deMnately 5.0 Room Cleanliness recommend if you just want a clean mom with basic ammenities. Recommended I Trip type: Family Overall Rating "Great location...Clean Room" 4.0 Reviewed by Jim of Oklahoma City on Apr 27,2009 The room was very dean...great location...Quiet..Elevator was not feeling 4.0 Hotel Service wei but they were calling someone in.. 4.0 Hotel Condition 4.0 Room Comfort http://www.hotels.com/hotel/details.html?reviewOrder=date_newest_first... 1/3/2010 -- - --'V V.*././. I.'.&1.4/I'll'll ....CUV " 1 .............. 1 ue,u 1 Vi J -j:- Â£2/3.'Â·1/# INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP m"2 244:/3 YOUR RESOURCE TO K E EP 4' _ - ' - L R ; 1 2 2 A:' 7 0 9'i-,Â·Â· 2 CTED 1!Moilt.6.Â· 0,!,rÂ·* HÂ¢de;z Smu, Â¤ APPLICATIONS: WEBGURU Print Close Case Number 18288629 Confidential - Internal company document only. Not for distribution. Primary Hotel: ESECO Holiday Inn Rocky Mtn Park (Estes Park), CO 101 South St Vrain P O Box 1468 Estes Park, CO 80517 Guest Relations received the following customer comments, Please resolve with the customer within 48 hours and update case notes wjth the action you have taken to support the Hospitality Promise. If the guest contacts Guest Relations after 48 hours, Guest Relations will resolve this case on your behalf and a Case Management.Fee will be charged. *Please note: Guest Has Gold Status.* GUEST INFORMATION ---- Guest --- ----- Secondary ----- Name: Mr. Jon Hatten Address: 1947 Rt. 75 Kenova, WV 25530 Contact Info: Holne #: (304) 633-0215 E-mail: jliat111@zoominternet.net Preferred Contact: Priority Club #: 904090028 Gold CASE INFORMATION Case Number: 18288629 (Closed) Case Received: 13 Jan 2010 07:24 AM GMT Case Closed: 13 Jan 2010 07:30 AM GMT Current Agent: Rachelle Mediana (0763RMPHL) Method of Contact: E-Mail: Individual Action taken by GR: Documented, Resolved, and Forwarded Com Reason for Contact: Hotel Compliment RESERVATION INFORMATION Confirrnation #: Cancellation #: <b>Arrival: </b> <b>Departure: </b> CASE NOTES 13 Jan 2010 07:22 AM GMT (Rachelie Mediana) Guest Relations received the following email. *Copy of Document Shortcut at bottom page. ---------- From: jhat111@zoominternet. net Reply To: jhatlll@zoominternet.net Sent: Friday, January 8, 2010 8:49 AM To: +AMER HI-Guest Relations (IHG) Subject: NPC Compliment INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP FEEDBACK CONTACT INFORMATION http://www.ihgoneteam.com/apps/webguru/webguru.nsf/CasePrint?OpenForm&Case=182... 1/13/2010 -JUVUL ..WIL:Â·L IV 1 2Â·J U/Ll.7& . I.'I-VI...../ Contact Name: Jon Hatten Priority Club Number: 904090028 Street Address: 1947 Rt 75 City: Kenova State: WV Zip Code: 25530 Country: United States Region: UNITED STATES Home Phone Number: 3046330215 Contact Phone Number: Email: jhat111@zoominternet.net HOTEL STAY INFORMATION Hotel Location: Holiday Inn Estes Park, CO Confirmation or Cancellation Number: Hotel Brand: hi Check-In Date: 12/22/2009 Check-Out Date: 12/26/2009 Name on reservation: Jon Hatten Comment Type: compliment Spoke With Management: no Comment: We wanted to give thanks to a certain employee that really made us feel at home and well taken care of after arriving in Estes Park after a very long, and at times treacherous, two day drive from the east coast. We got into town late in the evening and were met att the desk by Amanda. She was a joy and genuinely caring person in our opinion that went above and beyond the call of service. We drove 4200 miles and were in 12 states during our two week trip out west and she was BY FAR the most helpful and good natured person we encountered. Please do something special for her because she is the reason we come back to places where we've been treated like friends and guests instead of-just another stranger. Jon Hatten and family . BROWSER INFORMATION Browser Type: Internet Explorer Browser Version: 6.0 Platform: Windows XP * Email received from guest complimenting Amanda, Front Desk at the hotel on the great service provided. Thanked guest for their comments and advised I would forward their kind words to the ownership and management of hotel. HOTEL: ThankÂ·you for all you do for our guests. Great job! Case closed. 13 Jan 2010 07:24 AM GMT (Rachelle Mediana) Email received from guest complimenting Amanda, Front Desk at the hotel on the great service provided. Thanked guest for their comments and advised I would forward their kin j words to the ownership and management of hotel. HOTEL: Thank you for all you do for our guests. Great job! http://www.ihgoneteam.com/apps/webguru/webguru.nsf/CasePrint?OpenForm&Case=182... 1/13/2010 vv CUUL-Jau - Ullest Ketallolls Last * 1.62660.0.9 rage j OI j Case closed. 13 Jan 2010 07:24 AM GMT (Rachelle Mediana) The following email has been sent to the guest. From: +AMER HI-Guest Relations (IHG) Sent: Wednesday, January 13,2010 12:25 AM To: 'jhat111@zoominternet.net' Subject: Holiday Inn Rocky Mtn Park (Estes Park), CO / Reference # 18288629 Dear Mr. Hatten, Thank you for contacting Guest Relations regarding your stay with the Holiday Inn Rocky Mtn Park (Estes Park),Â· CO. We realize you have many choices when it comes to lodging, and we sincerely appreciate your business. We are always very happy when a guest contacts us about the wonderful service they have received. As soon as I received your comments, I immediately forwarded them to the management and ownership of the hotel. They will ensure that the staff knows what a great job they have done and also ensure they are recognized for their effort:s. Thank you again for your kind words. We hope to have you as a guest in one of our hotels again soon. Sincerely, Rachelle Mediana Guest Relations IHG Phone: 800.621.0555 Fax: 801.975.1846 Email: hi-guestrelations@ihg.corn www. ihg.com Reference # 18288629 The information above is current as of: 13 Jan 2010 16:26 GMT Retrieval Time: 1.0 seconds Contidential - Internal company document only. Not for distribution. Questions? Please call Guest Relations at 1-800-621-0555. Confidential - internal company document only. Terms of Use I Support I FAQ Copyright Â© 2010 InterConcinental Hotels Group. All Rights Reserved. Most hotels are independently owned and/or operated. http://www.ihgoneteam.com/apps/webguru/webguru.nsf/CasePrint?OpenForm&Case=182... 1/13/2010 \0 . Rocky Mountain Park Holiday Inn ), A Forever Resort Thank you for visiting Rocky Mountain Park Holiday Inn. Forever Resorts strives to offer the best possible service to our customers. As a valued customer, your opinion and comments are very important to us. Date ~it: *6. 43 - 30 Excelleht Good Fair Poor N/A Cleanliness of Hotel Lobby and Rest Rooms 0 0 0 Parking 0 0 0 Guest Room , Cleanliness of Room 9 Overall Condition of Room's Operating Systems (Lights, etc.) ~3 Value Received for Price Paid Meeting Rooms Lighting/Sound/Temperature Functionality of Space N k Were Special Requests Met? Yes O No O Overall Appearance of Meeting Room Pool/Hot Tub Cleanliness , Hours of Operation Retail Quality of the Merchandise .1 1 Merchandise DisplaWOverall Appearance of Store TJ rt Food Service Cleanliness of Area cer Quality of Foodand Presentation Value of Food for Quantity Served Staff Staff's Attentiveness to Your Needs Quick and Efficient Service by Staff Friendly and Courteous Staff Staff's Knowledge of Products Overall Impression of Staff Overall On a scale of 1 - 10, with 10 being the highest, please rate 12345678 9 432 your overall experience at Rocky Mountain Park Holiday Inn comments or Suggestions: ~10 210.1 61,9.012. *- 4 46, 4409*Â£ 445* CA'M , '61/E-=M,L- ~742/ryl< 1-LA &1 Was there an outstanding employee~DQ went out of his or her way to help you? AYes O No v Stall[ Member's Namt Lou; j e u,06,0 :w:z n Reason: 2)1'Luct //}t(LAL, 1\3#Gdur&**k DEM**tgdts;'&'22 Was this your first vimrm-Roc How did you find out about us? 0 Friend pâ€¢#Speat Guest o Drive-By O Chamber/Visitors Bureau u Travel Guide O AAA O Billboard O Newspaper o Magazine O Radio O TV o Internet o Other (ple,se speclf,~14/ Would you recommend Rocky Mountain Park Holiday Inn? 9'Yes O 010 - 1VtÂ¥94 7=40#4 Would you like t, receive our newsletter? O Yes O NO 44â‚¬811 47#/*t Juujo . Your Name. 01. n n Car ter i / Address: 12 / (0 LOGIL1+ 5-K City: C nmmedrbe 44'LON State: Colo zip code: To Dal Phone: 303 4131- E-Mail: Thank Yod for your comments! We look forward to seeing you again. 3/00:#10m 000 00 0 00 00 000 00000 000 00 0 00 00 000 00000 000 00 0 00 00 000 00000 100 000 00 0 00 00 000 00000 0 0 0 $1 0 0 b,1 .49&>lb- '0 ".i, r fER.:-1 0 43 AL I * i WW. p * Rocky Mountain Park Holiday Inn ~ Â·Fi 1-42,/, :' '), A Forever Resort Thank you for visiting Rocky Mountain Park Holiday Inn. Forever Resorts strives to offer the best possible service to our customers. As a valued customer, your opinion and comments are very important to us. Date of Visit: I I -21 -69 Hotel Excellent Good Fair Poor Cleanliness of Hotel Lobby and Rest Rooms Â£21' O 0 Parking 0 .â‚¬r o Guest Room Cleanliness of Room O 1 i Overall Condition of Room's Operating Systems (Lights, etc.) 9 0 value Received for Price Paid O 0 Meeting Rooms Lighting/Sound/Temperature O 0 Functionality of Space O 0 Were Special Requests Met? Yes O No O Overall Appearance of Meeting Room O 0 Pool/Hot Tub Cleanliness Hours of Operation Retail Quality of the Merchandise Merchandise Display/Overall Appearance of Store Food Service r # /4.4 Cleanliness of Area / Quality of Food and Presentation 4 value of Food for OuantitY Served O i StaH ~ , w.*29 Staff's Attentiveness to Your Needs O 0 Â·, 321 4.i.2. Quick and Efficient Service by Staff O 0 0 / 0 Friendly and Courteous Staff 0 0 Staff's Knowledge of Products O 0 1 0 Overall Impression of Staff O 0 0 0 overall On a scale of 1 - 10, with 10 beingrthe'highest, please rate 1 2 3 4 5 ~) 70' 8 9"l~*4* your overall experience atiotky Mountain Park Holiday Inn comments or suggestionsâ‚¬'fY\\[ 940,Â¢f (tomplairul~, 42vt Â¥worÂ¢, AD /10 \4,+In (1- rt,AL \00.r+61 *111 064-llAV&.,f 949+. 1 7. Work-00Ft- roorn- ,â€žStl6 0 j le -hilt bu. prbco O.Â¢- e43*4unÂ·*3# loorked- Dropir 1# - 09-rper Vo-6 0)-tCL-~gl'rg ove, Was there an outstanding emploveewilo want torrils or her way tolnelp youl O Yes A.No 4[ (00 a..,K<~ ktÂ·, Staff Member's Name: ~ Reason: Was this your first visit to Rocky Mountain 1*k Holiday Inn? DI Yes o No How did you find out about us? 01Â¢PfAng/ O Repeat Guest o Drive-By O Chamber/Visitors Bureau o Travel Guide O AAA A Billboard o Newspaper O Magazine O Radio ~ O TV o Internet o Other (please specify) Would you recommend Rge~y Mountain Park Holiday Inn? OYes ONo Why? 13Â©pDhold on &_,GA+Gib V<5+ Would yoU like 1:Q receiv/our newsletter? O Yes *No Your Name: (ULA â‚¬641> Address: 9140 612, 10 2-34 N City: *r DI420 3 st?te: (50 Zip Code: â‚¬044(0 Phone: (970) 151-0,64 E-Mail: 0130 1-6 @ 5 - Del Thank you for your comments! We look forward tofeeing you again. 3/00:#10m 10 0 00& 91 0 0 00 00 H .9 000 00 0 00 00 000 100 100 Nht & 00 M# 000 00000 I 00 00 000 2,19 00 00 I 6, ~7' / ,0;,P 4$54;f ,c#B~# A â‚¬F Â£ a- .59' Hotel Safety/Security 13- DOCO' F V elcome and thank you for choosing our Holiday Inn hotel. 900001 Value Received For Your Room Our Hospitality Promise ensures that you will be satisfied RestauranVRoom Service ~] Did not use) with your stay and that we will meet the high standards â€¢ Quality of service 0000 you have come to expect from Holiday Inn hotels. If, for â€¢ Value you received doommi any reason, you believe we have not met the standards we promise, or you should have a problem, please All things considered, please rate contact our front desk/Manager on Duty immediately. your overall satisfaction with your stay at this hotel: Fumon Making your stay a complete success is our goal. Just let If you were to return to this vicinit~ how likely would you our Manager on Duty or front desk staff know if any part of be to stay at this Holiday Inn hotellL.--=7-.- your stay isn't satisfactory We promise to make it right or f~[1] Definitely j you won't pay for that part of your stay. --71%-Â·C)-ka.k:.r--- - ~ Might or Might Not [~] Probably Not C~ Definitely Not HOW WELL DID WE SERVE YOU? Additional comments/suggestions A 430. 'A_r0144 Â«- Al, Jo/lt a. .-/i h Url Please let us know what you think about our service and accommodations so we can serve you better in the future. /10 - A - 4-DNE'. , Che L 1/tfB7Â«-- Just complete this card and leave it at the front desk. *44 *M. C.W.2.a,rjv 9,nal__ Please check the box which best describes your b 2 -+ h.ke-WAy,-0 >.A.U.Ae satisfaction with your stay at this Holiday Inn hotel: 4 J.2 32 *41. p#ef How satisfied were you with:/f 0//4 +4640/ Ul / D-4- Â· ~ 7-t 1 C * /4 47 .9 -9 Cleanliness of your room 031~ 0 Ed U El Room# 4L~ 4 Date of Stay /-//047- Working condition of the: t<*DU~y444 24) â€¢ Television 13[1]mucl â€¢ Air conditioner/heater .ZIE]UL[LI Optional v 526u kt L-4Â» â€¢ Hot water b m El El El Name FA /V 1 VU~O0 / â€¢ Brightness of bathroom lighting 30000 Address Service of Hotel Staff: City State Zip Â»4,1 144 hot â€¢ In responding to your needs ~] El 1 0 0 , , â€¢ Friendliness of employees [[] O 0 01 0 Telephone U â€¢ Speed of check-in/check-out [~] O C] El El Leave completed card at front desk. . W % .6/,3-224'+=**iNE.'4#ula.*3#42Â»241*=~64*ae. e.iÂ·~UE==aiha*:a.& 0 I 2 u L Â» 4-- 3 le 5 -8 2 2 2 02 2 te Ccq 430 [cm w Â£ 1 0 63 00 -El 4 c cÂ» 0 01 0 > 00 -1.0 00 :80 22 g &5 88 48 41 28 0 * f.. 11 1 7 ?E-- f37~'77 --rm f t= 0 , i 1,4'Ff j r 1 - " 0 .1 l.} o R U M i 1 2 1 7 171 + 3.i Â· .} i 4 2 i --1 0 - -~8--11. pr. It L K ~*1 01 - .Â· 0 C j f 9 + f fle El y - I. 1 41 Â· -/ 4 465"4 - .-;i I f: 0 E r; L : 1 4 '71 (D i C: 2 -9 i ~. :4. :. r 150 :rÂ·mt... V P 2 f /f .:1 f . St 5 17 & 3Â©4 L CL Ve t-- -*1~ . f 0 t? > N 1 & - 1 - E 6 51 1 6--2.1% <0 9 1 4-4 .4 e,ziâ‚¬.2 A *. p E... .Â· 2; 9-: 48 + r Â£ F r.fitto b Â· f. i .,22/. :3 1 X L & 1=.4..E. I *kÂ«.:s.1 D 1,1 -J 'f ?\ f,triB *4 1 1 IT + '' ...4 T 1: 1 -9 1-'(. * f -YJÂ¢ft . r Â·1 9 -i I - lid it 1 Rma 1 3* L Â¢ 2 2.*:.44.3 Â£1 0 71 71.-1-1 1-t 1 1-6 0 11{ 10 I ..1 Y -1 c kE r C - L RIm '16 I- A U e. l ~ 3 ~~ ~Â· ; R f; 9 t>.9 9 - 0 2 1 U LU N i 492* 4 O C t: e ul O i "--1 i -2Â·Â·Â· li :99 r FE L 1 9 1 psÂ© Â¢ 8 0 1 , i Â¢ I E 2%2 22 ic _62 XI.. = r 210 k E 07 0 11. E Co y='6- - ...El =lail 41 3 Qi -4 .7 *11 . 9, ./1 I. m m L 0 1 1 ..i 4 g - 75 -4.4 Â£1 - gi 0 0 . 4. u). CD ? R R 42 j + - m C & E I m ~ L ._ : M ro ro t a> f 0 -Â· &Â§ Co e - 9 - CD *-1 V + e> 1 L Â«" 31 5- 2 - ~ 3~ a_' -1 -i *f U %1 Â£~ 1 Â£9 ~ -9- ~ O 0 c, 0 2 = 55 -4 621 0 1, *Â¥44 2 1 0. E. m > 2:Â· b E 3 JI U .O 9. e X e e el . , 2 21 3. 2 ~~ 1 idiN ig~ * ~ 6 32Â£Â£- O. E C tuggER: Â· /0 2 25 2 0 -W 0 .3 t < :MIXEO i .* Cl th : a; o - A m ra m '-1 -%- 1HU GuestView Property Home e 1 of 1 - u LUC/ual xdge'Xuadoid--AS/MOI/4sonS/DHI/[uoo'bqqomosorm@!AlsonS//:sduq Guest O Spanish fltil Park (estes Park), 101 ourh t \,/r Â·irl, ;tes Paili opert. Holld ' Code: 9 1 31*5' 1 00 r.1OOOO0Omo r-1 r-1000000000 -0000â€¢ Imi : A : 382930.02.0:02:S=-023::eeco': O to rn rl -1 rl 4.0 0 et Â¢41 0 r* 41 .-1 91 r- Wrt N m â€¢ oc 000 1 V- . ~-1 co m r. -4 N .1 1-1 u , t. â€¢4 , tr , 0000 00 o o em o â€¢-1 Â¢10 00 0 0 0 0 0 - rio 000 1 0 m A . 1 042 : i m . 1 A i :224Â°'*An:tz@*51:25Â°15Â°20Â°245:45&' h u 10 m to F W .4 40 m un ~1 Un M . O 5 1 .. -- I. I -- 8,0 i i r.1 N ,-1 -1 -1 h m rl %0 10 1 V M # 0 -Sg i 00 00 00000~101-1 -10 000000 0,-1-10 00 010% 1 000.000000000000000000000000â€¢ C. O 00 O 00 '010 010400 $32 0- 0 1 .. C.M.1 ,-1 W .4 rn ~1 0% â€¢-1 0, 01 lo U. tri , 0,1 i M 1 M r.1 .. r-1 .4 9- N to el u in 1 1 0001 '-10000.-100 10 ..4 00000000...)0000â€¢ t.1 2 RE : . 1 â€¢ <)./.'rÂ·4 00 00./.-1.-hentrla 00 00 0 0 00 0000 0 i â€¢ ,-4 ./10 ./ 4 0 Z N"@ U, I 1 i 0000,-10 00,9.000000000000000"100, ri '3 A â€¢ OM000 0004 t-10 0 00000000Â©M *00 r-10 0, 1 V 41 4 e r-1 1-1 m 1 . 1-1 00 , Na i â€¢ 00â‚¬91-10000.-Imornoor-1.-100.-1000-10000â€¢ 7. 18 E i â€¢-4 â€¢ M 5 00@g:Â°00@8*20Â°22Â°22Â°0020Â°OÂ°im IMN 1 - eN .4 r-1 14 M .4 .4 . . rl Em* i : E 1 EMB ..3 0 01 RB: 502 0000 901,2 '201*=Em 00000 IM=REâ€¢ m"m sm.MERMOR -Mj~EVEP, 040EIAH.2.3 0 9 M A â€¢-1 A .3 0 0 015 0~ 0 D< 04 04 Od OÂ¢ 0~ Co m 01 IEO-S9 668'99 St 498'Z 92 ZI9'I ES SALES SALES /EXP % DECEMBER SUPPLIBS IdDS IONS BUSINESS DRINIVEL :,1 1 1 ' r, 04 m (11 w.1-1 0 i MÂ·Vt-Â· LnÂ·00 1 1 Â». W ' F r-1 0 - rl d â€¢, eN A M A M O el -0 r-1 rÂ·4 0--i - tri i â€¢ lo r.-1 .-1 .01 01 M el M i M i t- i . .1 , ' 1 . 1 1 . 1 . 1 mal â€¢ . 1 .,. . 1 *SM: . 1 . , 1 1 , 1 . , ' 1 . 1 00 OrÂ·.04.1 0 40 1 *.t-C,MOâ€¢41â€¢â‚¬9â€¢ 1 - om In o .1 cr, M 0, t- 00,4 01 1.6 0 1 * un b N ,D 10. i /-1 i O"10WWLA â€¢WINâ€¢ ,-1 t- f m ,-1 to r-1 0 t~ rl 10 M Co O% O, O N â€¢ ' M 10000/).'â€¢ /.â€¢ 00010'D ...... O, U-1 V ia Â¢N el -Mooolom C.Q rt Â¢1 01 1 ' ........... ' M 0,10.-1.-10 â€¢01 (9 m N c, ..4.0. O W M N B Ul O m ,-10 01 0 n un . 1 1 1 -1 Ul {4 -1 0% -1 0 to i Â¢9 , m , 1 â€¢ R (9 rÂ·1 lo rl 41 r-1 r-1 M , M â€¢ .1 ,, 1 1 . 1 . .. i Â£41 0<-"Mrâ€¢)19â€¢ 0 1 .1.4.-ImOOâ€¢toâ€¢u-,i r-PIO-trIOUÂ·,NOMOMO#'Or-1,-10 1 0 0 'O-1 .4 00. M M â‚¬901 , M . 5 . .-1 $ i qi 0 8 . e . e . 1 , 1 .1 ... .1 1. 1.1 e. .. . 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 â€¢ ineÂ·,OuÂ·,muÂ·,Mâ€¢.4, ,-1 11 Ul 01 0 t- ' b ' 41 1 Biln,r,WROW,01.01810*010,mi â€¢ 01 â€¢ ' OHut-mt-Oâ€¢rÂ·1â€¢ YOâ‚¬,IN hâ€¢t-â€¢mi 041hclt-0:C,r-mibel.-1,0,0,r:rÂ·4â€¢ 4 â€¢ 1 1- melinrÂ· ~10 1 /4 i t- 1.0 41 0 911â€¢.4,0.1 mmele.Oft-Bromfmmfmer~{1 0 ul , . . . . . ..1 .1 6--- . ...1 _ _ _ Â£~~, Wrlde-AMM,ulâ€¢ 4 7- Â¢,1 M , 0 0 w i M r-1 .1 911 00 01 14 0 -1 M m M 01 0 m un ..1. â€¢ ell . 01 â€¢-1 01 li 1 -1 1 10 11-â€¢mâ€¢ . -4 m rit- rl t- N M â€¢ 10 1 I .1 1 5 i r. irtâ€¢Ulâ€¢ .mâ€¢ 1. ... 1. 5 ... 11 , 1.0 .1 m.,i Â¢9036~*mMÂ·gi .-0.t-00 :1:,0. brloor-1.-141Â¢404'MHOMOr-100 â€¢ 0 1 1 . rlm-,9 . M â€¢ * â€¢ .4 1-1 , 10 1 '@Mi . .1 , . . . 0 Â¢ Â°21:gzzigi MO,5100â€¢mâ€¢Oâ€¢ 0,00Wr-10,0,(905010â€¢-10â€¢400 â€¢ 5 1 1,1 rtf'Im ..'.0, moO'â€¢004'C,MOUÂ·lir-â€¢IMwMo â€¢Mâ€¢ NE: .--O...01 t- r-4 0 1- 1 40 i r, 1 ootrl,Omor-ImmoulmeÂ·VIOMMM â€¢CÂ·,1 . . . ... I. . . . - ....1 . . . .1 EER. 1 4<0*19â€¢rnâ€¢ - .Â¢4 e, , co â€¢ /0 â€¢ 41 9/ m m t- h O ~1 â‚¬9 W tot- rl t- O, M , O, ' $."40.4 12 : u â€¢r-â€¢trlâ€¢ Ul 19 rl t- M 0 M el . .0 i r-1 â€¢ rl i tri i imâ€¢ m*! , . 1 .. ,. 1.1 A . , co . 0 . 1 i .nomsm:Â¢9 Â·gi A,0,~.mo'.4,011â€¢40,0.140:r'i tr)Mobt-00â€¢leâ€¢.â€¢ m l.nel,n â€¢m,~0, lo -~ai . ..1 1 ..: 0 .-1 1 co\ . . .., . 1 Emal . 11 1.1 0. 1, 1.1 .1 E-+H ' .0 0 1 00/1,0.-10.-1 10' â€¢nooomor,â€¢.â€¢rlâ€¢ 00 Â¢9 0, el r-1 In tr} to N â€¢o re r-1 O rt m O LO O â€¢Oâ€¢ 1 10 ine..101,1.... O,0â€¢n1 ,-110â€¢Mâ€¢ MNÂ®,Â·90*Owwo,borÂ·Arimel â€¢(01 1 10 00./.'.1.1â€¢10, .4 B .4 , â€ž1 1 41 . In b *11 r-I t- m O 0, B to w 40 01 41 m 4 . . 0 -1 . . .. .. e. v -i . I. .. ZE .0.-1 M . .1 1 M .4 . .4 .4 , r. , 01 - - 1 0 1 1, 1 10 ' 01 0,1 1, â€¢ â€¢ 1 1 â€¢ â€¢ AAA A â€¢â€¢ i Lnmt./OB/'I.|'0 ' 00,410,00â€¢00â€¢Mâ€¢ 1 1- 101 InbrIM â€¢ 00â€¢ 04. 1 1 ' V â€¢ el i 9:*S'-00Â°:S:Z~::Â°9"'o:S; . d . 1 . 1 . ... . 1 1 1 1 0 â€¢ AAA â€¢ t-Orâ€¢lt.01.no,flâ€¢r-1, Invmmomâ€¢mâ€¢ mâ€¢ ' /,0.0.Â·,m~m i 'O 1 0 .0 Mr-1 r--1â€¢0â€¢Lnâ€¢ tâ€¢â€¢41-UÂ·,01.DeN.-1.-1~lOOW.-10Â®01 â€¢00 1 0,0.10/â€¢04Am....mat..u,O.;r,; â€¢ câ€¢INVMr-(W ir-Ii M , U.1 1 Q, rÂ·-t rl .1 -1 v V (1 0,0.00"1.4 1 00 1 0 . ... . 1 .. VV -- V .. . V 0 4, 1 1 -- - - 1 i 'D i , 1 10 1 rl .4 4 .1 â‚¬1 .4 la, 1 1 1â€¢, V â€¢â€¢ , ... 1. 1 1 1 . 1 . 1 1 1 Â¢ 1 0 1 . 1 .. ., 1,1 11 1 1.00./â€¢Ir,1,9,0, 0.0,Booâ€¢.01.1 t-Orn-Binâ‚¬41-1,-Ic,uÂ·,0-1,905(40 , 0% 1 1 , 1 M . .01 ra rn .-1 eq ..1.0, el .-1 10 .4 fl d â€¢-41 â€¢mâ€¢ . 1.1 e. 1 ..1 , 1 , 000.00'.1 .01.0.00'.4,ni 00 00 tr}OU'}. 0 m OU,00 OOtnO â€¢ O% i 000010â€¢00, .MO.w ..... 0 OObult-mor-trlmell,oMr~5 00â€¢ ES. . .w , . â‚¬9 -1 %0 01 # M rl . r- . Lf,MuÂ·,Orm:,O, .-1 In .00,00' 19 moet.nuÂ·,01 0 elâ€¢-to -lu 'Ch, I . ...... .. 28: . r.1 . ... , N 1 82, 0' . 1 1 1 , 1 . 1 .. ' 1 Am . 51.11011 0 0 000 00/01 m =malmi. 9-ENER,mEN A 01 0 E..810 0 0 h s i i 0 2 m g imi 0 0 % :EMillaillial:ial i Olan M m M m m 00 04 m mol Al ... ..1 * e O DECEMBER DECEMBER YTD SALES CURRENT SALES CURRENT opo SSE FOR THE TWELVE MONTH ECEMBER 31, 2009 530 16,975 ROCKY MO IDAY INN L.L.C. HOI-CONFERENCE CENTER CANCELLATION FEES SVC CHG GOODS SOLD S,LId SEHHSYMHSICI TIONAV - SESNEdXE . 3126 Â£1\ Jardine Lloyd Thompson Canada Inc. Certificate of Insurance Â® Vancouver 16th FlooF, 1111 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, B.C. Canada VSE 42 Telephone: (604) 682-4211 Facsimile. (604) 682-3520 CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE NO. FLP 09-09 ISSUE DATE: March 30,2009 This is to cettify that the policies of insurance listed below have been issued to the insured named above for the policy period indicated, notwithstanding any requirement, term or condition of any contract or other document with Aspect to which this certificate may be issued or may pertain. The insurance afforded by lhe policies described herein is subject to at! the terms, exdusions and conditions of such policies. Umits shown may have been reduced by paid daims/expenses. These statements have been made in good faith and are a summary of the insurance cover in force (which is subject to the full terms and conditions of the policy). We accept no responsibility whatsoever for any inadvertent or negligent act, error or omission on our part in preparing these statements or for any toss, damage or expense thereby occasioned to any recipient of this cenificate. Rex Maughan dba Rocky Mountain Park Inn LLC; Rex Maughan dba Forever Resorts; Rex and Ruth NAMED INSURED: Maughan Rocky Mountain Park Inn, LLC, 101-201 S. St. Vrain Avenue, Estes Park CO 80517 - Service DESCRIPTION: Agreement Estes Park Conference Centre COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY LIMITS OF LIABILITY INSURER: National Union Fire insurance Company Each Occurrence (inclusive bodily injury $ 1,000,000 POLICY NUMBER: 4572955 POLICY PERIOD: April 1,2009 to April 1, 2010 and/or property damage) A"Occurrence Format Products & Completed Operations $ 2,000,000 Cross Liability Â®Hostile Fire Aggregate Â®Premises, Property and Operations Liability Â®Products and Completed Operations Â®Personal Injury / Advertising Uability Â®Contingent Employers Liability Â®Employees as Additional Insured Â®Blanket Contractual Liability (all written agreements) LIQUOR LIABILITY LIMITS OF LIABILITY INSURER: National Union Fire Insurance Company Each Occurrence $ 1,000,000 POUCY NUMBER: 4572956 POUCY PERIOD: April 1,2009 to April 1, 2010 Â®Uquor Liability AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY LIMITS OF LIABILITY INSURER: Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania Combined Single Limit POUCY NUMBER: 0934385 POUCY PERIOD: April 1,2009 to April 1, 2010 Â®Non-Owned Automobile Â®Physical Damage to Hired Autos - $50,000.00 Unit UMBRELLA LIABILITY LIMITS OF LIABILITY INSURER: National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh Each Occurrence (inclusive bodily injury $ 9,000.000 POUCY NUMBER: BE44197894 and/or property damage) POUCY PERIOD: April 1,2009 to April 1,2010 Aggregate Town of Estes Park is added as an Additional Insured but only with respect to liability arising out of the operations of the Named Insured This certificate is issued as a matter of information only and confers no CERTIFICATE HOLDER: rights upon the Certificate Holder other than those provided by these policies. The certificate does not amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by these polides. Town of Estes Park By the issuance of this certificate, Jardine Lloyd Thompson Canada Inc. Fax No. 970-586-2816 accepts no responsibility to maintain the coverage stated or advise of the P.O. Box 1200 termination of these policies. Estes Park, CO 80517 Attention: Randy Repola JARDINE LLOYD THOMPSON CANADA INC. 6 2 1 1, PER: (.5-Â»L-LA. \ .401..:v Â·7-1 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ~ t N TOWN oF ESTES PARIL Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Greg Sievers, Project Manager & Scott Zurn, Public Works Director Date: February 23, 2010 RE: Prospect Avenue Bypass Reconstruction Bid Background: This project was reported on at the January 28, 2010 Public Works Committee meeting (see attached report). The project will remove and rebuild the full 2300' length of this By-pass, which includes Prospect Avenue, Fir Avenue, and a portion of Moccasin Circle Drive. The work begins at Stanley Avenue on the east and ends at Ouray Drive on the west. In addition, and due to this project, the Water Department plans to improve and expand their distribution system by installing an 8" watermain loop from Stanley Avenue to Driftwood Avenue. Cornerstone Engineering completed design and bid packages were made available by newspaper, web, and mail. The consultant and staff held a mandatory pre-bid walk through meeting on February 9, 2010. The engineers estimate for this project is $741,858. On February 18th Bids were received from 12 local and Front Range contractors. See results on page 2. Budget: The 2010 budget contains wage 80) $812,000 (101-3100-431-35-51) Plus the cash-in-lieu from EPMC $64,372.78 Total 2010 STIP project funding $ 876,372.78 Total 2010 Water Dept. funding (page 151) $ 50,000 (503-7000-580-35-54) Staff Recommendation: Staff requests Town Board approval to accept the low bid from LaFarge North America with the concrete pavement construction option. This option is 16% greater than the asphalt option however this will double the road's life span. Therefore, Staff requests the following: â€¢ Accept the low bid from LaFarge $ 640,031.71 â€¢ Project contingency $ 64,000.00 (10%) â€¢ Water main addition $ 31,761.75 â€¢ Total requested project budget $ 735,793.46 Motion: I move to approve/deny contracting with LaFarge North America for $735,793.46 to construct the Prospect Avenue By-Pass Reconstruction project and water main installation. . , TOWN of ESTES PARIQ Public Wor~,~ Memo Bid Result Tabulation (after verification) , Roadway Roadway Contractor Address i Water Main (asphalt) (concrete) / 1 Connell Resources 1 Fort Collins 31,970.00 629,560.00 N/A Coulson Excavating 2 Loveland 27,310.00 615,475.00 N/A Cornerstone Concrete 3 Estes Park 44,782.00 624,032.00 693,182.00 4 Gerrard Excavating Loveland 29,586.20 647,721.05 773,016.05 DeFalco 5 Longmont 31,598.71 620,853.60 757,655.27 J-2 Contracting Co. Greeley 29,966.00 29,966.00 718.300.00 6 Kehn Construction Inc. 7 Fort Collins 25,017.00 571,982.90 N/A 8 LaFarge North America Fort Collins 31,761.75 540,642.51 640,031.71 Lawson Construction 9 Longmont 32,582.80 649,297.25 729,700.25 Mountain Contractors 10 Platteville 31.353.10 681,953.95 916,311.25 Premier Paving Inc. 11 Denver 36,237.20 639,021.65 N/A ZAK Dirt 12 Longmont 25,598.00 609,887.75 N/A Page 2 . TOWN OF ESTES PARIÂ© r - Â¥â€ž 7 -., Report TO: Public Works Committee From: Greg Sievers, Project Manager Date: January 28, 2010 RE: Prospect Avenue Bypass Reconstruction Background: This project is a priority on the Capital Improvement Plan and 3 years of funding were combined to reconstruct a half mile of collector street from Stanley Avenue, west to Ouray Drive, west of the Hospital. The design has been completed by Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying of Estes Park. The project will improve the alignment and function of the Stanley Ave. - Prospect Ave. intersection, replace and improve the stormdrain system with all new inlets on the steep 'hill streets', add curb/gutter to both sides, and a 6' pedestrian sidewalk to the south side. There will also be intersection improvements to 5 adjacent streets and a reduction of on-street parking along the Fir Avenue section and repave the entire 2300' section. A detour will route all traffic onto High Street during construction. The project will be out to bid on February 1, 2010 and a bid opening is planned for February 18th. Construction is planned for March 15 to May 27m Light & Power bid out and hired A-1 excavating of EP and is currently installing underground conduit along the entire project length. That work is approximately 30% complete. Budget: The engineers estimate for the project is approximately $800,000 The current 2010 budget (page 80) contains $415,000 (101-3100-431-35-51) plus the 2009 anticipated rollover of $415,000 (per McFarland) and the cash-in-lieu from the EPMC of $64,372.78 Total STIP project funding is $ 894,372.78 Page 1 ITPOSCEIWORKEM . 1 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00.000.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.tr)-000000000 21-NUJ-Wa#-+MdEJUddwidi*46---UNded/fuld/4--f-=diumudige-44-==di- u.100000000000 88888@88888888*881988Â®888@8888888888888888:9:9828888888 X 000000000000 LU EÂ°Oorâ€¢idaciooodo o Lo o tri vi WooddoooÂ©00 ers â„¢*N- tri 4 06 N 45 0 tri o tri US tri u, 0000 cif<,< tri NN $ tr- 10 omocloo 8 008.2-2022*-2 - 52=-=23==2 - 2- O N (4144 Â¢41 - 0 00- LO O 10 0 U),0 64,A U> (41 - N 1- - U) - 1,) 00 0 ,4,4 I NOO O O I C') 4,> g ;; ;; ;; - ;; g; ~ S a g q 1 %22 $ 0 44 U; 44 ./ U,646444 ./ 888828 88 82 8 888888*1888888 88 8888588888 88 8888 888 88888888 88288888888 Z 28 8,8 8! R E A Z B 8 201* 2 8162 9 87 @ 2 2 #1 1 2 22*R E . @6 2 2 8!* 3 8 2 9 01 . CD (O 1.0 . câ€¢ LO un â€ž 1- h un ..00 00 00}.#040 05 Noo oNe IN do do do 0000 00 9.0.4,000.0000004* 9%* 82 2& 28 2 88Â£28%:912 000 10 000.000000000000000000000000.00.0000000000000000 10 00000100000 9 0...0.00.0000.<90000 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 W -0 YOOM 010 O LD 0000000 00 M U) 1 N OU)<0 9 NOOTO A *&22252*Ul@ 213gal& 1#5VE~%Â§%N@KG gagE=mE@& 51Â£il#**20 11*ENS&&52Â£2222 ,~, E E C. 64 - Â¢r; W> 64 v 0 - 4 60 4 64 64 : 09. N Li C M ./ . W .,0 44 V, 2 0088828@88:888-882888888888888 88888g8@888888888888888:9* 888@88 Â§8*330*ENE**MUNE#*%**Â§92UEN#**E@%0%*%00%@62%60%*g@*Mamae 50Â§Â§2% Ed-%44--d-ZieigNAW- - ad:UNS-ad....St/Swwitwis--0-dgwuM:Jug#-ad-UN#2 U} M 0 64 - 64 64 68 64 - ea â€¢4 .9 I. 000.0000000000000000000000000000.0000000000000000000000000000000 0 9 01! 00 Vullo eâ€¢>O 00 *hor-0000000900 5- 0 Win TO OC! e. to LO 000000Â©0000 OU) â€¢-W C! N IN m OCIONOO * 050.21=MUS Â§%#watd@%Â¢50*9*0%322*2&52&&&1 ~~~21%@Ngl## NEENSS;~~Â§229 0 06 0 0 60 â‚¬4 64 e> â‚¬a en Zi " 64 68 --Wwof 4 0 I. - 2 00000000000000000000000000000000000Â©0000000000000000000000000000 99 99 0900 00 00 0 0 al 00 0 0 00 00 0 0 lia,0 0 00 0 0 OÂ© 0 000 0 0,00 00 0 00 0 0 Ir tr>000 00 000 %222888#988 2 22 8 5 28 80 88@@gggESÂ¥ 0*28 82 82 28 8 &2888288*292:8*28 *822 2 r -<DAC)0 VIMIDIMONION 09 10 10 0 I 019*qÂ· CON V-WI to-I 10 10 0, 00000 10 Â¢41 I M I - to I . 0, tr) 10 MI M MII 1.0 (41 I 00000.0000000000.0000000000100004)060000000000000000000.00.00000.0 C! A 19 0 10 CI O 0O000Ool o c> 0 0 O f- 9000 00 CN h r N â‚¬9 0 N U} O CV O,0 0 0 010 24 0 0 00 10 0,000,~ 1000000000 oe, IN woottriood,<NOr-do 4) 6} 0004)OOMMMArtn U> Â¢9 I, B Neo 0000640406464 r-* tri doeido 6--222290-RES--G-**40:29*88--02-222224&5953&8:2222-2222-27-22Am I. 14 - . - 646464646464 64 0 M 64 4 64 64 - 64 64 - R:*Â°:82 2 8!80 831~2 8 2% ~322:KES %9 82 28@2 28 8222 :2:022 3&*488@:2228 9* gwgmg I*0 *SEELVMI~~%119%5141*@%505%*%@0#@3*00@gNME~1*90Â§32@@PE**52%AE" .r N I. 44 64 692-0-Gal-al- U} -,4640,4,46,}485 64 - W I W - M I 1%- 0 A M W I TI I W I â€¢7 0 - I I W N - I CO M I O I M O I CO I M M ~- CD ~1 el LO I CO 0, 00 00 I A O 0) 5 00 h V O .1 N O un h . W A I 09 el I 10 - I I 91 01 l. M 00 N M N N â€ž A N a h h â€¢- 10 I cO a! r- I W cO Â© N 00 91 A co M O I 0, co .-- r I N ...03 (D -00.-h. t- CD h 7&2225221221/gual#i#Malifilidamis/52210&11121%%/B 25351/04%:60: ./ 9-1 4 In <j 3 Rk"0***928uEg"&95Â§90--202"Â®223Â§0Â§~228Â§9%2*iNâ„¢%Â»"N.-Â§2@0*2~Â§220.@tw O # â€ž- p N 1--00 N r 4 N r <a 06 Or- 64~9 ~ 6444 / g I . . J. 5 Sm:&&5bb Ms&9%55bj~ MfjbMSMM 2230&~ ~5~ 0&40 0& ~ M ~ft)Ul mmjj ~5 ~ ~5~5 ~ y)~~l j~; 9ife@* - CIO C- 0) 9 /2 i a I CL --g 00=oo 00 co 0 ES Se Â® - --- I 0 -CNI . 6 CEÂ®Â® .g@& J C . I {0 Eu co - 2 3 -5 9 y ME,1 0 0 2 2 * 2 - L e E ... 6 8- I = 0.- .5ER .- 0 Â® LL {ID Â® - - I - EC >=Â® - c . 5-8 ... 00/2,- o 220" 80- 6 2 0 --: 2<0,3,28,Â¥ :2 - f Lim271/ --_46 0 0 O c )-- / U) co . 32 - ..LL 0.-0) 9 * -V -- .= .- (0 REI 0. : IE -L Pa. ~* m 8 0 2 2 2 a 2 -9 1 -2 2-6 *- 8 11 2 1 8 1 3 1 -2 2 2 1 .m * *3 4- -3- 125 I ***2 Â£ 2 2 2% 2 1 1 " 1 * 23 .&27:- . S & 9 a M h E 9 9 8 9 1 - e 45# s â‚¬ 1 1 3 5 5 E 2 ili =~ * Ez* I â‚¬ . 1 i se *i * M i i M F ,â‚¬ % g i I & f i 2 ji $ a 2 oÂ£12092:MNia&&11 Bail! fil;11222%22*478#Esg,116*248 01Â§,2 05 2 - ~-~~~~SE~P22#22-BEEZ;EEEZ,3~3~gÂ®~E = ~ if O 2 05= locos/of/of, a.01- u,u,05 0,00: of U.M J J ca J =0 a.< oforr 8I 206 Ncy -- S E Ev oo o ,.. 0 0 00 w 0 1-0 0- IiI a. ....... Â®S: occe.== =CW .. .. 2 ,-w.....=--- 00.2 13 30. 23 06 rNNINNININIMMÂ©BOONGÂ©00000000â„¢COMIMIUMMMIVIA-MAMS 0000030)030->CNI~.LON-Â» : If 2RRRRR2222*AZARR2222GXNANAXANNRRR999WZ2S28@S2Â§Â§Â§Â§Â§Â§2@$228EEE00gg r- I er, Itr}Ihooc>SN~ ~~ElOINCOMOr-N / l ul Nla)01-N el qtn<ONOOC)O-NellÂ©loOG}Orleltr}lhOOC~Or- I 09 I r- â€ž- ,- r v- N CNI CNI (NI N. CNI N N. co . er) cO cr) cO M ene M.. ... 4- 91Â· ty ..in Ir) un tr) th un Un ul tr) tr) . CD (D {D (D LINE NO. DESC T PRICE EXTENSION UNIT PRICE EXTENSION U PRICE EXTENSION UNIT PRICE EXTE SION EXTENSION PPARENT LOW BIDDER 2ND LOW BIDDER 3 ZtÂ°A# 4 BIDDER # 5 $23,000.00 $2 00-0â‚¬*$ 00*088$ L6$ 69'99 (sMieM ssoo) sBuppevy U@UleAed Peluie 00'029' aFarge Don Kehn tracting $14,500.00 $14,500.0 $1,620.0 $26,919.8 $319. 01'41$ PROSPECT AVENUE BY-PASS CES 203.056 Idewalk Ditch (eoeide#woled (Aluo le;sui) Coqseld) Mnp Degdols 9 SMOMv tructure d â€ž t/11!d )( I uoiloe )Ze Ich Tac ot Mix A elueAed Xxod 88000% 088 20*88.2 222 -33232& 64 = - 44 4 4 88008 18 g Â§Â§ 0 Â§f roD - te 0 3 I Mil **2222 2 =ad [ 1 088 Im'.5Â§*-0-4 * 44 4 9 888888 - M 33/30 '4 - 8880888 3 1-ill-im-11 :R 0 O 000000 88 0 0 090000 14 6 ME 5 3 -22= 2- :89*22 555 353%533 000 I - 222 00.1 â€¢g.RK-Â° ER~ 2====-a *~ ~ 0 :88:88 C 2 0%0002 * tri %& a . .4,4 u,E 50-:Swgz & i *RE:Â§1@* m - . 1 Eli el h . 00 0 -hoh 22 ..r- 5 %%% 2 -CD , Si-4 2,4-0.loo N -EN . to S tbARMAtb 883& 2 1 C 23 . *200- 2@-E ENE:!2 Eag~20-~~EÂ£%~ 102@2Â·%00*2=/2 -lat 2 Â®'20;gr-,to-2-23 u <WE'Mf~-5 ~ 84~ 22]IO< 6%Â°0215:60%98876 6 bo :ul R u. H O CD U) N .Ii 0 -{N<9.40. - N m . LD I . '* 4% . LINE NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE EXTENSION UNIT PRICE ICE EXTENSION UNIT PRICE EXTENSION UNIT PRICE EXTENSION $581,171.00 15,475.00 BASE BID ASPHALT PAVEMENT AND WATER MAIN TOTAL $572,404.26 $596,499.90 $611,137.00 [EM,485.75 $642,785.00 APPARENT LOW BIDDER LOW BIDDER BIDDER#4 BIDDER # 5 65 30 Traffic Co 1 $42,311.15 $42,311.1 $45,000.00 $60,200.00 $55,000.00 55,000.00 $55.00 $ 6,1 .00 $800.0 $1,500.0 Zak Dirt sified Exc. & Emb. 00.00 . And Embank. $20,83.54 $20,834.54 1 $12,600.00 12,600.00 phalt (41 25,245.00 11;;~CPREvernent (5 inch) ,477.20 22,660.00 CONCRETE PAVEMENT OPTION AND WATER MAIN TOTAL $671,793.46 $0.00 $748,266.00 TE PAVEMENT OPTION 31.71 ix Asphalt (4r) $104,592.80 $1,291.08 LaFarge PROSPECT AVENUE BY-PASS ITEM APPROX. CES 203.056 BASE ASPHALT PAVEMENT N REPLACEMENT LACEMENT ENT OPTION Fabruary 18,2010 Project Bids . 1 O.000.0.00.00000.0000.0.0.00Â°00Â°000 0'0 000000000Â©000000000000.000 00 00 00 0000000000000000000000000000 0 010 0 00 0000.000000000000000000 Â§*GE3989Â§0 ~a~~ ME@@#0*%*gg@%Â§*02*0Â§*6*0~ ~~~ggg@%%#%%%0*%*8*0% ~E**E 4 â€ž: m c; u, 0 0 69 m v, m d W + cd W '09 eâ‚¬ m <4 4 0 4, 4 4 9, 44 - ce, Câ‚¬ 4 4 1 1-7 6 4 4 12 04 4 6 - 4,> <6409 4 6 4 .2 E 4 4 0 04 6 69 * Sim Di SE gid 5 61 0 m . 44 440 64 64 '4 64 - - e (Ni m N 64 0 u, CNI r â€ž44 . 64-61-N---21 - 64 I.- 64 64 64 e-> ./ 0000000000000 000 00 00 00 0000000.00 â€¢010 0-00 0000000000000.0000000,00000 Go 'R r. 00 00 00,0 00000 0,0 00000000000'fiqu~ MIO 0 ID,00 000000000000000 0 0010 00 NOOÂ©O 0 0 m e - - ov - o m ri d d .ri d tri N .2 d dd â€¢6 6 6 00 009 r. 01 el Altri tro â€¢-1091 ci ui w w â€¢ri ooddocicd c; d vi 4 .ri â€¢i ui d d wo Lo te o ~ ~ ~ H~ fhe wl 94 ~ 4* ~~~ ~ ~~ m~W ~ ~ ~ th ~ ~ rW rI ~ ~ 99 FWI ~lu/~ ~~m~~~ ~~ W A ~ ~2 2 2 2 2 ~~ gl ~ ~~~ IR ~ ~ ~8 =~ 2 - 2 -2-0 '4-0 642-dig c. Lf U 0000.00<0000000000000000000.0000000004,00000Â©00000.00000000000000 00 IO N 0 0- 01000 0 000 00 0 000 0 00 0 0000 too -0 00 0- 0 0 0000 0 00 0 0 00 Oco r'}000 0 0 -0 0 0 0 60*E@*00@*40%%0*#@#l@**%*28Â§Â£Â§**40#8%Â£43$81*%02*gmmt#%%**0**swig U. 21888@888882*8888*8288828888888*52922@8822888288888AESS#188822:2888 = 0 4Â·Cle'00* cyÂ©00# 06*0,0,0,40 W ocit daid ocid- 00-N eÂ® 0,0.- 06,90605.oil<N i d,ritrieâ€¢i Lri,ri u,oci .. I câ€¢iÂ® 4 4# 4Â·0 I 2-2 268Â·69Â·622 Q! 0- 8 2 = 2.0,- SI E S-m a g ;; 8 2 ---2-~ a- I N . 1 00 ,0,0 . re â„¢ O r- o cy M-cy - - I---cy cy I r h 44-,4 v, tr, I I - - 0.. 0 - 0 0 V> 64 64 v) eec) 66 N '4 0.0,4 :464 64â€ž-44-464 44 68-44 -â„¢Ne-N ,< 0 64 46 - - e -6444,4 ./ g Z 0000'000.00000000000000000000 000000000,0000000.000.00 0000.00000000 OW.0.00-0.0000000.00000 Ir-00000000.00 0 4,0 00000.000.00 000..00 10 I (00 0.0 *EtE@E*%f** *%****MEÂ¢@eg fg ~~~ Agig~@*@*0ENÂ¢gg ~ 114*g &%60@ 0%@*~4%%32** 9 g 6 4 0 d â€ž- 4 - 0 tri 0 0 N câ‚¬ .2 <de'> 4 --"' ""4 4 446 4 ui l<' 00-tri N 4 06-m v' 0;04 4 R â€ž-câ‚¬ 4,-- câ‚¬ e; 00- 0-44 4 c6 0 0 6 044 4 - 64 - 64 44 . 8-*42.-0,0 64 44 64 40 te,4 64 - CNI .... 0 0 - CD ./ . 64 Ine'age"gle-64@ Wea â‚¬4~000 - ee 0 64 4869 ./ 0 8222WREES@*829@gg@gggES@*Ega@R88*RR*W***88@m:88889W~WeeggWmggesg *02*225@025*@1*NEGE@*s**EMNE##022%351&922**NNE@*0334&2120538Â§23Â§ Of 64 0 40 IN-,4 â€¢>64.>faw,4 64 64 n W I ~cf v, - 0 :2 - 44 64,464,4 & 888888828888888g88888888888888*88g88888g88 882888888888828%88 888 *g**M*g2ME*8M5MM*dÂ§*MM*2*8WS*2@*d%M%**ZMW*VE82tS9V*d26ttWd3*8Ek* O W W OO N 10 (o M toh 00Â» M INI M 10 - 00 10 10 h <DMI IÂ®Or- 10 W MIC) 7 A IN IN MIMIOO c,100>01~ IN I IONIONAIC> &*4%4-0-Â§05#id#--W-444&0d----dw#*d#*4%444-05-Wgid*did/%0*Ung#24- -64- - 64 64 64 64 ./ CA 64 44 ./ LL'88:228@200000000088 O.0000000.0000000000000000.000000000 Lr) tr) 000000 Â§&/NESEÂ°/aili/33.20 m=gm1&iM===a=i/NMmeE/iiI2#iÂ¥%NawN22EsEaNB2&i 00Â¢!0000.0..0.-Clo..0.0)000..0000000-tr)Ant,> W> a} I U) 00 0 00 2 -64 -64 I. 00 0004)000.0000.000000 000Â®10 Â¢9 00.0000000000000Â©NOOAO 000)-NO .900000.000000Â®00000 9 1 '4! I (4! ae ,!trt NWOÂ® t.O I 0 0,0 Ne OMIC!1-u'.NO Â¢! c! I I 9*0 Oa, Noc~ 1~MAINCeÂ®I-o~ cyÂ® MIr) 000 0 I N ONIC! Bals=Bia,KNER-#9*29%/8#REE-%2&&29*82%5553-051&12%55559%%2-2-NE,WhE-59/ 24" 2 - - . 64 44 /4 64 - 60 64 U> 44 60 N m .... O 64 - m 64 N 64 0 64 - {4 . 64 W W ta <9 44 â‚¬4 64 - 6464 I. 64 - - 64 â€¢4 64 - /4 ./ ./ 00 0.-CD tr) C} NoooDOO,OODION<DU.}IlneOC)Â¢900 WOO-CVINMON-OIThe tr> tr) NA-r-OMIC}IC,IC)I-INOOMOO 0 Â¢!03= (Rm<Â£! I m oo h'4910*,90>0 4Â·N I g V 090!MA Clo h oooCIN G'r! (RA ". I I M- 00â„¢ I 0000â€¢-1- tr,N-ot clMNCIN / NO N:N O -%0225/52*Wam@NEW/*%0*2*2*23Â§22@22*ZEE&&351%&39&2335&52231*250253 CR 484 0 2929 - - :u. - -,468 64,8,464,4,4 ./ 646464 ---- "wREE*29Â®Em-&86*:R--202- 200%5AWBEG@@RAE -NEN-N"-Â§2@002*Â§3:0-*c- 6 N A - 00 1<- p N T- 11 j J 536;~tiyly,Mijb&9%23233~I,$5933bjfj3229&*EM~M&&0oMbjÂ£915j~j3&&&&3bb&b~bS&@5 - F# i f *Ek- 2 1 . .5 E a I 2 02*2 N 28 12 033 -m 1 1 . 2- 1 / 5 2 5 9 i Â¥ 0 i i i 40* 28 E-#;22 5 3 a m & 0 - 1 00*t 09.'000Â°0'05039Â®b 1Â®1162*Â£*618&Â§ 33Rvil&59#itA'666â‚¬1*#â€¢38=242*a W -mi t,LI Â® Â® & 5 ; 1 2 8 ' i ' i W E * 6; i 1 5 -* 4 0 ] 1 1 Â® 1 k lic-*Cy: 2/1 1 1 3 -* 3- 2 5% .- .- - CO - - 0- -9 $ C C /2% . 2 0 m 00 0 QU P .5 - i&'iijiliE3S#ii&33ii353@32232228Â£Â£8a288kkb*23iÂ£33333333C#*3t&i -NINNINININMMINCOODIZI 0000 OON M M CO Y V COMMIC,1~Â·IN-MIC') M MY HICONCOI IC>C)Â¤)cy ~ I MAKA 22:22:2222:22:22:222:X::AX::GXR:*99958:RE:82:2228:2828:28200*002 p.<../...2522292/Emgo:g:n:&:gRE:%3**:*:9509:59:9%200:*RE:%:250:2 LINE NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY U I PR E EXTENSION UNIT PRIC EXTENSION UNIT PRICE EXTENSIO EXTENSION UNIT PRICE EXTENSION 00 000 00 9 LE (SWIBM SSOJ3) SBupp Defalco Const. Connell Cornerstone Concrete BIDDER # 6 BIDDER # 7 BIDDER #8 BIDDER # 9 BIDDER # 10 1,$ 00 $1,150.00 $23.4 PROSPECT AVENUE BY-PASS APPROX. Project Bids CES 203.056 rb & Mat epa16qns (pedulo Ciegdols 9 SMOJJv 'pJ ed Free Hay PM Buiu February 18,2010 Clearing & Removal o Sec o ( pill u!Uln)18 pl (Nuo |imsui) Cousei s6uiwevy lue gEl 888888 888888Â® 3~ MN' 28888:1 91292*801 miÂ· maamili milili, 8 .1 000 goo tE& 22== 22 00000 tO O.0 U, UD . 0000â„¢ 0000.Ne %* 0%1 &44%54: O,4,4-,4-1 1<ON:.--C,e CN '4 I. 64 N - 184-0 25 0 00000 M O -0000- Â°tAS 2 K latilaill '4 - 9 ~al 20-2 m (D O.' 0000000 00 00...0.14 88:80: oâ„¢ o0-~-2. --~-2~ ii 13222-i 5 0 28: 2- Emi= CL 0 'Z53 35%9555 355 0. 00 ON . 00 4 00 . 64 64 - 0 10 N ~1Â· 00 LO N W> c, t- 16- Swa--W ~ 44 4 0 0 00 0 , a m Rd 0 0 4 i. ***R m: 04Â®had 0 CO ED . CD N 0 .. 23;2282 & SE@-9% 05 ziNg-N-& #843:: --069). 1 9 44- g UM :R:*48 .*: =0 Ve 1%211%3 65& p-,9-6 .4 13 5. 4/ .CN-NNÂ® g -iN tci 58 5MMWMJ 9 35 & .% 1 524 Q 0.3 2, 8825 -5 O Ill E~#W gE:& 3â‚¬: mi We/2 2:133%/Wilw /512% . Mi #J/56/22:J U~NES 1-4!93:I=Â®.4 S.4010 282002'gis . O e CO N a : .,-*6050:LUIRLIA u3229. g E --CÂ¥74-U'. - N a ll . .' . . F ., - LINE NO. DESCRIPTION EXTENSION UN T PRICE EXTENSIO UN T PRICE EXTENSION PRICE EXTENSION UNIT PRICE EXTENSION 195.26 $76.20 $22 ,521.20 $58.00 52.00 Cornerstone Concrete CONCRE E PAVEMENT OPTION AND WATER MAIN TOTAL $789,252.94 $0.0 $0.00 $802,602.25 $737,964.00 .. BIDDER# 7 BIDDER # 8 IDDER # 9 BIDDER#10 ASPHALT PAVEMENT $42,000.00 $1,210.00 450.00 ,690.00 $5,860.00 ,779.20 ,950.00 BASE BID ASPHALT PAVEMENT AND WATER MAIN TOTAL â€ž $652,451.27 $661,530.00 00*258.85 $677,307.25 d Embank. $87,423.0 $292.00 $620.853.06 t Mix Asphalt (4") ,382.40 PROSPECT AVENUE BY-PASS CES 203.056 CONCRE 1"===.ENT classified Exc. & Emb. LACEMENT TOTAL CONCRET E PAVE MENT OPTION ITEM avement 5 inch) . I O.0000000Â©0000000.0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 900000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.000000 222222222#442#MEN#NUMENSES#@22@222222#25#22#NESSNESSENESSESS@222 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 22@2222@MM@SNNSMS@gs@SSMSMS@SS@SMS@SNM@NawdSM@MW~WMNNMMMS@SMS@22 58888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 W ee ~0 ~ ~ 64~ 0 - 640 *464,4 0 4894 0,4 0 64 I 0 mia M M ef>fl 0 wl *te 00 64 W I V} 64 84 *46,}M ee in 69 0 444,},ate VIV,640,4 4, *au, 64,4 0 O 000000000000000000000006000000000000000000000000000000 0000'Â£'0000000000000000.0000000000000000000000000000000.0000000000 C! 0 C! C! CIN 90) 0,9 cool o o ..0 00 0 0 000 0 0 00 ICI 0 0 â„¢0 00 0 0 00000 00 00 0000.00Â®0 0 -00 0 0 0 88:08:9#BEW@Â§28*STES@%888*22:8722:22:&2:WM:800*ME@82Â§0*8222&9:03 O A N A M e 00 CO -INM ~0 tq. CNI IC}Â¢9<DC)-I MN MNAIWO)004Â·-Â¢49Â·00 U') I Â¢9 10 MIÂ©WIC)0000 4) N rOKI- tr) Cl YODIAOÂ¢90) 64 64 0 ./ O 0 0 LO LO 10 0 0 0.000000000.tr,0000000000000 4, .0010000000000.0000.0000.0000 O 00NCDOM I 0000004Â·000Â®000000104:0~r)0(ClhODOOWOOQOOCOOIWOOL,>~Â·4Â·hholf-Ohoo gaNgMSg Q3%%%iS3j**%M%N@&EEc*a&SEE25El%NGS*h%tk&NS@5SÂ£E#&S5fE%Â§ 44,2-- 64--64â‚¬n- v; 0 .O 64 N Câ‚¬ ers N . Z 64 0 u> 64 64 64 00000'00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00 :9'909.00000..Â©Ill-looll.-looll.0--Illal.-0..0....Ill-Ill. 2255&55*25555#"%01%5%26#=ma" S BEES#%52%%2252%005%0%1112%02 R.Â£~. RE I. S to 64 -,4,4,4 0 00000â€¢0000000000.00000000000.00000.00000000000000000000000000000 0 09â€¢400.000000.Mo.00000000009.0904!or..00000000.0000000000000.00â€¢900 0 ".hea}"06-006-cous-0001<00.0000,41--Nro.ColohooÂ©000.00000â„¢0.rid.-Wouir'i.-40,41Â¢40 c Q-~- WfAW-fn~~magg~gnam@rtURSE282emmaM*GR~2222R*2~82EZWSIWNS~0220@G~9 0. 64 64 r_- 64 60' tri r.-64 te â€ž- 0 64 M /4 64 eâ‚¬ Â¢9- 4 0 tie- I Z - 2 U} 48 0 * 6464,464 ./ -1 ~ -Â®2@892Â§Â®Em"&80Â§2*--g@2-Â®223Â§50~REAggsgeÂ®-Ng.-N.-000â„¢0â„¢hoolÂ©-O-N N. Ul-- . N 8.85222-Me:.9 2- 6 N --00 h - 4 3 4 % LA- U J Sw && b b b 3 3 3 03 rb b El 391 55 ~ i3 E~ 3 8 j iJ <2 2 23 61 652 65 ~ 35 ~ 63 PA~~ 23 Â£ Â£ b 91 3 3 1$5 25 65 M~ *5 b 3 91*5 b m jS e@ 2~ m - D i i F CO 2 8 2%2 <C O L - - C - - H. EN m 5 -8 = E â‚¬ E E 2 I 9 1 =5 1 - - 2- 5 2 &{,F Â·3,2 9 8$ 11 2 222 8 858.22'i:Â£ 911 2 O :d f - . Egi /:EZEÂ£ 1 05* 2 8 5 =imwi lit Kim:fi - - . CCE Ele-4AUJ g-'03: - f-11%2132,;11 5:81 ' bi i '=. oR, 2 bo 25 6,0 0 0 3%~g%b*gti~~ Ss#: 32 531:â‚¬ -Z-I=p - 2:4% 22 1 -MI * *1 1*12-*li-%*11.@-013*& di # 2 2 /1 ilitilitii:55*i m eigil! fe.*5Â£0 O 0 0 :2 ElE CN E .=== c W E i f Â£ 1 Z3 R2R2:22:::::::2g:gg::A:AXXaa::RRgW99:2@28g8@$2g282::::828EE:gggW 3&*RE~*&&&~3*222@*2BdEE**Ed*MifffeSEd@g-00&3~~~~3=36~02â‚¬2~~9 32: 0' 62 EFf - I I I 40 Ihooc,Oâ€¢-CN M * U') I NOOC)Or-N M * tr) INIWO-Neâ€¢)I'r}INODO}Or-N M I W I KIMO,-IMI WINIC)O-â„¢ ce I r- â€ž r- r r â€žr-â€ž-r-r-N......CNIN. CO M 09 Cr) M.(') M . en ... = ...... tr) ti-3 UD Ul th tr) Lf, ur) UD 10 0 8 . CD <D LINE NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY U IT RI CE EXTENSION U IT PRICE EXTENSION UNIT PRICE EXTEN UNIT PRICE EXTENSION UNIT PRICE EXTENSION ~ BIDDER#11 BIDDER # 12 BIDDER BIDDER BIDDER Mt. Constructors $350.00 $30,000.00 45,000.0 00'009 6u!*@Al S 01 0 00 092' (Jegdols 9 SMOnv 'PJOM) Â·e ,100.00 $6,600.00 $4 PROSPECT AVENUE BY-PASS CES 203.056 & Mat CE edAD eouellu (s)lieM ssoJo) s6ui>peIN luelfieAed t Structure moval regate B halt ass B Domes ass 1) e )81 (Aluo Ile}sul) (0!}seld) lin 1sod Ufl leelS ming s6u!3!JEIN jUGUI@Aed e 000 0 0000000 C! 0 0 22 2222222 0-2 44 4 4 8%' 008888% :80 28 2222221 292 44 4 4 4 --- 84 20888:2 g:8::m1 St ig"/%20 4% 5*B , SiC . - ,=f , r 0 0, 'A Â¢9 -CN r- 0 10 8: . 6 d o .. 3 ~3 - 12.55 1 , 69 O â€¢n 0000 00000 ON 0 0 O O Cool 00000 26 98 Â°22&1 231%92 O .1 - r- - 5Â§53% 64 LD te â‚¬969 -.-J 8 Egg 020 b ./ :c Â§ .h#-lii Â§&E /0 0 ,-Cr)-- - - te â‚¬4 Gl 23 4-N-CN.00 -:m S bjjmwth 9 8185 , 0 4 111 &%Â£ 0 ..C i i:& â‚¬ 1c i & 1 & f 11 .88,1 OILIZ*Â® 2 jim 71 2â‚¬ - :81~12* liE 2213 i 4...f ma= MISE Â§*22Ea#22 ~@%95 O - 0 0 I. C) U) ro r N e . tro <O -N..to LINE NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE EXTENSION UNIT PRICE EXTENSION UNIT PRICE EXTENSION UNIT PRICE EXTENSION UNIT PRICE EXTENSION UNIT PRICE BASE BID ASPHALT PAVEMENT AND WATER MAIN TOTAL $681,880.05 $681,953.95 $0.00 $0.00 $0.0 BIDDER BIDDER BIDDER C NCRETE PAVEMENT OPTION AND WATER MAIN TOTAL $762,283.05. [$916,311* $0.0 :rt:s dors .00 3,7 00.00 3,700.00 $5 935.00 5,9 isting Water M $372.00 $25,650.00 $25,650. TOTAL CONCRETE PAVEMENT OPTION Â£$729,790.25 =S= 1 2 PROSPECT AVENUE BYPASS Project Bids CES 203.056 ITEM APPROX. SPHALT PAVEMENT CEMENT CONCRETE PAVE ENT OPMON MAIN REPLACEMENT Concrete Pavement (5 inch) 65 630 Traffi ty . TOWN or ESTES PAR]* , I. lizi il -:,Ii :iFILT/lizill D nliETi rii'.Elill Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Utilities Director Goehring Date: February 23, 2010 RE: Upgrade Beaver Point & Peakview Circuit Construction Bid Background: In June, 2009, Light & Power was authorized to proceed with the engineering and design on the remainder of the distribution system improvements funded by Light & Power bond revenues. Three areas have been identified as priorities for upgrades: the Beaver Point Circuit, the Peakview Circuit, and the Fish Creek Circuit. Design was completed on Beaver Point and Peakview, so these projects were put out to bid in January, 2010. The bid results are as follows: Beaver Point Circuit Upgrade Peakview Circuit Upgrade Brink Electric No bid provided Brink Electric No bid provided Construction Company, Construction Company, Inc Inc Hamlin Electric $162,373.34 Hamlin Electric $235,392.38 Company Company No bid provided Selcon Utility $101,914.96 Selcon Utility Sturgeon Electric Sturgeon Electric Company, Inc. $281,327.96 Company, Inc. $327,752.33 Beaver Point material cost estimate from Peakview material cost estimate from L&P: $73,866.27. L&P: $267,462.35 Total with low bid & materials: $175,781.23 Total with low bid & materials: $502,854.73 Budget Account # 502-7001 -580.33-30 (Station Equipment) contains $1,250,000 distribution system upgrades; total costs for both projects, including low bid and materials, is estimated at: $678,635.96. 7, f, 0 TOWN oF ESTES PARIL 79Â¥â‚¬mrâ‚¬ j.:99= e**''Uy ify~ Utilities Departmentlfâ‚¬ 1 23Juga./:fkfi:B.46%98/81/&682/699 Staff Recommendation: I rebommend awarding the low bid of $101,914.96 for the Beaver Point Circuit upgrades to Selcon Utility; and, awarding the low bid of $235,392.38 for the Peakview Circuit upgrades to Hamlin Electric Company. Motion: I move to approve awarding the low bid of $101,914.96 for the Beaver Point Circuit upgrades to Selcon Utility; and, awarding the low bid of $235,392.38 for the Peakview Circuit upgrades to Hamlin Electric Company. Â» J-- '. . , Page 2 1 . Â¥r 6 4 TOWN or ESTES PARIQ t Memo ADMINISTRATION TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Lowell Richardson Date: February 19, 2010 RE: Grandstand Miscellaneous Fees Background: At a special joint meeting with the EPURA Board and the Town Board one million dollars was approved as committed funds for the Grandstand project included within that amount were miscellaneous expenses associated with the project. Some of these expenses include landscaping, VIP chairs and upgrading the sound system as part of the project. These items were specifically identified by special event staff as items requiring upgrading with construction of the new grandstand facility. Landscaping of the immediate area is required by the development code. The chairs are bariatric meaning they are wider and sturdier providing a longer useful life and because they are of special design do cost more than an average folding chair. The sound system is recommended to be upgraded since the speakers used with the old facility are not adequate for the newer size and will be installed for the arena and the seating area. Budget The costs estimated by staff and other professionals associated with the project identify the costs to be: â€¢ Landscaping $60,000 â€¢ VIP Chairs $30,000 â€¢ Sound System $60,000 Staff Recommendation: None. Sample Motion: None 0 Page 1 1=,al f Town of Estes Park, Colorado Grandstand Project: Miscellaneous Fees by Lowell Richardson Deputy Town Administrator ~~ Town of Estes Park /- Grandstand Project February 16, 2010 Town Board Study Session Overview j As part of the overall Grandstand Project staff reported to the Town Board and EPURA board, at a joint meeting, held October 2,2009 the need to approve miscellaneous fees totaling $350,113 to complete the project. These fees included amounts for: Amount Details Drainage Study/Drainage Improvements $25,000 To acquire permit from state, to pay for design provided by architect and pay for any engineering design and additional work provided. Material Testing $10,000 To pay for costs associated with outside firm to conduct spot inspections on materials (i.e. soil, cement etc...) Design Fees $15,000 To pay for any additional fees associated with completing project not part of original scope of work Construction Management $15,000 To pay for expenses associated with additional onsite management provided by architect Water Tap Fees $109,000 To pay for cost associated with increase of use and increased demand on water system Foundation Design $5,000 To cover additional expenses associated with changes in foundation designs based on steel manufacture shop drawings VIP Chairs $30,000 To pay for (400) VIP chairs that are beratrically designed Sound System $60,000 To pay for new speakers and a wireless system for use from the Grandstand location Utility Fees $5,000 To pay for water and electric use during project Builder Risk Insurance $1,700 Insurance coverages recommended for project Landscaping $60,000 Required landscaping as outlined by code Community Development $14,413 Fees waived by the community Development for this project /.7 l These amounts are included as part of the one million dollars approved by the Town Board and committed to the Grandstand project. The highlighted items VIP chairs, Sound System and Landscaping are items being reviewed and considered for approval. The items are factored as part of the overall project based on the understanding that these items would not have been purchased or changed if not for the project. VIP Chairs Staff is recommending purchasing (400) $75 ea. bariatric chairs which are designed wider and sturdier to provide longer product life for use in the designed VIP area of the grandstand. Sound System Currently, staff has retained the services of a local sound system expert who resides in Estes Park to provide maintenance and upgrade services to the current system. Based on recommendations provided by this expert staff is researching items for upgrades to the current sound system. The old speaker system for the grandstand was outdated and limited in providing quality sound for the patron. These items were removed during the demolition of the old grandstand. With the increase in size to the new facility an upgraded system is required to provide a quality product for the patron or user of the facility. The staff is recommending purchasing a wireless system so shows or users of the facility can provide Town Board Study Session Town of Estes Park Grandstand Project February 16,2010 f , personal announcing from the facility location as opposed to using the announcers booth which is located just across the arena grounds for the smaller events. f \ Landscaping The construction of the new facility will require landscaping as required. Current estimates include shrubs, trees and indigenous plant life within the developed area. There are time requirements to complete the landscaping once the overall project is finished. Summarv The items listed are estimated costs as provided staff and or other professionals associated with the project. Before purchasing occurs staff will seek competitive bids for these items as required by Town policy. - 0-3 Town of Estes Park n Grandstand Project February 16, 2010 ~~ Town Board Study Session /3.: . Code of Conduct for the Estes Park Board of Trustees This Policy prescribes guidelines for behaviors of Town Trustees and appointed officials in the performance of their official duties and interaction with both the Public and Town Administration. Some ethical requirements are enforced by Federal,subiect to State-oplocal laws. Others rely on training or on an individual's desire to do the right thing. "Ethics" means positive principals of conduct and is defined as the rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or member of a group or profession. Trust: 1 Trustees treat their office as a public trust. The Town's resources and powers are to be used for the benefit of the public. 1 Trustees shall act in good faith, be honest and honorable in all dealings and strive to provide a balanced approach in establishing policy. 1 Trustees refrain from decisions in which their financial or personal interests are specifically affected by a decision and shall adhere to applicable Colorado Law governing conflict of interest. > Trustees do not accept personal gifts except as specifically allowed by Colorado Law. Respect: k Trustees interact with the public, administration, employees and each other in a respectful manner. > Trustees treat those providing input at Town meetings with respect. 1 Trustees respect and adhere to their oath of officel Accountability: 1 The Board of Trustees exercises its authority with-by adherence to the Colorado open meetings and access to public records statutes. 1 The Board of Trustees hold executive sessions only for reasons allowed by-and in compliance with the Colorado Revised Statutes. 1 Trustees are positive advocates for the Town and are accessible to the citizens of Estes Park. Leadership: 1 The Board of Trustees upholds the laws and ordinances of the Town of Estes Park and the State of Colorado. > The Board of Trustees represents the citizens of Estes Park, and strives to meet the adopted mission and vision statements for the betterment of the community. > The Board of Trustees establishes policies for the governance and safety of the community, sets fiscal policy and decides long term priorities. 1 The Board of Trustees acts as a body to strive for a balanced approach to meet the current and future needs of its citizens. Colorado Statute reference: CRS 24-18-101, et seq.; 24-18-201, et seq. and CRS 24-6-402.