The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2010-07-13Prepared 6/29/10 FILE. *Revised - 7/08/10 ** Revised - 7/09/10 TOWN oF 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, July 13, 2010 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. ** DISTINGUISHED LIFE SAVING AWARD - SGT. COREY PASS. Chief Kufeld. PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval of): 1. Town Board Minutes dated June 22, 2010 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated June 22, 2010. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development/Community Services, June 24, 2010. * B. Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works, July 8, 2010: 1. Additional Funding for Prospect Avenue Reconstruction of $10,000 for a total project cost of $711,031.71. Moved to Action Item 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. RMNP UPDATE ON COW CREEK FIRE. Public Information Officer Patterson. 2. TOWN BOARD LIAISON UPDATES. Board Members. 3. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Town Administrator Halburnt. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 3. ACTION ITEMS: * 1. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR PROSPECT AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION. Dir. Zurn. 2. RECONSIDERATION OF SMALL WIND TURBINE REGULATIONS. Town Administrator Halburnt. 3. ORDINANCE #15-10 LIFTING WIND TURBINE MORATORIUM. Attorney White. 4. RESOLUTION #08-10 OPPOSING PROPOSITION 101 AND AMENDMENTS 60 & 61. Administrator Halburnt. 5. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: To discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of real, personal, or other property interest under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(a) and a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions regarding Kind Coffee under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b). Motion: I move the Town Board go into Executive Session - For the purpose of discussing the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of real, personal, or other property interest under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(a) and for a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b). 6. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the Cynthia Deats From: Admin iR3045 Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 10:08 AM To: Cynthia Deats Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 3004 ST. TIME 07/09 09:55 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 Cynthia Deats From: Admin iR3045 Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 9:12 AM To: Cynthia Deats Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 2999 ST. TIME 07/08 09:03 PGS. 2 SEND DOCUMENT NAME TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 6672527 Greg White 5869561 KEPL 5869532 Trail Gazette 5861691 Channel 8 6353677 Reporter Herald 2247899 Coloradoan 5771590 EP News ERROR ----- 1 Cynthia Deats From: Admin iR3045 Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 1:55 PM To: Cynthia Deats Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 2995 ST. TIME 07/07 13:47 PGS. 2 SEND DOCUMENT NAME TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 6672527 Greg White 5869561 KEPL 5869532 Trail Gazette 5861691 Channel 8 6353677 Reporter Herald 2247899 Coloradoan 5771590 EP News ERROR ----- 1 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 22, 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 22nd day of June, 2010. Meeting called to order by Mayor Pinkham. Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor Chuck Levine, Mayor Pro Tem Trustees Eric Blackhurst Mark Elrod John Ericson Wendy Koenig J N Jerry Miller Also Present: Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administ?abr Lowell Richardson, Deputy<Town Adn~histrator .\ Town Attorney White / / Cynthia Deats, Deput1 T4/vn Clerk 1 Absent: None \\\ ~~' ~~k~admgedole~ th~nm~.ting,~~'tfÂ·3:00 Pfqnd all desiring to do so, .... 9 U# 11.\ /,/\NXP PROCLAMATION - SALUD 40'9 ANNIVERSARY. Mayor Pinkham read aliroclamatibn desiÂ®ating June 25, 2010, as the day to celebrate Salud's commitm4trAd contribblibns to the Estes Valley. PROCLAMATION - ROOFTOP'RODEOWEEK. Mayor Pinkham+read a'procldmation designdting July 6, 2010, through July 11, 2010, as Rooftgp'Rod@02/Veek i?i.Ehtes Park. The new grandstands at the fairgrounds will be utilized<for the eventi,*A pafade.~golf tournament, mutton busting, calf catching, and special 'recognition night* are. planned. Mayor Pinkham congratulated Rodeo Committee members on #ihir accot*ishments during 2009. ) PUBLIC COMMENT. ~/ ~ David Habecker, Town resident, commented on recent "acts of God" that have made the news, questioni,~10,6 merit of prayer. Charley Dickey, Town resident, spoke in favor of getting public input related to projects being considered by the Town. He suggested using the Estes Valley Partners for Commerce and the Local Marketing District to help get input from the business community, and offered to assist with compiling and distributing a survey/questionnaire to residents. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. Trustee Ericson reported that Larimer County experienced an increase in sales tax for the 1St quarter of 2010, and complimented staff for enhancements made to financial reports. Mayor Pro Tem Levine reminded the public of the regular Community Development / Community Services Committee meeting to be held on Thursday, June 24, 2010, at 8:00 a.m. in the Town Board room. Board of Trustees - June 22, 2010 - Page 2 Mayor Pinkham stated the investigation into the death of a young woman on June 17th is ongoing with no additional information to report at this time. He thanked Mayor Pro Tem Levine and staff for filling in while he was out of town traveling in Costa Rica, stating that the trip was a learning experience that provided an opportunity to gather information about Costa Rica's long-term commitment to the environment, environmental sustainability, eco-tourism and environmental tourism; and to share ideas. Mayor Pinkham noted a change to the agenda moving Action Item #1 before Planning Commission items, and encouraged those wishing to comment on the Medical Marijuana agenda item to place their names on the sign-in sheet. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated June 8, 2010 and To~>Board Study Session Minutes dated June 8,2010. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: nÂ« A. Public Safety, Utilities and Public,Works. June 10, 20131,~x 1. Utilities: a. Fish Creek Circuit ~b~tie~ U~es - 22,434.80 - Budgeted. 2. Public Works: 9xxt a. Pothole Patchelt MacOnald EquIPTent Co. - $34,097 - Budge-ted. 4. Estes ValleÂ¢~Annihg CommiAion,10Iinutes May 18, 2010 (acknowledgement only) Â« 2 L \\ It was moved and seconded (LevinelMiller) th#Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimo u<y~W\~ /' 3-.~> 2. ,REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: \4> \\ N\\ 1\GRANDSTANDfPROJECTUPDATE. DÂ®uty Town Administrator Richardson reported that the grandstands project budgkwas 93%?e;pended as of June 2, 2010, and in week 34 of a 34-week projebt.~Ve sdidithat a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) was obtaineckpriof to' the Wool Market and that work continues on wood siding installation*(a,Ehange from the original metal siding) and punch list items. A retainage amount of $87,682 will be held until all punch list items are completed. The Trustees commended staff for their efforts on the grandstands project. 2. TRANSFER OF ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY (EPURA) ASSETS. In preparation for the abolishment of EPURA, Town Atty. White and EPURA Atty. Benedetti recommended that EPURA pass a resolution to transfer all obligations, contracts, properties and revenue to the Town of Estes Park; execute a Special Warranty Deed to assign all real property to the Town; and assign the grandstand facility and contracts to the Town. At their meeting on June 16th,the Commissioners approved Resolution #395 to accomplish the first two objectives. The third will be addressed at the regular EPURA meeting scheduled for July 21, 2010. No additional action is required by the Town Board, as by adopting Ordinance #04-10 in January, the Board agreed to .!i .1 Board of Trustees - June 22, 2010 - Page 3 accept EPURA's remaining obligations. The Board requested a report providing a final accounting of EPURA's finances. 3. BOARD LIAISON UPDATES. â€¢ Trustee Koenig invited the public to attend the Rooftop Rodeo and related activities. She noted that the Sister Cities organization will be hosting an Open House on July 19th at the Community Church of the Rockies for the Venture Scout Group from Costa Rica. â€¢ Trustee Elrod reported on the June 15th Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) meeting and reminded the public that the EVPC meets on the third Tuesday of each month with the next regular meeting scheduled for July 20th at 1:30 p.m. in the Town Board room. 4. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. â€¢ Prospect Avenue Proiect - Delayed due to the necessity to relocate a gas main. A completion date of July 16th is expected. â€¢ Free Shuttles - The shuttles, operating on thfeek routes, will begin on Saturday, June 26th and will run through August 2gth, and on Labor Day and Scottish Festival weekends. 3. LIQUOR ITEMS. -Â«1 1. LIQUOR LICENSING: TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP -~ROM EVEREST FOOD STORE LLC dba EAST SIDE,EVEREST FOOD STORE TO REBECCA INC. dba FAMOUS EASTSIDE FOOD STORE, 381 S. ST. VRAIN AVENUE, 3.2% BEER OFF-PREMISE LIQUOR,LICENSE ~ V The Clerk's office received a requesâ‚¬fof*th& transfer of the 3.2% Beer Off- Premise liquor license frorh#Everest FoAd<S(6re LLC to Rebecca, Inc., dba Famous Eastside Food btor;>Jhe applicaht has completed all required paperwork and submitted th~bjPP*pria~e fe@s,)*oontak Kim, representing Rebecca, Inc., attended thetmeeting-and#stateckthat TIPS training is being scheduled for foodÂ·store emblAyees:/The 1-rusle*s informed Mr. Kim that holding a ~Jorelicer?he is al*tiods res~nsibility and that he and his employees re#bbligatdd'to uphold the liquor laws of the State of Colorado. It was moUd :and secoÂ¢ddd (BlackhdrsUMiller) to approve the transfer of the 3.2% Bee-r Off-Premiselliqu~ lidehse to Rebecca, Inc., and it passed unanimously.'.~*4 --- -'-*-" $.*% y 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or -staff for Town Boatd Final Action. Mayor.Pinkham: Open the Public Hearing for all Consent Agenda Items. If the Applicant, Public)0:1; Town Board wish to speak to any of these consent items, they will bkmoved)Â«Me "Action Item" Section. 1. CONSENT ITEMS: * A. AMENDED SUBDIVISION PLAT 1. Amended Plat, Portions of Lots 1 & 2, Block 2, 2nd Amended Plat, Town of Estes Park, 167 E. Elkhorn Avenue; 167 East Elkhorn, LLC/Applicant. Applicant requests the item be continued to July 27, 2010. The Board approved the continuance to the July 27, 2010, Town Board meeting. 2. ACTION ITEMS: A. ORDINANCE #13-10, Small Wind Turbine Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code - Public Hearing. Mayor Pinkham opened the public hearing. Planner Shirk provided background related to the proposed regulations pertaining to Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems. The first reading was heard at the February 23, 2010, Town Board meeting at which time the Trustees remanded the item Board of Trustees - June 22, 2010 - Page 4 back to the Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) to address setbacks, include a provision for a public review process, and to separate micro wind and small wind systems. A moratorium on the issuance of building permits for the installation of any wind turbine was adopted in 2009, and is in effect until August 31, 2010, to provide the Board an opportunity to review public input and consider regulations addressing negative impacts related to the location and operation of wind turbines in Town limits. Staff presented an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) to allow and regulate small wind turbines. The EVPC recommended changes to staff's draft which include the removal of text related to a public review process; an increase to the minimum setback from two-times tower height to three-times tower height; and a reduction in maximum size from ,125 square feet to 85 square feet. The reduction in size and the increase in setbacks was proposed to address the visual impact of the wturbines. The proposed amendments are lacking a review procets to consider impact to views and contain minimal safety stdfnddids>Trustee Miller said the EVPC ignored the intent of the,Thwh Boahl'2>motion on February 23rd that does not contain the 99 4equested. and has put the Boar~ in,5 Asition to appr~mendment PUBLIC COMMENT. < Paul Brown, Town residen t~boke'l;~~or of allowing small wind turbines; stated tbe proposed am*0rfients related to setbacks would deny most resitie;*dhe opportunity4 to have a wind system that would tie to ttle\grid~said theNproposed amendments create exclusionary zoning\ aAMUbiced o~*okition to a conditional use permit (CUP). \\ 2 1% V B ~pements, spoke in favor of wind turbines; does not consider the ~3ed arAeAdment \Â©good solution; recommended adopting sdtbacks conlistent with l*imer County requirements; and supports a'BAcial r*ievE~5cess oveba conditional use permit. ; 'ta Ny Tawney, Town resident, opposed passing the code amendments sugbesting this is a complex issue capable of regulating itself. Â».Xi fx Mayorx Pinknamyclosed the public hearing. Board comments are summdriied: heard no compelling argument for the regulation of \ 1 wind tb#ines; ordinances already exist to control noise and \ \setbadks? EVPC did not come back with requested revisions; let BAXidfing# ordinances regulate wind turbines; the EVPC did their job an#listened to and considered public comment; no regulation will please everyone; planning department and EVPC have worked diligently on this; support regulating with codes currently in place; and cannot support this type of exclusionary zoning, or the absence of a review process. Mayor Pinkham noted the Board could choose to send the amendments back to the Planning Commission for further revisions, or adopt the amendments with staff's code language. Atty. White read Ordinance #13-10 into the record. It was moved and seconded (Elrod/Levine) to approve Ordinance #13-10 adopting the Small Wind Turbine Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, and the motion failed. Those voting "Yes" Trustees Elrod, Ericson, and Mayor Pro Tem Levine. Those voting "No" Trustees Blackhurst, Koenig, Miller, and Mayor Pinkham. P]*Iil Board of Trustees - June 22, 2010 - Page 5 The Mayor commended staff and the EVPC for their time and effort and said various provisions already in place should address the regulation of wind turbines. An ordinance to lift the moratorium on wind turbines will be considered at the next Town Board meeting. B. Accommodation Zoning District Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code to Allow Townhomes - First Reading/Public Hearing. Planner Shirk reviewed an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code that would allow townhome subdivisions in A and A-1 zoning districts. Currently, townhome subdivisions are allowed only in the RM Multi-Family Residential district. The revision would provide flexibility to regulations related to townhome subdivisions and addresses discussions related to the financing of condos vs. townhomes. The Estes Valley Plannin#>Commission (EVPC) unanimously recommended approval 14*,proposed amendment. As there was no public comment, it wasjmoved and seconded (Miller/Koenig) the public hearingWel/Atihued to July 27, 2010, and it passed unanimously. ~A V 1 C. Development Plan ExpiratiA/Xmendments to VIA Estes Valley Development Code - First Rehdinq/Public Hearing. 1 \ Planner Shirk stated that theproposed*athendment wobld>provkle for the expiration of development plan'jÂ®rovals three years after the date of plan appmval if no constniction activity has occurred. Pulling a building permit automatically ext6nds the life of the development plan as long as\OrtigrAs.is beingN#ade; and extensions can be requested throu@11\ the*v&mmunith>,evelopment Department provided-there ar@do changesho.,thevtlevelopment plan. The expiration-@buld perthilto~de*elo~me@plans that are never initiated 0*AitÂ·'dorrAa;*** and would be retroactive to existing plans with *ppfoximateQ 20 plan's 'being affected. If the amendment is approved, stliftGill notify't# developers of the expiration regulation. Ah #tere.Was.Hopublic cg~ment, it was moved and seconded -=*(Ericson/Elrod) thepubl@hearing be continued to July 27, 2010, ~Â·Â«.#nd it bashed unanimously. N \ 1% 5. ~ACTION ITEMS: :\ 11 2009 COMPREHENSIVE~ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR). FinAnce Officer Mcfarland reviewed the process for compiling the annual findindial, report for the Town of Estes Park, EPURA, and the Local Marketing Distridt (EMD),:which was prepared jointly by Finance Department staff and the independeht auditing firm, Swanhorst & Company, LLC. The audit resulted in an unqualified, or clean, opinion from the auditors that the financial statements fairly represent the financial position of the funds and activities of the Town of Estes Park. The CAFR includes a Single Audit which is required when Federal grant funds in excess of $500,000 are received in one fiscal period. The completed annual report is due to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) by June 30th and the State of Colorado by July 31 st Kyle Logan, Project Manager for Swanhorst & Company, noted that the Letter to Management that was prepared by Swanhorst recommends implementing procedures for internal controls related to the tracking of grant funds, and controls for the approval of credit card purchases. He said that the Town needs to be aware of new accounting standards effective in 2011 related to the use of special revenue funds and the budgetary and reporting implications of these changes. When asked why the LMD was included in the CAFR, Mr. Logan said that by accounting standards, the Town influences the financial activity of the LMD by virtue of appointing a majority of its board members. It was moved and seconded (Ericson/Blackhurst) to approve acceptance of Board of Trustees - June 22, 2010 - Page 6 the audit report and the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year ended December 31, 2009, and it passed unanimously. 2. ORDINANCE #14-10 - EXTEND TEMPORARY MORATORIUM FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTERS. Ordinance #10-09 establishing a moratorium on the issuance of a business license, building permit, or any other approval related to medical marijuana facilities, previously passed by the Town Board, expires on June 24, 2010. Atty. White stated that Ordinance #14-10 will extend the moratorium until June 30, 2011, providing time for the Town Board to receive public input related to the medical marijuana issue, examine options available to local municipalities related to the recent enactment of HB 1284, and evaluate the State's regulatory system. The Ordinance will take effect immediately upon its approval. PUBLIC COMMENT. Charley Dickey, Town resident, supported the,ideajof soliciting more public comment on this issue, and noted the possiblelle*tivkimpact associated with medical marijuana facilities. .f' 1 Atty. White read Ordinance #14-10*-into ine record. Ir was moved and seconded (BlackhursUMiller) to *idopt Ordinance #14-10~~xtending a moratorium on the issuance of bu~iness licdnbes, building p~mits and other approvals related to estabils'11'16,wAd/?r operating medical marijuana facilities in the.Town of Estes Park until June 30, 2011, and it passed unanimously. The..brdinance shallvtake effect and be enforced immediately. VtÂ».2\40 Atty. White noted.that Larimerfour;y hasalnoratorium in effect until July 7, 2010, for the/Estes Valley plat?hing,area.Â«914 Town Board asked Town Administratofp@burrih@advise #jefounty Commissioners of the extension of the Townâ‚¬ Toratorium,laAd requesJ t~at the Commissioners consider a similar extension'ofthe moratdrilim in the unincorporated Estes Valley. 3. SHUTTLE BUS CONTRACT WITH MCDONALD TRANSIST. /Deputy ToÂ®n Administrator Richardson presented a contract with McDonald / 4fransit foAhkqperation of the free shuttle system for the summer season. ~\Transportatioh'~alÂ¢ng threeyoutes will begin on June 26, 2010, and continue Nintil August 29,1610. Tfie'shuttles will also operate on September 4,5, and 6, 20fo,.Labor Day WAekend. The base contract of $121,376.20 does not include fee&,f~additioohlyfuel usage or additional hours over and above the base contract.ntuel'usage in excess of the base contract will be outlined on an individudlireÂ¢Sip(for reimbursement. The contract has been reviewed by Atty. White and'higfied by the president of McDonald Transit. $171,655 is budgeted in the transportation account 101-5600-456-22-60 for 2010 shuttle services. PUBLIC COMMENT. Charley Dickey, Town resident, asked about the availability of advertising racks for merchant advertising. Deputy Town Administrator said the racks may be an option next year, but would require a different type of bus than contracted for in 2010. It was moved and seconded (BlackhursULevine) to approve the contract between the Town of Estes Park and McDonald Transit Associates, Inc., in the amount of $121,376.70 plus fees for additional fuel and hours of service if any, as presented from account #101-5600-456-22-60, and it passed unanimously. Extension of the term of the contract through September 2012 is subject to appropriations. Board of Trustees - June 22, 2010 - Page 7 Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m. William C. Pinkham, Mayor Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk 49 44% //L i i f 1 1 .).1 V RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 22, 2010 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in Rooms 202 & 203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 22nd day of June, 2010. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Levine, Trustees Blackhurst, Elrod, Ericson, Koenig and Miller Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Town Attorney White, Directors Kilsdonk and Zurn, Manager Winslow, Finance Officer McFarland and Town Clerk Williamson t 5 4 Absent None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. PROACTIVE COMMUNICATION. .'4\ At: Trustee Elrod questioned whether communicationsyith,the Town Attorney by both the Board and the Town staff should be,examined, and a gate-keeper established to ensure the attorney is only contacted wheh nÂ®essary. Board discussion followed: the attorney works for the Board and should be dohtacted when needed,a policy/procedure could be developed to established guidelineâ‚¬ihe 14gal fees are reasonable; and deparlment heads should contact the atto'rey wheh legalquestions arise. 4-/ Trustee Miller raised concerns.With regard 4 how communications are handled. He stated a communication policy *buld outline how the Town handles issues such as Trustee correspondence. TrustekÂ»enig Offered assistance in developing a policy. Mayor Pinkham requested Trustee.MillerÂ»briÂ® forward a list of concerns for the Board to discuss further. The general consensus:of the Board was that staff has responded effectively topublic inquires/communications. Truitee Elrod questioned if the Board should review the PIO duties and if the position was fOnctioning as the Board eivisioned. Trustee Blackhurst stated the position is dynamic *And the details of the position change continuously. The position reports to Administration which determines the job description as the position moves forward. The Board discussed the development of agendas for Town Board and study sessions. The Board approves of staff sending the draft agendas for the Town Board's review and comment. Trustee Elrod suggested a standing item on each study session could be the review/report of letters and responses to correspondence received by the Board. The Board reviewed the options available to provide the Board with Town email addresses, including a public server, laptops and software, clientless SSL or redirect estes.org email to the individual trustee email account. Several of the members were concerned with the possibility of viruses on their personal computers and the difficultly in receiving and responding to emails. Trustee Elrod stated utilization of the Town's servers would protect the Town during an open records request. Attorney White informed the Board that the state statute does not address the retention of electronic communications of board members, and therefore, there would be no legal liability. POTENTIAL PROJECTS & ALTERNATIVE FUNDING OPTIONS. Town Administrator Halburnt presented the Board with a list of potential projects for the Board's consideration at the upcoming pre-budget study session. The outcome of the review would be to identify projects that should remain and add any items the Board RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Town Board Study Session - June 22, 2010 - Page 2 would like to consider for the 2011 budget process. Trustee Miller questioned whether or not this process was recreating the CIP list that was established previously. The Board reached consensus on maintaining the following items for consideration in 2011: Multi Purpose Event Center (MPEC), indoor arena, transportation hub/civil site work, fairgrounds parking lot lighting and landscaping, permanent stall barn, replace barns T, U and V, renovate and relocate barn W, Bond Park master plan, Moraine Avenue streetscape and safety, museum storage facility, affordable housing/EPHA collaboration, street & drainage utility, SOPA performing art theater commitments, impact fees, Lot 4 usages and Highway 34 transit park and ride. Board comments are summarized: the MPEC could be an economic driver for the fall and winter months; a professional performa should be completed for the MPEC and the arena; the board discussed the removal of the pedestrian crossing at Moraine and Wiest; downtown parking should be removed for 2011 and focus on the development of the transportation hub; parking could be added to the list inihe future; Donut Haus intersection should be removed and readdressed at a latdr da4te; remove traffic flow realignment; questioned if the museum storage facility coilldte funded by the Friends of the Museum; land acquisition on Riverside Drive was a.gaafte previous Board and should be removed; Historic Preservation would be tlidcussell.fatuan upcoming study session and should be removed; a comprehensiVe.rbview should156.completed for all Town owned property and discuss the best uses for the propertieÂ©Elkhom Lodge redevelopment should be removed until such time as there is a new proposal to review; and a community center should be added to the list. Trustee Elrod suggested a public input process should be considered to allow the public a chance to comment and/or add iternst,to the list. Of potential projects. The Board discussed the option and reached boniensus that a 13ublic-process should be used for the 2012 budget process. 1. 1 .. N. 1 jf~'*:. 'S ,'' 4 p-. ~ ~~~ki V Trustee Blackhurst commented- the need to,discilss tlie use of the Town's reserves during the current econdmic timds, and theneed to review financing options to move the town forward.. TruAtee Millet stated the conversation would be worthy; however, he would have conderns:with incdrribg debt Without the vote of the electorate. Mayor Pinkham stated the Town stibuld.develop a'bbttom-line for the use of reserves as it relates to the 4current econdmit climate. There ~ng no further blisiness,,Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:38 p.m. 31 \ V Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk - -L. i h / M. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 24, 2010 Minutes of a meeting of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT / COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 24th day of June 2010. Committee: Chair Levine, Trustees Elrod and Miller Attending: Chair Levine and Trustee Elrod Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Directors Joseph and Kilsdonk, Managers Mitchell and Winslow and Town Clerk Williamson # Absent: Trustee Miller, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson Chair Levine called the meeting to order at 8:00 affn:/ \\ PUBLIC COMMENT. None. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT. 19 Reports. . Reports provided for informational purposes and made a bAof the proceedings. â€¢ Senior Center Quarterly Report.1 \* / ,Â·CRN- 'V â€¢ Fairgrounds/Event Report~ Manager Mitchell*biate4 Senior)Center Inciraised approximately $8,400 from a winter fundraiser that hels.been used to* repaint t[Vlobby, purchase new furniture and new equipment such as a tetevisidh,and gantes: Manager Win-glow reviewed the attendance at events held thus far for 2010. He commentdd the weather has be~en a factor. He stated the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association is bringing itsjvendor trailer to the rodeo, and Dodge Rodeo will have an interactive trailer. Staff continues to promote the fairgrounds, which is 85% booked for the summet&season. '\ 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. Contractor Licensing. Director Joseph stated contractor licensing was removed from the agenda because of a recent change to the County's licensing policy. The County will not require testing for individuals that have completed 8 out of 10 permits successfully in the county. The Town would review the policy and bring a revised policy forward to the Committee in July. Reports. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Community Development Financial. â€¢ Monthly Building Permit Summary. Director Joseph stated meetings have been ongoing since the beginning of 2009 regarding the adoption of the new building codes. Staff has proposed substantial changes to the codes that need to be reviewed thoroughly. A presentation on the changes would be presented to the Board. Both the 1-Codes and contractor licensing are proposed for adoption in November with an effective date of January 1, 2011. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' Community Development - June 24, 2010 - Page 2 ADMINISTRATION. Reports. 1. Estes Valley Investment in Childhood Success (EVICS) - Director Nancy Almond provided a review of a report completed for the Buell Early Childhood Leadership Program she attended in May 2010. She researched what it would take to provide access to quality Early Care and Education (ECE) programs in Estes Park and where and how it is being done successfully in other communities. Community focus groups, consisting of teachers, providers, parents and community leaders, were asaembled to discuss the issues and the needs. The recurring issues/needs for Estes Park were a need for quality facilities, lack of infanVtoddler care, need for sustainable funding for programs, access to financial assistance for families and lack of community awareness of ECE issues. She reviewed successful ECE systems in other mountain resort communities, including Summit County/Breckenridge, Aspen/511<in/County, Salida and Fremont County. These communities had significant~ level of public support, acknowledgement in the community that yo>14,farAilies need support and indentified the lack of affordable, accessible' and\Â®ality ECEs in their communities. The funding ranged from thelown providirtg#nds to pay off debt for all non-profit ECE center and build neWfacilities, to mill leviekand sales tax to fund centers. Aspen passed a .4556' sales tax that is shared'*with the local housing authority creating a sustainable funding sod*e for both etitities. The key points for providing successful ECEs ih,Ebtes RÂ¢(rkpinclude securinÂ¢sustainable funding combined with public funding to rAaxinlizeiervices, collaboration with the entire community includinrthe busines&~pbmmunity, and invest in staff development. She recommbrikls.thejormation oha Community Action Team to identify top priorities, develoAf~4>.createNabtion steps and implement solutions. These steps would secure hundingÂ©ncrease capacity, build partnerships, incredie success bAECÂ¢pGgra'fib'meet the needs of working families and prepare thildten for dll(*,ss. k i Trustee Elrod questioned whose respoosibility it would be to create the action team. Mrs. Almond Uted-it'would 6e the Town's responsibility, therefore, the -~w~ou~eque~ EVICS to forniatediA. r jT]hecon;mitt; disEusked the use of sales tax as a funding source; questioned â‚¬ Whether or not the Housirt#Authority had been contact to discuss a joint mill levy 'â€¢ahd requested Mrs. Al~hohd provided additional information on how other dorÂ¢munities develo13ed successful action teams. \11 7 'I There being no further business, Chair Levine adjourned the meeting at 8:58 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 8, 2010 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PUBLIC SAFETY, UTILITIES & PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 8th day of July 2010. Committee: Chair Blackhurst, Trustees Ericson and Koenig Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Chief Kufeld, Director Zurn, Manager Sievers and Clerk Williamson Absent None Chair Blackhurst called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.~\~ PUBLIC COMMENT } t , Joanna Dardin/Town citizen requested the Town'lower the speed lithit to 25 mph and place signage alerting drivers to wildlife in tlte area on Mpcgfegor Avenbe from Elkhorn Avenue to MacGregor ranch. Charley Dickey presented a propoial.to move the.cutrent crosswalk on west Elkhorn Avenue approximately 65 feet weht loW@rd #le water. *heel where the public crosses naturally. He has spoken with local'bosiliesstowners in thkarea and the postmaster to garner support and potential relocado~of dmailbox. Roi~ert Haag/business owner stated moving the crosswalk would provide better traffic flowrincrease pedestrian safety when crossing in the area and#ovide bbttbffoa traffic for businesses. // 31 r f The Committee requested the folice Department review the speed limit on MacGregor Avenue and review the crosswalli#onflkhoth Avenue to determine if there is a safety issue that should be addressÂ»r----'*32*4 / PUBLId WORRS ,\.4 \ ./ 11 Additional Funding for Prosp6ct Avenue Reconstruction. Directok.ZCim provided a review of'*the project stating weather and the location of a gas line on the lower section have caused delays. The upper half of the project has been rejected by 'the Jown. The contractor has been reviewing options to remedy the rideability of the roadway./'Paving of the lower portion of the roadway would begin on July 12th with a combletion date of July 30#1 barring any unforeseen delays. The project was approved by the Town Board for $640,031.71 with a 10% contingency of $64,000 for a total construction cost of $704,031.71, which was below the engineer estimate of $741,858.00. Minor changes have occurred during the project, including a new culvert, two new sewer service, fly-ash treatment of soft subgrade, modifications and improvements to old existing storm drain manholes, etc. for which the contingency has been used. The subgrade on the lower portion of Prospect Avenue has pockets of bad soil requiring large scale soil stabilization. Staff would request an additional $40,000 to complete the stabilization prior to pouring the concrete. The Committee recommends approval of an additional $40,000 for the Prospect Avenue Reconstruction project from account #101-3100431-35-51 budgeted for a total project cost of $744,031.71 as an action item at the July 13, 2010 meeting. There being no further business, Chair Blackhurst adjourned the meeting at 8:25 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk 1 8*7,4 1 + / 1 0 . 1 4% r //,4 , 1.4 42-4-1 11 + ->.:=- 4L"AFÂ¢'' '/ 1 4/9 1 -7- - - -Â¥* 0- - 1 Â«ff-6 i Z~ 1 iE g 1 42 c U) 1 1 5Â« , 2 1 2 5Â£2 44 0 I ek- 6.4 2-1 A- 2 A#vA)~CO .11 , 1 V~ 1 03. 01+4 Wi f 1 L - 1 67 1 1,=4 ./ aL" IULJ <7 ri 16. 90 b 1 11â„¢ .*.1 ~2 ~.'. . 3Â£14*; A Ck: iR! 64 R *Al 1 <% 49 41 k' 44 , */ ~ * @ 1-k t 11:z LE~) N E-1 ~ i 01 - 1 PET--.El- â„¢ 1 /3-16 -0â‚¬-1 NP, CD . mo 1 - .33(E_ *60__ ~ tt42Â©0 $ . ep 41 5 i e l 1 1/ , I j O/, =21 r -I .- 110 - liu y f rek I oq -1 920*1-*1'ky, Gy< 1 &:50 2% _ 01 .f.5. .r. 2 2 2, r 9 et 1* 10 1*47.21 gk.tri-*i~ |Ek 44Â·rk 8__ t~"~1; +*r9 "-%- Un 2 -1 1% 2 - I *'7[ 49/7 Lu % 2/ 1-;t'' 6- Z N /4 0.., 0/4 ..4 t I e ' 919 1 ~gk: 06 â€¢- m V,J' ,2.2- A i p ts: 1 1 2 f i \ 4 k ,- O g -, --/ .7. 64 1 0/ e L 1 1 . 1 - Q. 4 76,1 - Ey/ I |Â£ R ilâ€¢ C ~1 *4044 / 1 LUCI ' 1 1 2,6 Ri z :p a.~ i > ' a. ~49,7402 le*=9 03'41- + - fi N 1/ UJ 04 ..... 1 Ol s Jl : 11 - --te...9, 43. lu -3-61 7 - r ==13 +41* P1 6 4 -1 2 6 9 1 t. E df~ 51/ 1 @R 9, --RE.* v/ . CO.Â» W- Se <=L XJ a .4 41 1 1 â‚¬ 4 -* ta Z tit-n~. ' 19 -p/--< ..i - " ; A .. 0 79-14 - + 1 k Q: 1 --' i .1 /- *f Lâ€ž1 ---/.*. 1 3< *t %?la ; . er co U, J .- - \ t. LJ. - 0Â»1- '67 - i ~3* ' lijA 1 7.17 \ - 0-1- 2-*f~Â», 91-*>Ir#, L e 00 k if--LLY I CO ' 1 Cr -' t , v, t.Rtr~---*03- '* I ~0- 4* 1. f -1 / lacil'flo /1 90 ':C f rZ - * . ./AA/ l# -<. le > 1 -1 04 Z / 1 0 1.-glt=E~ ' 64<: C~ 97 / +- 1 t. + ' U A.~4 4 / j.. 1 1 tif= E %C\ 3. 0.. f.'ti j %1 1- -- 4~ Â· ~a2-** 1 471 > M =47 1 gA 0.1 2 /) .0 1 " 3 zi - i i : r: -17 it \,4.1 1 . /12.= 1 . 1-/ . C - I itte : 041 * 2.20 1 Â¢1- Ll r . f, ' â€¢ 1 le km 9'W ,; 40 10 - 1 0- .C~ 1 1 04/'-'% O 021 51 1 48% _ 1 1. 41 .--1 ,---- 1 -<Lf ~ (l r :3 , C< cia j , - m 922 . 1 1 -.M /f . 200 1 ..4 14 .1. ~121 Â· r j 1 \ FR O O -0 h ~ < * ~Â¤ - l ~< ~7 1 ~ 1 ~ X C (8 0.: 4 In h- 00 14 Chi. . 2 g ./11 9 \1 - 1 / 1 85 * 4 2 Ct f Â£ d 00 0 M e - / - 4/ 0 R C -J-- f CDC 2 2 A 22 i f 1 1 2/ } 6 17, - 1-1 111'-r. 1 9 < c c, v li â€ž1 1 E.*-1 - *" ,1120/ ' ' 1 0.2 0 9 - 1 -- O.. 43 0 .1 I o 2 t co E C;z f - 762 -A ~-4- -7 $ 0 1 (O 2 Al F / 1, Lu Â·-1 V,14 1 14 A i 9 C . 1- C C \\ - -IF - . b . - - 4,4 0 - - 6- ...- - -- .... .-- - 0 0 1 h 1-98 1 1-f - N f--1 -4- 1 - Ch A .:91 F . 1, .9 -Â· * 1 4% =*4- C 01 ---I-- Perimeter TOWN[ oF ESIES PARIÂ© 68?011.2121.4123 Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Scott A. Zurn, Public Works Director & Greg Sievers, Project Manager Date: July 13, 2010 RE: Additional Funding for Prospect Avenue Reconstruction - Budgeted Background: The Prospect Avenue reconstruction project is approximately 70% complete. To date, we have used 80% of the approved contingency. Minor changes included new concrete culvert with end sections, two new sewer services, fly-ash treatment of soft subgrade, modifications and improvements to old existing storm drain manholes, and some additional concrete flat work at neighboring properties. With the upgrade to concrete paving the Contract Agreement was for $ 640,031.71 Original contingency of 10% $ 64,000.00 total budget for the project (purchase order value) $ 704,031.71 The original engineers estimate for the project was $ 741,858.00 (see attached, Town Board memo from February 23, 2010) The subgrade below Prospect Avenue has pockets of bad soil. Staff is concerned about a last minute, large scale need for soil stabilization. Therefore staff would like to increase the contingency in the event of any last minute construction issues. Budget 2010 Budget contains $ 812,000 for the Street Improvement Program (STIP). 101-3100-431.35-51 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends increasing the contingency for this project by an additional $40,000, for a total project budget of $744,031.71 for the Prospect Avenue reconstruction. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny increasing the contingency for this project by an additional $40,000, for a total project budget of $744,031.71 for the Prospect Avenue reconstruction. 1 Cl@#11 I . 51 TOVA[ or Â«TES PAR[Q 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 will remove and rebuild the full 2,300'-length of this bypass, 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" water main 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 (page 80) $812,000.00 (101-3100-431-35-51) Plus cash-in-lieu from EPMC $ 64,372.78 Total 2010 STIP project funding $876,372.78 Total 2010 Water Dept. funding (page 151) $ 50,000.00 (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 it will double the road's life span. Therefore, Staff requests the following and will produce one purchase order for each department that equal one Contract Agreement: â€¢ Accept the low bid from LaFarge (PW) $ 640,031.71 â€¢ Project contingency (PW) $ 64,000.00 (10%) â€¢ Water main addition (W) $ 31,761.75 â€¢ Total requested project budget $ 735,793.46 Page 1 Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny contracting with LaFarge North America for $735,793.46 to construct the Prospect Avenue Bypass Reconstruction Project and water main installation. Prospect Avenue Bypass Reconstruction - request to accept low bid Bid Result Tabulation (after verification) Contractor Address Water Main Roadway Roadway (asphalt)'' (concrete) 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 Gerrard Excavating 4 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. 6 Greeley 29,966.00 581,171.00 718,300.00 7 Kehn Construction Inc. 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 31,353.10 650,600.85 916,311.25 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 ]ETES PARIL aDEIE*Â¤3]EII Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees From: Town Administrator Halburnt Date: July 8, 2010 RE: Small Wind Turbine Reconsideration Background: At the last town board meeting, June 22, 2010, the town board, by a vote of 4-3, denied Ordinance #13-10, Small Wind Turbine Amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code. The board further directed staff to bring back an ordinance lifting the current moratorium on small wind turbines. Planning Commission Chairman Ron Norris has asked to approach the town board about reconsidering regulations for small wind turbines. This discussion should only surround whether or not the town board would like to reopen the issue. If the board would like to revisit the issue, staff requests specific direction is given. For code amendments, the Planning Commission and Staff are considered Review bodies (Responsible for Review and Recommendation) and the town board is considered the "Decision-Making Body (Responsible for Final Decision to Approve or Deny) According to the Estes Valley Development Code, section 3.15 GENERAL NOTICE PROVISIONS A. Newspaper Notice of Public Meetings. At least fifteen (15) days' notice of scheduled public meetings before a reviewing agency or body shall be published in one (1) or more newspapers of general circulation in the Estes Valley. The notice shall specify the time and place of the meeting/hearing, and the specific nature of the matter to be heard. Therefore, a change to the development code could not be heard prior to the August 10, 2010 board meeting. Page 1 - Please include in the public record - To: Estes Park Board of Trustees From: Ron Norris July 13, 2010 Remarks on Small Wind Turbine Regulation Good evening, and thank you for putting this item on the agenda. I'm speaking tonight as Chair of the Estes Valley Planning Commission. Several other Commissioners are also here who may wish to speak. Reconsideration of this issue is important for two reasons: First: Public opinion is strongly in favor of regulation that goes beyond our standard setbacks and height limits. Our Commission received feedback from over 1000 individuals. A small minority of citizens wanted ng additional regulation. A larger minority wanted a complete ban on these devices. A lame maiority of citizens expressed a desire to allow wind turbines, but with additional regulation. We believe the wishes of this majority should be respected. Second: This Board and the County Commissioners have already enacted regulations into law covering the use of microturbines. Many of the same regulations are also included in the Planning Commission's recommendations for small wind turbines. Regulating microturbines, but refusing to apply similar or more extensive regulations to lamer turbines, does not make sense. Immediately after the June 22 Board meeting I spoke with each of the other Planning Commissioners. We had anticipated that the Board would either adopt the regulations proposed, or adopt them with amendments, such as including a public review process or revising setbacks. Without exception, we were surprised and confused by what happened. I have since had followup discussions with most of you, including a very productive meeting with Trustee Miller. We have resolved some major misunderstandings and can now move forward and do something constructive about these regulations. I encourage you to reconsider this issue, and can assure you that the Planning Commission will work with you to finalize and adopt regulations that make sense. Ina, , CAA - 1 1.Out NOISE What Audiologists Should Know RY JERRY PIINCH, RICHARD JAMES. AND DAN PABST Noise from modern wind turbines is not known to cause hearing loss, but the low-frequency /... noise and vibration + emitted by wind X#,0 turbines may have , adverse health effects on humans and may become an important /:t , community noise â€ž. concern. W 20 Audiologv lodiv I JulAug20,0 Wind-Turbine Noise: What Audiologists Should Know ost of us would agree that the modern wind turbine is a desirable ~ ~ alternative for producing electrical energy. One of the most highly ~ touted ways to meet a federal mandate that 20 percent of all ~ energy must come from renewable sources by 2020 is to install ~ large numbers of utility-scale wind turbines. Evidence has been ~ mounting over the past decade, however, that these utility-scale ~ wind turbines produce significant levels of low-frequency noise and vibration that can be highly disturbing to nearby residents. None of these unwanted emissions, wiletheI dudible Ol eneigy as sound, others experience il as vibration, and inaudible, are believed to cause hearing loss, but tliey others are not aware of it at all. Research is beginning to are widely known to cause sleep disturbances. Inaudible show that, in addition to sleep disturbances, these emis- components can induce resonant vibration in solids, liq- sions may have other deleterious consequences on health uids, ancl gasesÂ·-including the ground, houses, and other It is for these reasons that wind turbines are becoming building structures, spaces within those structures, and an important community health issue, especially when bodily tissues and cavities--that is potentially harmful hosted in quiet rural communities that have no prior to humans. The most extreme of these low-frequency experience with industrial noise or urban hum. (infrasonk) emissions, at fiequencies under about 16 Hz, Tlie people must susceptible to disturbances caused can easily penetrate homes. Some residents perceive the by wind turbines may be a small percentage ot the total exposed population, but for them the introduction of wlnd turbines In their communities is not something to '~~~|~ which they can easily become acclimated Instead, they become annoyed, uncomfortable, distressed, or ill. This Blade problem is increasing as newer utility-scale wind tur bines capable of generating 1.5-5 MWatts of electricity 4 or Inure replace the older lurbines used over the past 30 years, which produced less than 1 MWatt of power, These large wind turbines can have hub he.ghts that span the Rotor(hub) 1 length of a football field and blade lengths that span halt that distance. The increased size of- these miilti-MWatt turbines, especially the blades, has been associated with Nacelle complaints of adverse health effects (AHEs) that cannot h .... %99/Â«< be explained by auditory responses alone. Fol this al ticle, we reviewed the English-language, peer-reviewed literature from around the world on the topic of wind-turbine noise and vibration and their effects on humans. In addition, we used popular search engines to locate relevant online trade journals, books, reference sources, government regulations, and acoustic and vibra- 4 + tien standards. We also consulted professional engineers and psyclioacousticians regaiding lheix unpublished ideas and research. Sources of Wind-Turbine Noise and , ower Vibration Physically, a modern wind turbine consists of a tower; a rotor (or hub); a set of rotating blades-usually three, located upwind to the tower; and a nacelle, which is Major components of a modern w~nd turbine. ail enclosure containing a gearbox, a generator, and 22 Audio coy Today ~ .ltiIA:}92010 lk'b; Wind-Turbine Noise: What Audiologists Should Know computerized controls that monitor and regulate opera- Studies carried out in Denmark, The Netherlands, and tions (1*juRE: 1). Wind speed can be much greater at hub Germany (Wolsink and Sprengers, 1993: Wolsink et al. level than at ground level, so tal:crwind towers are 1993), a Danish study (Pedersen and Nielsen, 1994), and two used to take advantage of these higher wind speeds. Swedish studies (Pedersen and Persson Waye, 2004,2007) Calculators are available for predicting wind speed at hub collectively indicate that wind turbines differ from other height, based on wind speeds at 10 meter weather towers, sources of community noise in several respects. These which can easily be measured directly. investigators confirm the findings of earliel research that Mechanical equipment inside the nacelle generates amplitude-modulated sound is more easily perceived and some noise, but at quieter levels than older turbines. 'i'his more annoying than constant-level sounds (Bradley, 1994, mechanical sound is usually considered of secondary Bengtsson et al, 2004) and tha'. sounds thal axe unpiedictÂ· importance in discussions ot annoyance from today's air. able and uncontrollable are more annoying than othcr bines. The main cause of annoyance is an aerodynamic sounds (Geen and McCown, 1984; Hal field et al, 2002). source created by interaction of the turning blades with Annoyance from wind-turbine noise has been difficult the wind. With optimal wind conditions, this aerody- to characterize by the use of such psychoacoustic param- namic- noi:e ts steady and commonly described as an eters as sharpness, Intidness, roughness, or modulation aiI plane overhead that lievei leaves. (Peisson Waye and Olirstrum, 2002). The exuemely low- 1 When wind conditions are not optimal, such as during frequency nature of wind-turbine noise, in combination ~ turbulence caused hy a stornt the .steady sounds are aug- with the fluctuating blade sounds, also means that the ~ menled by fluctuating aer odynamie sounds, Under steady noise is not easily niasked by ullier efiviIonmental sounds. J wind conditions, this interaction generates a broadband Pedersen et al (2009), in a survey conducted in The whooshing sound that repeats ilspl f about once a second Netherlands on 725 respondents, found that noise from and is clearly audible. Many people who live near the wind turbine find this condition to be very disturbing. Linear Blue SLC The whooshing sound comes from variations of air B/uetooth Neckloop turbulence from hub to blade tip and the inability of the turbine to keep the blades adjusted at an optimal angle as Â· Sleekest neckloop in its class wind direction varies. The audib:e portion of the whoosh'- Â· Excellent acoustic quality for is around 300 Hz, which can easily penetrate walls ot crystal clear communication homes and other buildings. In addition, the rotating Â· Designed for T-Coil equippea g blades cieate energy at frequencies as low as 1-2 liz (the hearing devices blade-passage frequency). with overtones of up to about I !~M 1 20 liz. Although some of this low-frequency energy i9 1 Nol 26 L-- .--i- audible to soine people with sensitive hearing, tile energy ~ is mostly vibratory to people who react negatively to it. -~ TECHNOLOGY Adverse Health Effects of Wind- Turbine Noise 4 Muled *d. .. Hubbard and Shepherd (1990), in a technical paper wi itten for thee National Aeronautics and Space ~ ~ Linear Blue SMF Administration (NASA). were the first to report in depth 1 ( Bluetooth Amplifer on the noise and vibration from wind turbines. Most of ~ Â· Smallest personal amplifier the relevant research since that time has been conducted \ with wireless capabilities by European investigators, as commercial-grade (utility- ~~ \ Â· Unmatched superior tone control scale) wind turbines have existed in Europe for many Â· Designed for use with decades. Unfortunately, the research and development done by wind-turbine manufacturers is proprietary and typically has not been shared with the public, bilt reports ~r without hearing devices -- - --- of Lhe distressing effects on people living near utility- 800.537.2118 ==:=== scale wind turbines in various parts of the world are LIN[Ar www.soundbytes.com AM.buted by '.00,Â·dRÂ·,â€¢te, becoming more common. JuIAug2010 I Audiology Today 23 1/ WindÂ·Turbine Noise: What Audiologisls Should Know wind turbines is more annoying than transportation or can also hurt you. Again, there is no evidence tlial noise industrial noiscs at comparable levels. measured in dBA. generated by wind turbines, even the largest utility-scale They noted that annoyance from turbine sounds at 35 turbines, causes hearing loss. But there is increasingly dBA corresponds to the annoyance reported for other clear evidence that audible and low- frequency acoustic common community-noise sources at 45 dBA. Higher energy from these turbines is sufficiently intense to cause visibility of the turbines was associated with higher extreme annoyance and inability to sleep, or disturbed levels of annoyance, and annoyance was greater when sleep, in individuals living near them. attitudes toward the visual impact of the turbines on the Jung and colleagues (2008), in a Korean study, con- landscape were negative. I bwever, the height of wind cluded that low-frequency noise in tne trequency range turbines means that they are also most clearly visible to above 30 Hz can lead to psychological complaints and that the people closest to them and those who also receive infrasound in the frequency range of 5-8 1 17 can rause the highest sound levels. Thus, proximity of the receiver complaints due to rattling Louis and windows in homes. to wind turbines makes it difficult to determine whether The energy generated by large wind turbines can be annoyance to the noise is independent of annoyance to especially disturbing to the vestibular systems of some the visual impact. Pedersen et al (2009) also found that people, as well as cause other troubling sensations of the annoyance was substantially lower in people who ben- head, chest, or other parts of the body. Dr. Nina Pierpont efitted economically from having wind turbines located (2009), in her definitive natural experiment on the subject, on their property. refers to these effects as Wind-Turbine Syndrome (WTS). Among audiologists and acousticians, it has been TABLE 1 lists the symptoms that, in various combinations, understood for many decades that sufficiently intense characterize WTS. Although hearing impairment is not and proloriged exposure to envilotimental noise can cause one or the symptoms of WTS, audiologists whose patients hearing impairment, annoyance, or both. In essence, the report these symptoms should ask them if they live near view has been whal you can hear ca:i hurlyou. In the a wind turbine. case of wind turbincs, it seems that what you can't hear It is well known that sleep deprivation has serious consequences, and we know that noncontinuous sounds and nighttime sounds are less tolerable than continu Table 1. Core Symptoms of Wind-Turbine ous and daytime sounds. Somewhat related eftects, Syndrome such as cardiac arrhythmias, stress, hypertension, and headaches have also been attributed to noise or vibra- ~ Sleep disturbance tion from wind turbines, and some researchers are referring to these effects as Vibroacoustic Disease, or ~ Headache VAD (Castelo Bninco, 1999, Caslelo Branco and Alves- Pereira, 2004). VAD is described as occurring in persons ~ Viscoral Vibratory Vestibular Disturbance (VVVD) who are exposed to high-level (>90 dB SPL) infra- and low-frequency noise (ILFN), under 500 Hz, for periods of ~ Dizziness, vertigo, unsteadiness 10 years or more. It is believed to be a systemic pathol- ogy characterized by direct tissue damage to a variety of ~ Tinnittis bodily organs and may invalve abnormal proliferation ot . extracellular inatrices. .~ Ear pressure or pain Alves-Pereira and Castelo Branco (200/) reported on a family w}ic lived near wind lurbines and showed signs I External anditorv canal sensation of VAD. The sound levels in the home were less than 60 dB SPL in each 1/3-octave band below 100 Hz. We have measured unweighted sound levels ranging from 60 to 70 Iil Memory and concentration deficits dB Leg (averaged over 1 minute) in these low-trequency bands in Ontario homes of people reporting AHEs from ~11 Irritability, anger wind turbines. A spectral analysis of sounds emitted at a Michigan site revealed that Unweighted peak levels at 10 3 Fatigue, loss of motivation freqtiencies under 5 Hz exceeded 90 dB SIN. (Wade Bray, Source4 Pierpont 2009 pers. comm., 2009). 24 Audiology Today I Ju Aug2010 Wind-' 'urbinp Ncise: What Andiolojusts filicilld Know Similar observations have been made in studies of to sort out the commonalities and di fferences among the people who live near busy highways and airports, which symptoms variously described in the literature as VAD, also expose people to low-frequency soundi, both VVVD, and WTS. outdoors and in LlieiI homes. Evidence is insufficient Dr. Geoff T.eventhall, a Brirsh scientist, and his col- to substantiate that typical exposures to wind-turbine leagues (Waye ct al, 1997, Loventhall, 2003, 2004) have noise, even in residents who live nearby, can lead to documented the detrimental effects of low-frequency VAD, but early indications are that there aiÂ·e some more- noise exposure. They consider it to be a special environ- vulnerable people who may be susceptible. Because ILFN mental noise, particularly to sensitive people in their is not yet recognized as a disease agent, it is not covered homes. Waye et al (1997) found that exposure to dynami- by legislation, permissible exposure levels have not yet- ally modulated low-frequency ventilation noise (20-200 beer] established, and dose-response relationships are Hz)-as opposed to midfrequency noise exposure-was unknown (Alves-Pereira, 2007) more bo:hersome, less pleasant, impacted work perfor- .As distinguished from VAD, Pierpont's (2009) use of mance more negatively, and led to lower social orientation. the term Wind-Turbine Syndrome appears to emplia- Leventhall (2003), in teviewing the literature on the size a constellation of symptoms due to stimulation, or effects of exposure to low-frequency noise, found no evi overstimulation, of the vestibular organs of balance dence of hearing loss but substantial evidence ot vibration due to ILFN from wind turbines (see TABLE 1). One of the of bodily structures (chest vibration), annoyance (especially most distinctive symptoms she lists in the constella- in homes), perceptions of unpleasantness (pressure on the tion of symptoms comprising WTS is Visceral Vibratory eordrum, unpleasant perception within the chest area, and Vestibular Disturbance (VVVD), which she detines as "a a general feeling ot vibration), sleep disturbance (reduced sensation of internal quiveling, vibiation, or pulsation wakefuIness), stiess, Ieducell per formance oIl demanding accompanied by agitation, anxiety, alarm, irritability, rapid heartbcat, nausea, and sleep disturbance" (p. 270). Drawing on the recent work of Balaban and colleagues (i.e., Balaban and Yates, 2004], Pierpont describes the MOISTURE close association between the vestibular system and its PROTECTION neural connections to brain nurlpi involved with balance For Demonstralien Only plocessing, autonomic and somatic sensoly inflow ami outflow, the fear and anxiety associated with vertigo or a sudden feeling of postural instability, and aversive lear Iling. These neurological relationships give credence ./4.- to Pierpont's linkage of the symptoms of VfVD to the vestibular system. -w~ Todd et al (2008) dpmonstrated that the Tesonant frequency of tile human vestibular system is 100 Hz, .// concluding that the mechanc-receptive hair cells of the , vestibular structures of the inner ear are remarkably sen- 1 sitive to low-frequency vibration and that this sensitivity to vibration exceeds that of the cochlea. Not only is 100 '1&1.-.Ill-.... Hz the frequency of the peak response of the vestibular *1*/.mp-'.-/1-.i.Uy.2.-Ip.1-...1 system to vi bration, hut it is a 1 90 a treqiiency at which a substantial amount of acoustic eziei Ky is produced by Perhaps an extreme measure to prove the effectiveness of the Hearing Aid Sweat Band, but this demonstration wind lurbines. Symptoms of both VAD and VVVI) can proves our product is the leader in BTE device protection presumably occur in the presence of illÂ·'N as a result of from perspiration, the elements, dust and dirt while still allowing the free transmission of sound. disruptions of normal paths or structures that mediate the fine coordination between livinR tissue deformation and activation of signal transducers; these disruptions lwaring Aid SWEAT BAND' ran lead to nberrant mechano-electrical coupling that can, iii turn, lead to conditions such as heart arrhythmin, 21,iv~heS;~igadd,oriband.con, (Ingber, 2008). Ultimately, further research will be needed JuIAug2010 I Audiology Today 25 Wind-Tur'bine Nnise: What Andinlogists Shouid Know verbal tasks, and negative biological effects that incilided especially those younger than age six: and people with quantitative measurements of EEG activity, blood pressure, pre-existing medical conditions, especially i f sleep is respiration, hoi monc production, and lieort rate. affectprl For outdoor sound levels of 40 dBA or higher, Regarding work performance, reviewed studies the WHO states that there is sufficient evidence to link indicated that dynamically modulated low- frequency prolonged exposure to A] 11:s. W}'nlp the WHO identifies noise, even when inaudible to most individuals, is more long-term, nighttime audible sounds over 40 dBA outside difficult to ignore than mid- or high-frequency noise and one's home as a cause of Al IEs, the wind industry com- that its imperviousness to habituation leads to reduced monly promotes 50 dBA as a safe limit for nearby homes available in formation-processing resources. Leventhall and properties. Recently, a limit of 45 dBA has been pro- hypothesized that low-frequency noise, therefore, may posed for new wind projects in Canada (Keith et al, 2008). impair work performance More recently, as a consi11- Much of the answer as to why the wind industry tant on behalf of the British Wind Energy Association denies that noise is a serious problem with its wind tur- (BWEA), the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), bines is because holding the noise to 30 d BA at night has and the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CANWEA), serious economic consequences. The following quota- Leventhall (2006) changed his position, stating that tion by Upton Sinclair seems relevant here: "It is difficult although wind turbincs do produce significant levels to get a man to understand something when his salary of low- frequency souiid, they do not pose a threat to depends upon his not understanding it" (Sinclair, 1935, humans-in effect reverting to the notion that what you reprinted 1994, p. 109). can't hear can't hurt you. In recent years, the wind industry has denied the According to the World Health Organization guidelines validity of any noise complaints by people who live near (WHO, 2007), observable effects of nighttime, outdoor its utility-scale wind turbines. Residents who are leasing wind turbine noise do not occur at levels of 30 dBA or their properties for the siting of turbines ore generally so lower. Many rural communities have ambient, nighttime pleased to receive the lease payments that they seldom sound levels that do not exceed 25 dBA. As outdoor sound complain. In fact, they normally are required to sign a levels increase, the risk of AHEs also increases, with leasing agreement, 01 gag clause, stating they will not the most vulnerable being the first to show its effects. speak or write anything unfavorable about the turbines. Vulnerable populations include elderly persons, children, Consequently, complaints, and sometimes lawsuits, tend to be initiated by individuals who live near property on - which wind turhines are sited, and not by those who are Illill '. leasing their own property. This Situation pIts neighbor f against neighbor, which leads tc antagonistic divisions - '; within communities. . ..1 . ~ Measurement of Wind-Turbine Noise It is important to point out that the continued use of the i A-weighting scale in sound-level meters is the basis for ,w -â€¢4:..'hit- I misunderstandings that have led to acrimony between advocates and opponents of locating wind turbines in residential areas. The dBA scale grew out of the desire to incorporate a function into the measurement of sound pressure levels ot environmental and industrial noise that is the inverse of the minimum audibilitv curve (Fletcher and Munson, 1933) at the 40-phon level. It is typically ~ ,{,%4~ used, though, to speci fy the levels of noises that are more I ar - intense, where the audibility curve becomes considerably flattened, obviating the need for A-weighting. It is mari- dated in various national and intprnational standards for measurements that are compared to damage-risk criteria tor hearing loss and other health effects. The A weighted Uti ity-scale .vina titb nes located in huron County. Michigan. scale in sound-level meters drastically reduces 26 Audiology Today I JuIAug2010 Wind-Turhine No. Re: What Andiologists Should Know sound-level readinws iIi Uie lowei fiequen<des, beginninK that higher backgroutid sound level by 5 dB. These levels ul 1000 Hz, und reduces sounds at 20 Hz by 50 dB, are about 30 dB above the nighttime levels of most rural For wind-turbine noise, the A weighting scale is espe- communities. When litillty-scale turbines were installed cially ill-suited because of its devaluation of the effects of in Huion Counly, Mi,-1 Iigan, iii May 2008, le WHO's 2007 low-frequency :ioise. This is why it is :rnportant to make guidelines that call for nighttime, outside levels not to C-weighted measurements, as well as A-weighted mca- exceed 30 dbA were already in place. Based on rneasure- surements, when congidering the impart of #mind from ments made by the authors, these turbines produce 40-45 wilid turbines. Theoretically, linear-scale measurements dBA sound levels at the perimeter of a 1,000 ft radius would rom superior to C-scale measurements in wind- under typical weather conditions, and the additive effects turbine applications, but hnpar-scale mensurements lack of multiple turbines produce higher levels. Many of the standardization due to failute oIl the part of manufac- turbines have been located close enough to homes to turers of sound-level meters to agree on such factors as produce very noticeable noise and vibration. low frequency cutoff and response tolerance limits. The Kamperman and James (2009) have offered recom- Z-scale, or zero-frequency weighting, was introdured in mendations for change in the State of Michigan guidelines 2003 by the International Electro-technical Commission (2008) for wind turbines, Some of the more pertinent (IFC) in its Standarc 61672 to replace the flat, or linear, details of the Michigan siting guidelines are shown in weighting used by manutacturers in the past the leit-hand column oi TABLE 2. The state of Mich&an permits sound levels that do not exceed 55 dBA or L90 State of Michigan Siting Guidelines 1 5 dBA, whichever is greater, measured at the property Michigan's siting guidelines (State ot Michigan, 2008) will line closest to the wind-energy system. These guidelines be used as an example of guidelines that deal only in a make no provisions to limit low-frequency sounds from limited way with sound. These guidelines refer to ear- wind-turbine operations. lier, now outdated, WHO and Environmental Protection in consideration of the current WHO guidelines (2007), Agency (EPA) guidelines to support a noise criterion measurements made by the authors in Huron County, that SPLs cannot exceed 55 dBA at the adjacent property Michigan, indicate that the current Michigan guidelines line. This level is allowed to be exceeded during severe do not appear adequate to protect the public from the weather or power nutagps, and when the ambient sound nilisances and known health ri:ks of wind-turbine noise level is greatei than 55 dBA, the turbine noise can exceed In fact, these guidelines appear to be especially lenient Table 2. Current and Proposed Wind-Turbine Siting Guidelines Current Michigan Guidelines* 8 -- Alternative Prooosed Guidelines*9-,--â€¢â€¢-â€¢â€¢@~iâ€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢-, Sound level cannot exceeu 55 dBA or L90 + 5 Operating LAeq is not to exceed the background LA90 +5 cBA, whichever is greater. dBA, where LA90 is measured during a preconstruction noise study at the quietest time of night. Similar dBC limits should also be applied. Limits apply to sound levels measured at I imits apply to .sound levels measured at property lines, except barnes (as stated in Huron County Ordinance) that turbine sounds cannot exceed 35 dBA at any home. No orovis ons are made for limiting low- ICeq-1 A90 cannot exceed 20 AB at receiving property, e.g., frecuencv sounds from wind-turbine LCeq (from turbines) minus (LA90 [background] + 5) < 20 dB, operations. and is not to exceed 55 LCeq from wind turbines (60 LCeg for properties within one mile of major heavily trafficked roads). 'Source: State ut Michigan 2008 --SourceÂ· Kampe,man and James. 2009 Ju,Aug?010 j AndiologÂ¥ Today 27 Wind-Turbine Noise: What Audiologists bhou.d Know in terms of tolerable sound levels. Sound levels that and sleep disturbances are common in people wlio live up approach 20 dBA higher than natural ambient levels are to about 1.25 miles away. This is the setback distance at considered unacceptable in most countries, Michigan which a group of turbines would need to be in order not to permits 30 dBA increases. be a nighttime noise disturbance (Kamperman and James, in considering the health and well-being ol people 2009). It is also the setback distance used in several other living near wind-turbine projects, the changes recom- countries that have substantial experience with wind tur- mended by Kamperman and James (2009) would abandon bines, and is the distance at which Pierpont (2009) found the 55 dBA limit in favor of the commonly accepted very few people reporting AHEs. criteria of 1.90 + 5 dBA, for both A- and C-scale readings, A study conducted by van den Berg (2003) in The whew I.90 is the p feconstr uction ambient level. These Netherlands demonstrated that daytime levels cannot be recommendations also include a prohibition against any used to predict nighttime levels and that residents within wind-tuibine-related sound levels exceeding 35 dBA on 1900 mile (1.18 mile) of a wind-turbine project. expressed receiving properties that include homes or other struc- annoyance from the noise. Pierpont (2009) recommends tures in which people sleep. Additional protections against baseline minimum setbacks of 2 kilometers (1.24 mile) low frequency sound are given in the right-hand column from residences and other buildings such as hospitals, of TABLE 2. These recommended provisions would protect schools, and nursing homes. and longer setbacks in residents by limiting the difference between C-weighted mountainous terrain and when necessary to meet the noise criteria developed by Kamperman and James (2009). In a panel review report, the American Wind Energy Association (AWI:A) and Canadian Wind Energy People living near wind Association (CANWEA) have objecled lo setbacks that exceed 1 mile (Colby et al, 2009). A coalition of indepen- turbines may experience Vigilance (2010), has provided a recent rebuttal to that dent medical and acoustical experts, the Society lot Wind report. The society has described the panel review as a sleep disturbance. typical product of industry-funded white papers, being neither authoritative nor convincing The society accepts as a medical fact that sleep disturbance, physiological stress, and psychological distress can result from expo- Leg during turbine operation and the quietest A-weiglited sure to wind-turbine noise. pre-operation background sound levels, plus 5 dE, to no Wind turbines have different effects on different moIC Oluil 20 dB at Llie propeily litte. This level should not people. Some of these effects aie somewhat predictable exceed 55 dB Leg on the C scale, or 60 dB Loq for properties based on financial compensation, legal restrictions on within one mile of major heavily trafficked roads, which free speech included in the lease contracts with hosting sets a higher tolerance for communities that tend to expe- landowners, and distance of the residence from wind rience slightly noisier conditions. projects, but they are sometimes totally unpredictable. Implementation of the recommendations of Planning for wind projects needs to be directed not only Kamperman and James would result in siting wind turbines toward benefitting society at large but also toward pro- differently than what is currently planned for future wind- tecting the individuals living near them. We believe that turbine projects in Michigan. l his change would result the state of Michigan, and other states that have adopted in Sound levels al Ilearby ploperties thal ate much less si t 11 il a r siting guidelines for wind turbines, are not acting noticeable, and much less likely to cause sleep deprivation, in the best interest of all their citizens and need to revise annoyance, and related health risks. These sound-level their siting guidelines to protect the public from possible measurements should be made by independent acoustical health risks and loss of property values, as well as reduce engineers or knowledgeable audiologists who follow ANSI complaints about noise annoyance. . guidelines (1993, 1994) to ensure fair and accurate readings, Wind-utility developers proposing new projects to a and not by representatives of the wind industry potential host community are often asked if their projects People living within a mile of one or more wind tui- will cause the same negative community Iesponses that hines, and especially those living within a half mile. have are heard from people living in the footprint of operating frequerit sleep disturbance leading to sleep deprivation, projects. They often respond that they will use a different 28 Audiology loday I JuIAug2010 Wif.d-Turbine Noise: What Aud.ologist.6 Should Know Sprint~â€¢ CapTel Is "What?" a four type of wind turbine or that reports of complaints refer to older-style turbines that they rio not ,]sp in our opinion, letter word you want these statements should usually be viewed as diversionary. Finally, it is important to note that there is little dift to stop using while ference in noise generated across makes and models of modern utility-scale, upwind wind turbines once their on the phone? power nutputs are normalized. Kampermar (pers comni., 2009), after analyzing data from d project funded by the Free Captioned Telephone Services by Danish Energy Authority *0ndergaard and Madsen, 2008), Sprint enables individuals with hearing has indicated that when the A-weighted sound levels are loss to read what their caller says, while converted to unweighted levels, :he low-frequency energy trom industrial wind turbines increases inversely with they speak and listen on the phone. frequency at a rate of approximately 3 dB per octave to below 10 Hz (the lowest reported frequency). Kamperman Buy a CapTerÂ· 8001 phone today! has concluded thal the amount of noise generated at low www.sprint800.com or 1-800-233-9130 frequencies increasesby 3 5 dB for every MW of electrical power generated. Because turbines are getting larger, this means that future noise problems are likely to get worse if $99Â· 00 Â»once 1 siting guidelines are not changed. Retail value $595.0Â° 31 CapTelÂ® 8001 1 Conclusion um,kid to one m dewce Our purpose in this article has been to provide audiolo- i per household for qualified ~ gists with a better understanding of the types of noise : induduats only. generated by wind turbines, some basic considerations $ Coupon Code for ~ underlying sound-level measurements of Wind-turbine ~Ree shipping; , . noise, and the adverse health effects on people who live ,"'"r,2.$4 near these turbines. In future years, we expect that audi- . 403 > High speed Internet and ologists will be called upon to make noise measurements u phone #rx, are reguired in communities that have acquired wind turbines, or are Â· considering them. Some of us, along willi Inembers of the For more information about Sprint ~ medical profession, will be asked to provide legal testi Captioned Telephone products and mony regarding our opinions on the effects of such noise services, visit- www.sprint800.com on people. Many ot us willlikely see clinical patients /-5..... who arc experiencing some of the adverse health effects ~~~~~~~~ ."/'M.4.762Â· -r - 4-described iii this article. . 9,0= ./,2/4.11' As a professional community, audiologists should ~ become involved not only in making these measurements ' to corroborate the complaints of residents living neal - wind turbine projects but also in developing and shaping .~it~~ 7 4 sitilig guidelines that minimize the potentially adverse . < health effects of the noise and vibration they generate. In 1 these ways, we can promote public health interests with- out opposing the use of wind luibines as d desitable and 1_viable alternative energy source. 0 *4 *Te! Cm 56 91 foÂ· emer,Nlcy 031*4 ash erres,y:Y c;ing Â·r-* It trcior te Jame 83 ferry brick, Phil, Rickord James, P,MF . Ard Don ['obst, 85, are ,#*4 911/91 1 selltex By j#9 C*Te 10 0110,ytne, [*1, Mli 3,38 Â£01 Sprnt b 101 Â·esp[,st* tr Sy (I,Inges IESut*10 tom ema defects In81!lnrlom 0*Iniobcm or bares b access,0 or a~Eq*r, allh lite Depat Lme,it of Cuir. muâ€žkative Sciences and Discrders, 10 access gner,31Cy Seros 010* Cal:70 *thet Calmad by OBreÂ»nce 01 SUI of otler.me 015 rES/dorm aoply Â©201 0 Am re,t Qu boos aÂ·e Yad,nals 01SpKl Caid is a reÂ®rec tadem,rk Michigan State University. East Lancing, Mi. u! Utate KE. 0#ler reÂ®Vati, Tvks ale 08 property LÂ¢ 11#r flf;pect~e :itnifi .juIA<197010 ~ Atid Ology Today 29 Wirici-I-uILÂ·hic Noise. What Atidinlogist-: Mhoula Krow Portions of this work were presented Nt the Annuu' Coquenlion Colby W.3 Dobie R. I eventhall G Lipscomb DM, McCutincy 4 the A,lerird r '.per< h-1.anquou:+. led'ing Association RJ, Seilo MT. (Detembe, 2009) 'Wind-Turbine Soundana llealth (ASHA.), November 2Â¢09, New Orirans, 1,4 Effects: An Expert Panel Review.' Prepared for the American Wind Fnergy Association and Canadian Wind Energy Assoctat on Actnowledq,r.ems. We wish to *hank rtle muny.farni:ies and Fietcher H, Munson WA. (1933) Loudness, its defi,1 tion, residents of j iuron C:ji,Fil y..Mich,44,1, with whom tue spent m,iry nieasurement ard calculation. J Acoust Soc Am 5:82-108. hours discussing (. ucir.ety o,r ISS'leS re?oted to their Corcerns unout the nolse and inhration fr.m nearby wind turbines. Their Geen RG M(Cown EJ. (198/1) E, fects :f noise and attack on involvement, avid c..pelially thear Conip:iling s'ones, provided aggression and physiological arousal, Motivat Emot 8:231-211. tnforrmition. and encouragpmer,t :Act ted us to the bE?ief th,il tkis work snould jr 111(]red with members of the audio!097 profession Hatfield J. Job RF, Hede AJ, Carter NL Peptoe R Taylor i et al (2002). Human response to envirormental noise: the 'ule of perceived control. J Behav Med 9.341 359. References Hubbard HH, Shepherd KP, (1990) Wind Tuibl'-ie Acoustics, Alves-Pereira VI, Castelc Branco NAA. 420071 In-home wind- NASA lechrical Paper 3057 DOE/NASA/20320-77, National turbine noise is conoucive to V broacoustiC Disease Papet Aeronautics and Space Acmtnistration. presented at Secons International Meeting on Wind-Turbine Noise, Lyon, urance. ing;Der DE (2008) Tensegrity-based mechanosensing from macro to micro. Prog 2/ophys Malec 810/97:163 -179 Americar Natio-a Stance'as Institute IANSI) 11993) ANS/ Standard 512.9, Part 3-1993 (P 7008) Quantities anc Kamperman G, James R. (2009) Guidel nes for selecting wind- procedures for descoptior ariel measurement of environmental turbine sites. J Sound Vib 4317)-8 11 sound, Â·->art 3, Short term measurements witr an observer present New York+ American National Standaros Institute KeÂ® SE, Michaud DS, Bly SHR (2008' A proposal for evaluating the potential health effects of wind-turcine noise lot plojects Amorican Natonal Standaros nEtitute (ANSI) ~1994) ANS/ under The Canaotan Environmental Asscosmort Act. J Low Freq Statidard 512.-18-1994 (H 2009). Outdoor measurement of NotsÂ·e, e'ib 8md Active Contro/ 27Â·263-265. sound pressure level. New Yor<Â· Amer can National Standards Institute. .lung SS, Cheung W Chcong C. Shin S. (2008) Experimental dentification of acoustic emission characterÂ·stics of large wind Balaban C[1 Yates FU (20041 --he vesticuloautonomic turbÂ·nes with er nphasis on ;ntrasound and low-freouency noise. J interactions. d telologic Derspective. Itl: I lighs.ein SM, 1-ny HH, Korean Phy Soc 53Â·3 897-1905. Popper AN, eds. The Vestibu/ar System. New York- Springer- Verlag, 286-342. Leventhall G. (2003) A P.evlew ot Published Research on Low Frequency Noise and ~ts Effeels. Defra Reoort London: Bcngisson J, Perssor Waye K, Kieilbe'Â·g A. 12004) Sound Department for Env ro-ment, Food and Rural Affairs. characteristics In low freaJency nose and their re evance for the perception nt p easantress Acta Acust 90:171-180. Leven.hall G (20041 Low frequency noÂ·se and annovance. Noise Hoa/th 6123):59-72. Brad ey JS. (1994) Annoyance causec by couslaw.-an-,plitude and amplitude-modulated sound containing rumble. Noise Control Leventhall G (2006, Intra.sozind from wind turbines-fect, fiction Eng J 42:203-208. or deception Canad Accu.t 34(2)29-30 Castelo Branco NAA. 419991 --te clinical stages of vib,Cacol.stic: Pedersen F Persson Wave K. (2004, Porccpt:on and an-oyarlce disease Aviaâ€¢ion. Space, En.' Med /0(31:32 39 due zo wind turbine ncise. a dose-resps,nse relationship. J Acoust Soc Am 1163460-3470. Costolo Branco NAA, AlvesÂ·Pereira M. (20041 Vibroacoustic disease No,se Headi 6(232 3 20. 30 Audiology Tooay I JAAua2010 Wind-Turbine Noise: What Audiologists Should Know Pecersen E Fersson Waye K. (2000 Wird :urbne noise, Waye KP, Hylander H. Benton S. Leventhall G. (199 4 Eftects on Ii!,Fic,Â¥:31 ice imisclfÂ·tupor led houttli ana vvellboingric,"c, ent per formance and work cwdity dia to low frequency ventiiation bvirg ervi-onments Occus Env Med64:480-486 noise. J Sound V,b 20514):467-474 Pecersen E. van den Ber(; E Bakker R. Rouma J. (2009# Woisink M, Sprenqers M i19931 Wind lurbine noise: a new Resporse to noise from modern wind farms in -rhe Netherlands. enviroinlental threat? Proceedings of the Sixth International J Accust SOC.1,71 126.634-643. Congress on the Binlogical E flects of Noise, ICREN, Nice, France, 2,235-238. Pecersen TH, Nielsen KS. I 1994} Gâ‚¬ ivilning af stel fra vindrnoiler (Annoyarir.0 hy noise from wiric titibinesl Report Wols,nk M, Sprengers M, Keuper A, Pedersen TH, Westra CA. Na 50, DELTA Acolisticard Vibration Lydrekniske Institu:e, (1993) Annoyance from wind turbine noise 01 sixteen sites 'n Coper,hagen thine countnes. proceedings of the En, opear CoN,nunitv Wine Energy Conference, LObeck, Travemunde, 273-276. Persson Waye K, Oh rst'orn E. (20CZ> Psycho-aco=.15tic. characters 01 felevatice le, anroyarÂ·ce of wind tuibine r oise. J Sound Vt World Health Orgariliation (WHO) (2007} Night Noise Guidelines 250(1) 65-73 (NNG L) for Europe: final Implementation Report. World Health Organization, Hegional Office for Europe, Born Oft,ce. P niport, N (7009) Wind Turbine .SyndronxÂ· a reoortor anatural experinient. San:a re. NM: K-Selected 3ooks. Sinclair U (1935) 1. candidate for gover iorÂ· and how 1 got licked New York: Farrar and Rinehart. {Reprinted, Ben<eley, CAÂ· University of California Press. 1994.1 . Sendergaard 8, Madsen KD. <2008) Low frequency roise from large w nd turbines. summaries and conclus ins on ~|~ measurements and methods. El-Pâ€ž06 Project, DELTA Danish Electronics. L ight ard Acoustics. 19* Annual Convention State 01 Michigan . {2008) Sample zoning for wind er ergy systelus httpÂ·.2/*ww iii <:'Iigar: gov/doi:in.Â·Aple,/dleg/ WindEnergySampleZoning_236105.7.pdf {accessed Decerroer ...... f' .41,â€¢Iallts;#01* & 2,2003). 'Nâ€¢ IrÂ¥3_131- 40.& i GREAT SPEAKERS & CEU COURSES WITH: The Society for V'And Vigrance. (2010) An Analysis of the (41â€¢IM 5,0 m. AD. jâ€žry Ilor,bâ€¢fn, M, a,1 I,Â·a thmt,~ AL. Pat,Ku l[nax Pht; Dora'd 1,b,im, nD (her,1 D+Colde }IM=, E(ID. Bar,7 Irreman, PhO. Rohert TrÂ¥FC f. tdD: ald many others /\mencal,/Canddla-1 Wind Ener,gy Association Sponsored "Wing- Turb ne Sound and Hea'th EffectsÂ· An Expert Panel Review, September 30 -Octoller Z 2010 December 20097 http://windconcerisontario.wordpress. Brock"IngÂ£ C*Mo Con/2010/01/10/'medi:, ff}lease-the-soclety-'c,r-wind-vigilance; laccessed January 12, 2010) Fill TIREE-BAY RECISTIATION $245,0 All AIRIIologists Wol-01 Todd NPM, Rosotigren SM, Coleharch JG 17008) Ttining and Beaver Run Resort & Conference Center sensit'vity of tne human vestibular system to Icw-frequency fee (AA's website for schedule of courses and evenn. vibration Neurosci Left 4:14.36-41. Register and book your hotel all onl ne. van den Berg GP (20031 Effects of the wine profile at night crl wir,Â·1 + urb,ne sound. J Sound \,lb 277(4-51.955-9/0 ~~ 3 ACA~%6Â·OF *- 1.2 BAA CEU's <PC-19) F AMERICAN All/01,01 ' -*PEX _ 61-AM Tier 1Â»ding) JuiAug2010 I Aud:ology Today 31 Ca/flage dfifts EA+afty Â©u,nau c/kdoclation Una. [Post Office Box 1047 E,tes EPaÂ·LA, Cofoâ€¢lado 80517 July 13, 2010 The Honorable Mayor Bill Pinkham The Honorable Estes Park Board of Trustees Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Sirs & Madam: I have provided for your review documents presented to the Town Board in January and February of 2010, referring to the matter of windmills in Estes Park. One document is a letter from myselfto the Town dated February 23,2010; and the other is minutes from your Trustees meeting on January 12, 2010 - with comments by County Citizen Rex Poggenpohl. I provide these documents as background material since some Trustees were not in office at that time. I also have provided documents pertaining to the Architectural Review Process with respect to windmills, as drafted by the law firm of HindmanSanchez, P.C. for the Carriage Hills Property Owners Association. In paragraph six you will read the legal opinion providing the basis for our Association's action on windmills. Perhaps the direction of the Town on the matter of windmills, and their suitability in all respects is going the wrong direction? Our Association would welcome the opportunity to meld our process with Town rules which may result in a common interest approach by all concerned. Other HOAs in the area may also wish to be involved. We are one community. Thank you for your interest. Sincerely, 04)\ 4 Robert M. Risin*-Prefident 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, Larimer County, Colorado, January 12, 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 12th day of January, 2010. Meeting called to order by Mayor Pinkham. Present: Mayor William C. Pinkham Mayor Pro Tem Chuck Levine Trustees Eric Blackhurst Dorla Eisenlauer John Ericson Richard Homeier Jerry Miller Also Present: Greg White, Town Attorney Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. HOLIDAY LIGHTING CONTEST - PRESENTATION OF AWARDS. Mayor Pinkham stated the contest was sponsored by the Town of Estes Park, the Ambassadors and the Estes Park News. Each winner received a certificate and a $50 dinner gift card. Best Commercial Business Mayor's Trophy Antique Hospital Gloria Rademacher Best Downtown Business Window Display Overall Best by - Resident MacDonald Book Shop Gary & Beverly Briggs Best Lodging Business Best First Time Entry - Resident McGregor Mountain Lodge Jamie Luevanos Best Theme - "Through the Eyes of a Child" Mark Igel PUBLIC COMMENT Joanna Darden/Town citizen read a prepared statement. She state the County Commissioners requested a copy of the Estes Valley Wildlife Assessment of Sept. 2008 and the previous 1996 wildlife map during their November 9, 2009 Commissioner meeting. To date those items have not been received by the County Commissioners and she requested the Board ensure they are delivered as soon as possible. David Habecker/Town citizen raised concern with a code enforcement issue he raised and questioned if providing the public with the names of individuals lodging complaints was normal practice. He read a prepared statement and requested the Board refrain from reciting the Under God Pledge at Town Board meetings. 5 Rex Poggenpohl/County citizen commented the Board should limit comments to 3 7 -~/ minutes. The Utilities Committee recommended to the Board the elimination of wind Q Lenergy incentive funds. He suggested the Board consider using these funds for other~ Board of Trustees - January 12, 2010- Page 2 /@nergy incentives valley wide such as insulation or conservation. As a member of the 3 Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC), he stated the Commission has reviewed / wind turbines and the lack of their feasibility in Estes Park. The Commission would like / / to request the Town Board direct the Utilities Dept. to develop a one page pro/con l / informational document for citizens on wind energy, solar energy and other 7 -1 conservation efforts. The Town Board should consider adopting the US safety / standards through the Building Codes for wind turbines if the Town Board approves t~ < recommendations from the EVPC. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. Trustee Blackhurst reminded the public that the Estes Park Housing Authority meeting would be held on Wednesday, January 13~ at 8:30 a.m. in Room 203. Trustee Homeier stated the Utilities Committee scheduled for Thursday, January 14, 2010 has been cancelled. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated December 8,2009. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development, December 3,2009. B. Utilities, December 10, 2009. C. Public Safety, December 17, 2009. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 2009 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority Minutes November 18, 2009 (acknowledgement only). 6. Resolution #01-10 - Public Posting Area Designation. 7. Resolution #02-10 - Schedule public hearing date of January 26, 2010 for a New Tavem Liquor License Application filed by Mountain Munchies LLC dba MOUNTAIN MUNCHIES, 189 & 191 Riverside Drive. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) to approve the Consent Agenda Items 2-7, and it passed unanimously. Consent Item 1.1 Trustee Ericson questioned a portion of the Grandstand discussion in the December 8, 2009 minutes regarding the Ad Hoc Design Committee's ongoing role in the construction of the Grandstands. He understood the Committee would be convened on a regular base. After discussion, it was moved and seconded (Miller/Eisenlauer) to approve the Consent Agenda Item 1.1 as presented, and it passed unanimously. 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. COPLINK PRESENTATION. Detective Pouluca and Dispatcher Purvis provided a presentation on COPLINK including its history and power of the database tool for law enforcement. The internet based program allows the Police Dept. to search across jurisdictions from their patrol cars, thereby decreasing the time involved in investigations. 2. THIRD QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT. Dear Carriage Hills Homeowner: HindmanSanchez, P.C. was asked by the Board of Directors of the Carriage Hills Property Owners Association ('*Association) to write a letter regarding the process for installing windmills on any property located within the Carriage Hills community. As you know, the community in which you have chosen to purchase a home is a covenant protected community. What this means is that there are certain restrictions in the form of the Protective Covenants, which were recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder's Office, regarding the use ofyour property. These restrictions are legally binding upon all property owners in Carriage Hills. With respect to architectural improvements, the Protective Covenants require you to first obtain approval from the Architectural Control Committee prior to installing any buildings or other improvements, or making any alterations to the exterior of your Lot. This would include seeking approval prior to installing windmills. As you may know, C.R.S. 38-30-168 promotes the use ofrenewable energy generation devices, including wind-electric generators, by Colorado residents. For a copy of the statute, see: http://www.hindmansanchez.com/docs/hb1270.pdf (Page 2 for windmill language). The statute protects windmills that meet the interconnection standards of C.R.S. 40-2-124. For a copy of the standards, see: http://www.dora.state.co.us/puc/rulemaking/Amendment37/Section40- 2-124.doc. Windmills that do not meet the foregoing standards may be prohibited by the Association, In addition, any proposed windmills that fall within the standards defined in C.R.S, 40-2-124 are still subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the Board of Directors based on dimensions, placement or external appearance, and to ensure the windmill does not unreasonably interfere with the use/enjoyment of nearby residents based on sound, and/or visual impact including the sightlines of all properties within the view ofthe proposed windmill. Ifyou plan to install a windmill on your property, you will need to ensure your proposed windmill meets the: (1) standards defined under C.R.S. 40-2-124 and (2) the aesthetic and sound regulations adopted by the Board ofDirectors. Accordingly, prior to installation please fill out the attached form and submit your request to the Association. You may not install your windmill until the Board of Directors has determined that you meet the required criteria. Ifyou have additional questions, please contact the Board of Directors at Sincerely, Melissa M. Garcia HindmanSanchez, P.C. {05593512.DOC;1 } CARRIAGE HILLS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PROPOSED RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION DEVICE Pursuant to the Protective Covenants of the Carriage Hills Property Owners Association, Inc., and in addition to any general application for approval submitted to the Association, IBoard - you should consider attaching any general application as an exhibit to this form. Please let us know if you want to reference an exhibill Uwe hereby submit the following Architectural Review Application for Approval of Proposed Renewable Energy Generation Device: EX I)ate: Address of Property: ke-*CL Names of Owners: ,(f, 1,1 AÂ¥ A744'6. ~4*1 .6 Mailing Address: 9384 ..44*~ . Phone Number: 01): i ~ fWK ~<536. /4-JAA#- -'~~~~4W'~4 Please check the type of device(s) you *ikRT&tigâ‚¬011: 2%*45,0 ~ :3:-MA L O Solar energy device fBoard - th~ is.Â¢ChitiAglnewable energy generation device protectfdBER*e statute Â«kjildition tkihe energy emciency measure devices). I*you wantene to remb* reference, and have this specijic to windmills 6*1*let me ki#wl 2. tÂ·9. b #M dir Â¤ Win*elee#ic genehiMr - '.14<%*%85<. - Localidh of installation** 44,1.. _4' Dint@MIDA* ofproposedl*ce: V Planned 0%hmencement datb: ' Planned cot;#Ation date: 41 Names and addreises of ar~itect, contractor or other owner representative(s), if any: NAU '12* Â¥90 Attachments (check any applicable): Construction plans Architectural drawings Specifications (e.g. manufacturer's brochure) Samples or description of colors Photographs Other {05593512.DOC;1} Please attach all ofthe following: For wind electric generators only: information on expected noise levels when operating For wind electric generators onlv: information showing that wind electric generator falls within the standards of C.R.S. 40-2-124 I understand that I must receive the written approval of the Architectural Control Committee ("Committee") in order to proceed. Committee aply(%0 does not constitute approval of the local building or zoning department, or struettifil OB engineering safety and/or soundness. I understand that I may be required to obdiA*building or other permits Â«Nk and approvals prior to the commencement of any work.4agrekthat my failure to obtain required building or other permits and approvals will tesult i~Mi~4vithdrawal of the Committee's approval. 9Â«, 0 :gek / 4 Na*. Within days of completion of my iIi*i~vement?Ik~ill notify the{01Gmittee in writing. Upon completion of my improvement,mÂ¢Â¤g@y~authorize CoAnittee or its delegate to enter onto my property for exterior inspettiotet a mutually agreed upon time, if requested. A 1431 .4,4,%43 Zbk.. 'A *if'YER,2. ltÂ« Homeowner 91 * Homeowner ' RECEIRT I heditbkn owledge redejpt of %2 above and its marked attachments this day of .ti..1 94 20 , at o'clock .m. 4: 4-4 - This receipt is ne,kan ackndwledgment that such submission is complete. 4-,Mk 0. Â®f By: {05593512.DOC;1} 110 TOWN oF ESTES PARIL iRECZID/irn,177[7) Memo TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Date: July 6, 2010 RE: Ordinance No. 15-10 Termination of Wind Turbine Moratorium Background: Ordinance No. 15-10 terminates the current moratorium on the issuance of any building permits by the Community Development Department for the installation of any wind turbine within the Town of Estes Park. Mircowind energy conversion systems shall be regulated pursuant to the recently adopted amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code pertaining to said systems. All other wind turbines shall be regulated by the applicable regulations of the Municipal Code and the Estes Valley Development Code. The temporary moratorium will terminate on the effective date of Ordinance No. 15-10 which will be thirty (30) days after the publication of the Ordinance. Budget There are no budgetary implications. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 15-10 to terminate the temporary moratorium on the issuance of building permits for wind turbines within the Town of Estes Park. Sample Motion: I move to adopt/not adopt Ordinance No. 15-10. Page 1 ORDINANCE NO. #15-10 AN ORDINANCE TERMINATING THE TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR WIND TURBINES WITHIN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK WHEREAS, on August 11,2009, the Board of Trustees adopted Resolution No. 15-09 imposing a temporary moratorium on the issuance of any building permit by the Community Development Department for the installation of any wind turbine within the Town of Estes Park; and WHEREAS, On December 8,2009, the Board of Trustees adopted Ordinance No. 11-09 extending the temporary moratorium on the issuance of any building permit for the installation of any wind turbine within the Town for an additional ninety (90) days; and WHEREAS, on March 8,2010, the Board of Trustees extended the temporary moratorium through August 31, 2010 by adoption of Ordinance No. 09-10; and WHEREAS, on March 30,2010, the Board of Trustees adopted Ordinance No. 11-10 amending the Estes Valley Development Code to include regulations governing installation, operation, and location of small wind energy conversion systems; and WHEREAS, on April 19,2010, the Larimer County Commissioners adopted the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code governing micro-wind energy conversion systems; and WHEREAS, on June 8, 2010, the Board of Trustees did not adopt amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code which would have regulated the operation, installation and location of small wind energy conversion systems; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has determined that there is no longer any need to continue the temporary moratorium on the issuance of building permits for any wind turbines as micro-wind energy conversion systems are regulated by the adopted amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, and all other wind turbines within the Town of Estes Park are subject to the applicable regulations set forth in the Town of Estes Park Municipal Code and/or the Estes Valley Development Code. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, as follows: 1. The temporary moratorium on the issuance of any building permit for wind turbines as more fully set forth in Ordinance No. 09-10 is terminated on the effective date ofthis Ordinance. INTRODUCED, READ, AND PASSED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK on this day of ,2010. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk RESOLUTION #08-10 A RESOLUTION OPPOSING PROPOSITION 101 AND AMENDMENTS 60 AND 61 WHEREAS, state voters will have the opportunity at the November 2 statewide general election to protect the fiscal health of local government by defeating Proposition 101, Amendment 60, and Amendment 61; and WHEREAS, during this current economic downturn (insert name of municipality) has already cut services and budgets dramatically like (cite several examples here); and WHEREAS, these measures individually and collectively significantly reduce or otherwise restrict both state and local revenues in a number of different ways including but not limited to: specific ownership taxes, telecommunication taxes, state income taxes, state-shared revenues to assist municipalities with local street and transit improvements, other state grants and loans to help local government, and property taxes; and WHEREAS, the ability to finance long-term capital improvements like water and wastewater treatment plants, recreational projects, fire stations, and other public facilities are dramatically impaired by the restrictions on debt financing as proposed by Amendment 61; and WHEREAS, the following services and programs in (insert name of municipality) will be limited or curtailed because of the numerous restrictions and revenue reductions proposed by these three measures (cite some key items here); and WHEREAS, (insert name of municipality) is concerned about the impact these three measures will have on our ability to work effectively with other local governments in the form of intergovernmental agreements like (cite several examples here); and WHEREAS, a number of prominent individuals, newspapers, and organizations including our own Colorado Municipal League are voicing opposition to these measures as not being in the best interests of Colorado and of local communities; and WHEREAS, provisions of state law do allow (insert name of municipality) to put forth this resolution as a statement of opposition to the measures known as Proposition 101, Amendment 60, and Amendment 61; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK opposes Proposition 101, Amendment 60, and Amendment 61 and urges our citizens to vote against all three ballot measures. INTRODUCED, READ, and ADOPTED this day of ,2010. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk i 1 1 Briefing on Proposition 101, Amendments 60 & 61 STEVE MCFARLAN FINANCE OFFICER JULY 20, 2010 bo w F W 50 bo (13 00 w boÂ©Em.0 Alt 2 8 2 .5 1 F C. CO 0% SE=%.E 2 E /,1 lil +9 m mit AC,6 W CD CD 0 a.) a E AE #.S E Â·3 1 00 F I. -1--2 00 CL) O-- aps le E *71 4 EA 50.24 2 2 :% 0 6. 64 ES U 3 0 O CI12 2@ E ... agai~anyb oney to urge electors to vote in favor o Fair Campaign Practices Act â€¢ Generally prohibits public entities from exp in any activity d JO SarIddns asn louue) '3UIES Op 01 'I! 01 asuodsal u! UOUBUIJOJUI uu BUUdope suounIOSel anss! loTIEq uoursod Koen electors to vote in 8 4 h WI E ce 0 0 1 0 = pd CO 0 O.56 H k .. 28, 2010, represen from all governmental districts met at 6pm Cantina to comm formed to discuss how Vall ey Impact inkham was appointed as Town scuss the issues. 'DAI1Bluasaidal . i 0 Proposition 101 â€¢ Specific Ownership Tax - changes from a valuation and age tax assessment to a minimal flat fee. â€¢ Sales/use taxes - Town will no longer have ability to charge sale ta x on vehicle leases/rentals. No Sales/Use tax on first 10,000 of a vehicle's sales price. pue Mau uo saxei d'LISJau/\AO ogpads saonpabl - 31AH â€¢ le Slil.U!-1 'AlaA!:padsai '-[$ pue ES ol saloll.laA v ssel) pasn vehicle registration, license and title charges to total of u! saai uo!:tells!333 /\AaU Saleu!l.U!I3 .310!4aA Jed O-[ G 3 eaA 1sel passed uo!1els!3al kl315\13 0 Proposition 101 â€¢ Telecommunications - Eliminates all taxes/fees. Would cable TV franchise fee. Does not eliminate 911 fees, but eliminate Town's telephone tax. Would likely elim does freeze them at 2009 rates. Could affect LETA funding. 0 Amendment 60 â€¢ Non-resident property owners permitted to vote in tax elections. â€¢ Allows property tax voting only in November. â€¢ Significant impact on schools and special districts. â€¢ Related TABOR tax and debt ballot questions must be voted on 'S.leaA OI u! aildxa 01 pailnba.I saseaJOU! xel Aliado.Id ainln:I â€¢ Aed 01 se!1!Jolilnv pue (~1!I'ln) spuni aspdialue Sal!nbaw . Aq AAaI HILU aollpa] 01 1, leool sa.Unbal pue xel Aliadoid 'UAAOU>lun aie s!41 Jo SUO!1.e)!J'Ule] 041 'anuaAa] MaU Jo lunoule ||!AA Aalll se azAie~l~~~~l.1~:lu~~1~;~lssun3nv) Apnls alei e 3ulop aq osie Alale.ledas 00 EIGH Bu!3eBua s! U/v\01 mci 0 C 0, 0: â€¢ Prohibits all forms of Town, E prise and URA debt issued for any reason, for any period of time, and whether or not subject to Amendment 61 annual appropriation, unless voter approved. There will b lease-purchases, certificates of participation, or refinancing of 0-[ u!41!/\A pledaJ pue iqap papuoq aq 1Snl.U 1qap paAoidde-JaloA â€¢ passasse 341 Jo %O-[ uelll aiouu ou 01 iqap paAoidde-JaloA Sl'lurl â€¢ taxable value of real property in the Town. sueol punkeilu! 30, Al!I!qe alÂ·Il aleull.UNa lou Ael.u Jo AelAI â€¢ Spuoq JaleAA pue Al!3041nv 3u!snoH saleull.U!lEi â€¢ existing debt. o SJ eak 0 Proposition 101 SUMMARY â€¢ Sales and Use Taxes on Vehicle Leases/Purchases â€¢ State Revenue Sharing through Highway Users Trust Fund saa:1 as!40ue.Id pue saxeluoilednooo â€¢ 10Â¥d INI 1VIONVNIB â€¢ - (OIOZ) 000'8-[17$ :TOI/-[9/09 JO loedull pund leJauaE) . â€¢ Specific Ownership Tax â€¢ Telecommunications Sales Tax (17-[OZ) 000'089$ ANNOUNCEMENT ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE MADE BY THE MAYOR AT THE BEGINNING OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. MAKE SURE THE ELECTRONIC RECORDER IS TURNED ON; DO NOT TURN IT OFF DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION UNLESS SO ADVISED BY THE TOWN ATTORNEY. It's Julv 13, 2010, and the time is . For the record, I am Bill Pinkham, the Mayor (or Mayor Pro Tem) of the Board of Trustees. As required by the Open Meetings Law, this executive session is being electronically recorded. Also present at this executive session are the following person(s): Trustees Eric Blackhurst, Mark Elrod, John Ericson, Wendy Koenig, Chuck Levine, Jerrv Miller and Town Administrator Jacquie Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Lowell Richardson, Town Attorney Greg White This is an executive session for the following purpose: To discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of real, personal, or other property interest under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(a) and a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions regarding Kind Coffee under C.R.S. Section 24-6- 402(4)(b). I caution each participant to confine all discussion to the stated purpose of the executive session, and that no formal action may occur in the executive session. If at any point in the executive session any participant believes that the discussion is outside of the proper scope of the executive session, please interrupt the discussion and make an objection. The close of the executive session is in the Mayor's discretion and does not require a motion for adjournment of the executive session. The Mayor shall close the executive session by stating the time and return to the open meeting. After the return to the open session, the Mayor shall state that the Town Board is in open session and whether or not any formal action and/or discussion shall be taken by the Town Board. 4