The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board 2010-09-14Prepared 8/30/10 f Illa Â· Revised 11/1 Um Â® TOWN op 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, September 14, 2010 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. CENSUS APPRECIATION PRESENTATION. Recognition of Town efforts during Census. PROCLAMATION: "CONSTITUTION WEEK" SEPTEMBER 17-23, 2010. PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated August 24, 2010 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated August 24, 2010. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community DevelopmenUCommunity Services, August 26, 2010. B. Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works, September 9, 2010. 1. Utility and Access Easement for 403 Aspen Avenue. 4. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Minutes July 13, 2010. (acknowledgement only). 5. Resolution #10-10 Approval of the Northern Colorado Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan. 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. TOWN BOARD LIAISON UPDATES. Board Members. 2. STREET AND STORMWATER PRESENTATION. Director Zurn. 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. ORDINANCE #21-10 SMALL WIND TURBINE AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE. Director Joseph and Planner Shirk. 2. MPEC PROFORMA AND MARKETING STUDY CONTRACT APPROVAL. Finance Officer McFarland. 3. ADJOURN. NOTE The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the Anpnrl= wpo nrenwrpri Jackie Williamson From: Admin iR3045 Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 3:08 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 3272 ST. TIME 09/08 14:57 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 ERROR 5771590 EP News 1 09/08/2010 WED 15:08 FAX 9705862816 EP Administration ~001 *************************** *** FAX MULTI TX REPORT *** *************************** JOB NO. 3272 PGS. 2 TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 6672527 Greg White 5869561 KEPL 5869532 Trail Gazette 5861691 Channel 8 6353677 Reporter Herald 2247899 Coloradoan ERROR 5771590 EP News Prepared 8/30/10 *Revised !EU TOWN oF ESTES PAR[* 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 enhandng 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, September 14, 2010 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. r CENSUS APPRECIATION PRESENTATION. Recognition of Town efforts during Census. PROCLAMATION: 'CONSTITUTION WEEK" SEPTEMBER 17-23, 2010. ' PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated August 24, 2010 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated August 24, 2010. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development/Community Services, August 26, 2010. B. Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works, September 9, 2010. 4 ....1-/.* 09/08/2010 WED 15:08 iR3045 ~001 ***************** *** TX REPORT *** ***************** JOB NO. 3272 ST. TIME 09/08 14:57 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 ERROR 5771590 EP News Prepared 8/30/10 Revised !MU TOWN op 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, September 14, 2010 7:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. CENSUS APPRECIATION PRESENTATION. Recognition of Town efforts during Census. PROCLAMATION: "CONSTITUTION WEEK"SEPTEMBER 17-23,2010. PUBLIC COMMENT (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated August 24, 2010 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated August 24, 2010. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Community Development/Community Services, August 26, 2010. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 24, 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 Room 130 in said Town of Estes Park on the 24th day of August, 2010. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Elrod, Ericson, Koenig, Levine and Miller Also Attending: Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Town Attorney White and Town Clerk Williamson Absent Town Administrator Halburnt Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. SELF-INSURANCE PRESENTATION. 9% Dutch Ross/Ross Benefits Consulting provided anoverview of self-insurance, including the need for a third party administrator (TPA) to pay claims, rental of a network such as Anthem, and hiring a reinsurance provider to cover claims above a set dollar amount, i.e. claims above $50,000 would be covered by separate insurance. Clients benefit by taking back control, lower annual premium increases, retain funds during low claim years to offset high claims, option W create multiple plans, i.e. a basic plan and a rich plan, and options to limit those insured based on lifestyle choices, i.e. smokers. Clients hesitate in switching because of the need to set aside additional funds the first couple of years in the event a high claim year is experienced immediately. He assured the Board . that several similar sized municipalities have moved successfully to self-insurance. Board comments are summarized: the Town cannot afford double digit increases each year; could the Town have a combined model that would include self insurance for medical and full insurance for dental and vision; are municipalities increasing the employee contribution; and could a Town employee administer the plan. Mr. Ross stated the Town could chose to have all three benefits covered by self- insurance or a combination of self and full insurance. The plan would have a specific stop loss per plan member ($50,000) and an aggregate stop loss for the entire group ($1 million) to provide two levels of protection. Municipalities and especially school districts areincreasing the percentage of premium paid by the employee. He recommended the Town hire a TPA to administer the plan and assume the risk of claim errors because the Town is not large enough. Switching to self-insurance would take a minimum of 60 days. The Board requested Mr. Ross provided a cost analysis of self-insurance compared to full insurance for the past few year's claims and present the information to the Board during the September 28, 2010 Town Board Study Session. Mr. Ross recommended the Board share the data and benefits of self-insurance with the employees. OPEN DISCUSSION. Economic Development Group. Trustee Miller suggested the Board develop a council/group to review economic development options such as new business creation, relocation of businesses, a year- round tourist economy, and additional affordable housing. Trustee Blackhurst commented the discussion needs to take a different approach to previous discussions that have occurred during the past 25 years He also stated the Town needs to review the current and potential for commercial property within the valley. Mayor Pinkham recommended the Board have former Larimer County Commissioner Kathay Rennels RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - August 24, 2010 - Page 2 provided an overview of options and resources available to Estes Park through her ~ position at CSU. The Board consensus was to have Kathay Rennels come to an upcoming study session and provide information on possible economic development options and requested a list of commercial land available in the valley for review. Affordable Housing. Trustee Miller suggested staff provided a fieldtrip to the Fish Hatchery property to review the possibilities of the area, including an RFP to explore a public/private partnership to develop the land as affordable housing. Trustee Blackhurst and Chair of the Estes Park Housing Authority informed the Board of an upcoming needs assessment to be conducted by EPHA. A review of the Fish Hatchery property would be premature at this time until the study has been completed. Fee Waiver Policy. The Board discussed the possibility of a reduced water tap fee schedule for affordable housing units to eliminate the fee waiver requests currently heard by the Board and assessed on a case by case basis. Discussion topics included Enterprise Funds subsidizing fee reductions or waivers; fee waivers have been funded by General Fund and not rate payers in the past; the health of the local economy would dictate whether or not the General Fund could continue to subsidize affordable housing; an economic analysis to determine appropriate cost of reduced water tap fees; and explore cooperative effort with sanitation districts to provide reduced sewer tap fees for affordable housing. Staff would review how other communities are addressing the issue and how best to move forward. MISCELLANEOUS. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson updated the Board on a recent meeting staff and Mayor Pinkham and Trustee Koenigabad with Forever Resorts regarding their efforts to drop the Holiday Inn flagship. The company has been limited by the flagship relationship on the type of business that can be brought to the property, and fully ~ expects an increase in marketing efforts for the property once the relationship has been terminated. Attorney White stated the current IGA allows each party to review a substantial change such as a name change. The IGA is over 20 years old; therefore he suggested the agreement should be reviewed to determine if the current operations of the property are appropriate. NEXT STUDY SESSION AGENDA. The Board requested staff email the list of open items for the Board to consider for the next study session. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:48 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 24, 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 24th day of August, 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 Jerry Miller Also Present: Greg White, Town Attorney Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT. Joanna Darden/Town citizen addressed the Board regarding her comments from the July 20, 2010 Estes Valley Planning Commission and requested the minutes be updated to reflect her comments related to setbacks for wind turbines. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS. Trustee Blackhurst stated the Estes Park Housing Authority would issue an RFP for a needs assessment for Lot 4 near Good Samaritan to be completed the first of the year. Trustee Ericson commented applications for the Transportation Visioning Committee would be accepted through SeMember 1, 2010. The Committee would be formed after Labor Day. Mayor Pro Tem Levine Stated the Community Development/Community Services Committee would meet on Thursday, August 26, 2010 at 8:00 a.m. in the Board Room. Mayor Pinkham reported on the events at the fairgrounds this past weekend, including the Senior Rodeo, Dressage, Draft Horse Show and Llama Show. He stated the staff received accolades from the participants and the attendees. 1. CONSENTAGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated August 10, 2010 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated July 23, 2010 and August 10,2010. 2. Bills. 3. Committee Minutes: A. Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works, August 12, 2010: 1. Public Safety. a. Northern Colorado Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Board of Trustees - August 24, 2010 - Page 2 2. Utilities: a. Cost of Services Analysis for L&P, HDR Engineering - $24,715, Budgeted. b. Cost of Services Analysis and Tap Fee Study for Water, HDR Engineering - $19,390, Budgeted. 3. Public Works: a. Street Sweeper Replacement, MacDonald Equipment - $149,012 - Budgeted. 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 2010 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority Minutes July 21, 2010 (acknowledgement only). It was moved and seconded (Levine/Miller) the Consent Agenda be approved, and it passed unanimously. 2. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. GRANDSTAND PROJECT UPDATE. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson reported the contractor continues to work on the last few issues. Final bills would be held until the final walk through has been completed. He stated the*two new freezer units failed and all the concessionaires' product was destroyed. The Town has covered the loss of the product; however, the Town would be reimbursed by the manufacturer. Landscaping, new chain link fencing long Manford Avenue, new irrigation to be completed by Park staff, and colored concrete on the landing area at the west ~ entrance would be completed fora total of $21,000. BOARD LIAISON UPDATES. Trustee Elrod reported the EVPC discussed small wind turbines as it relates to setback and a public review process though a conditional use permit. The EVPC has recommended approval to the Town Board code language that does not include a public review process and reduced setbacks from 3 times to 2 M times the setback. The review process remains in draft form for the Board to review on September 14,2010. Mayor Pro Tem Levine provided an update on the Partners for Commerce activities, includingmembership renewal, hosting a social event for business owners this fall for networking, luncheon series continues, a series of business classes are being prepared for fall and winter, downtown blog site created, and begin partnering with Town during ribbon cuttings. Trustee Koenig stated the Rooftop Rodeo Committee produced three successful events this past weekend as indicated earlier by Mayor Pinkham. A shuttle was provided by the Pieper's from the fairgrounds to the Heritage Festival during the weekend. The Rodeo Committee and fairground staff should be commended for their efforts. Trustee Miller commented the LMD Marketing Committee continues to see an increase in requests for visitor guides by both downloads and hardcopies. 2. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson reported the Town would be conducting interviews of 8 candidates on September 2 and 3, 2010 for the ~ Utilities Director position. Board of Trustees - August 24, 2010 - Page 3 Director Zurn provided an update of Prospect Avenue, which is substantially complete. The Contractor has addressed the upper 40% of the roadway that failed to meet specifications due to rideablity through a grinding operation. Staff and Cornerstone Engineering stopped the grinding because of concerns with structural integrity of the concrete surface. Administration and staff would meet to discuss the issue further. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. Mayor Pinkham opened the Public Hearing for all Consent Agenda Items. 1 CONSENT ITEMS: A. AMENDED SUBDIVISION PLAT 1. Amended Plat, Lots 1, 2, and 3, Big Horn at Spruce Subdivision; Vincent and Karen Gerber, John and Margaret Kacergis, Applicants. As there were no public comments, it was moved and seconded (Blackhurst/Ericson) to approve the Amended Plat, Lots 1, 2, and 3, Big Horn at Spruce Subdivision with the Estes Valley Planning Commis#ion findings, and it passed unanimously. 2. ACTION ITEMS: A. ORDINANCE #19-10, A-1 Accommodations Density and Dimensional Standards Code Revisions to the Estes Valley Development Code - Public Hearing. Mayor Pinkham reopened the public hearing. Planner Chilcott reviewed the proposed code amendments. As there were no public comments Mayor Pinkham Closed the public hearing and Attorney White read the Ordinance. It was moved and seconded (Koenig/Miller) Ordinance 19-10 be approved, and it passed unanimously. 4. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ORDINANCE #20-10 EXTENSION OF WIND TURBINE MORATORIUM. Attorney White stated the current moratorium approved by the Board on March 9, 2010 ends on August 31, 2010. He stated small wind turbine regulations were reviewed by the Planning COmmission, which recommend amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code regulating the operation, installation and locationof Small wind turbines. The amendments would be reviewed by the Town Board on September 14, 2010; therefore, an extension of the moratorium was needed. Joanna Darden/Town citizen stated the moratorium should be extended until regulations are complete. The close vote by the Planning Commission demonstrates there is more work to be completed. Attorney White read the Ordinance. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Elrod) to approve Ordinance 20-10, and it passed with Trustee Blackhurst voting "No" 2. RESOLUTION #09-10 - APPROPRIATION OF MATCHING FUNDS FOR TRANSPORTATION HUB GRANT. Director Zurn presented an overview of the transportation hub at the Fairgrounds at Stanley Park. This integrated solution would address transportation and parking by providing 408 parking spaces for cars, RVs, 2 Board of Trustees - August 24, 2010 - Page 4 bus bays and a bus shelter. This satellite site would service Hwy 36 traffic, shuttle visitors to the visitor center, reduce delays/congestion downtown, reduce emissions and improve visitor experience. The Town has been awarded $956,000 in federal funds through a grant from the Upper Front Range Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Fund requiring the Town to commit matching funds of $250,000 by Resolution. The funds would be allocated from the Community Reinvestment Fund. Construction is tentatively set for February 2011 with a completion date prior to the first event at the fairgrounds. Board comments are summarized: has there been consideration of a multi- level parking structure; questioned if acceptance of the grant would allow groups to charge for parking during events; would there need to be improvements to the intersection of Highway 36 and Community Drive; would the dirt portion of the lot continue to be used by those attending the horse shows; and questioned if the current gate houses would be moved to an alternate location on the property. Director Zurn stated there is not enough funding for a multi-level parking structure and there is plenty of land for surface parking. The new lot would be a shared lot for transit and fairground participant parking. The gate houses would remain in the current location. The current funding would be for the construction of the lot only and does not include funds for landscaping; however, there are beautification grants available to complete landscaping. He stated the Federal Highway has committed a free information system pilot program for the transit hub during the 2011 season. Deputy Town Administrator Richardson stated the approval of the reallocation of $250,000 in the CRF wouldâ€¢come from funds currently budgeted for the Multi Purpose Event Center. Finance Officer McFarland stated the CRF fund balance at the end of 2009 was $2.749 million and the ending fund balance for 2010 of $1.366 million. Joanna Darden/Town citizen stated concern with the expense of the hub and whether or not visitors would use it. She questioned if a survey had been taken to determine usage by visitors. Charley Dickey/Town citizen stated the parking lot would be used as an overflow parking area.1*He questioned how the lot would be promoted, i.e. signage, to educate visitofs of the lot. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Ericson/Blackhurst) to approve Resolution 09-10 allocating $250,000 in matching funds for the Colorado Department of Transportation Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality grant from the Community Reinvestment Fund #204-5400-544-35- 52, and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 8:22 p.m. William C. Pinkham, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 26, 2010 Minutes of a Regular 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 26th day of August 2010. Committee: Chair Levine, Trustees Elrod and Miller Attending: Chair Levine, Trustees Elrod and Miller Also Attending: Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Directors Joseph and Kilsdonk,and Deputy Town Clerk Deats Absent Town Administrator Halburnt Chair Levine called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. Staff noted a road closure request in conjunction with the Longs Peak Scottish-Irish Highlands Festival will be added to the agenda. PUBLIC COMMENT. Marsha Hobert, county resident, requested the Town work with merchants to allow the use of banners to call attention to businesses during this difficult economic time and a looser enforcement of the sign code as it relates to banners through the end of the summer season. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT. ROAD CLOSURE REQUEST. The organizers of the Longs Peak Scottish-Irish Highland Festival have requested the closure of Community Drive from Highway 36 to Manford Avenue; and partial closure of Manford Avenue at the intersection of Community Drive to accommodate pedestrian traffic during the festival. The festival is scheduled for September 9-12, 2010. This road closure request was inadvertently overlooked when road closures for 2010 were approved in February. The Committee approved the road closure request as presented. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Facilities Sales/Marketing Quarterly Report - Mgr. Pickering noted that staff continues to receive inquiries related to last minute bookings of conferences, reported that, to date, 48 groups have used the conference center; and said he expects to come close to meeting the goal of 55 conference groups for 2010. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. SIGN CODE REVISIONS. Dir. Joseph provided the Committee a draft of the sign code with all revisions to date, as well as a running commentary noting the rationale for the revisions. The draft tracked the additions, deletions, and revisions to the code and Dr. Joseph noted that formatting and organization of the document will be completed by staff prior to presentation to the Town Board. Dir. Joseph stated that after Town Board approval, the ordinance will be sent to Colorado Code Publishing for codification at which time it will be formatted to be consistent with the existing Municipal Code. Trustee Elrod stated that he had a difficult time comparing the draft document that was included in the meeting packet with previous drafts of the sign code and pointed out formatting and typographical inaccuracies throughout the document. The Committee discussed: provisions for non- profit organizations to obtain a master special events sign permit; proposed eliminating , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Community Development / Community Services - August 26, 2010 - Page 2 the maximum number of days non-profits can displayed banners; real estate signs, open house and directional signs, and making changes to the appeals process by changing the appellate body from the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment to the Town Board of Trustees and the body to hear variances to the proposed sign review board. Charley Dickey, Town resident, noted that the conversation related to the sign code should have contained more discussion of content and less discussion of formatting issues. He proposed including special sections within the code where the public could find specific information related to commercial signs, non commercial signs, real estate signage, and guidelines for sidewalk sale signage. The Committee requested that staff revise the draft document and deliver a final master draft of the sign code to the Committee members via e-mail within two weeks, thereby providing the Committee time to once again review the document prior to the item's inclusion on a future Town Board agenda. Trustee Elrod offered to provide staff with the copy of the sign code document that was reviewed during the meeting. TEMPORARY BANNER PERMIT FEE WAIVER REQUEST. Michael Wold, Master of the Masonic Lodge in Estes Park, addressed the Committee regarding a request for reimbursement of a temporary banner permit fee. The $30 fee was assessed when the Lodge applied for a temporary banner permit to advertise open houses to be held on three Saturdays between the dates of July 28 and August 25, 2010. The purpose of the open houses was to acquaint the public with the Masonic Lodge and the Lodge's activities. Dir. Joseph had previously reviewed the request and denied it based on established criteria for the granting of fee waivers; Mr. Wold asked that the Committee reconsider Dir. Joseph's decision. The Committee discussed the request and determined that, although the request did not meet all the criteria set forth in the fee waiver policy, the advertised events served the community by offering an ~ educational program to the general public and agreed to reimburse the $30 fee. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ Code Compliance Report. â€¢ Community Development Financial Report. â€¢ Monthly Building Permit Summary. â€¢ Revised Estes Valley Planning Commission Bylaws - This change to the bylaws will extend the length of the term for the Planning Commissioner chair from one year to two years. ADMINISTRATION. REPORTS. Reports provided for informational purposes and made a part of the proceedings. â€¢ PIO Quarterly Report - PIO Rusch summarized second quarter activities including attendance at a FEMA training session held in Maryland in July; and reported she is currently working on plans for an electronics recycling event, and researching options for a suitable product to conduct a community survey. Trustee Miller commended PIO Rusch for her contributions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO) Committee. There being no further business, Chair Levine adjourned the meeting at 12:11 p.m. Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 9, 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 9th day of September 2010. Committee: Chair Blackhurst, Trustees Ericson and Koenig Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Chief Kufeld, Director Zurn, Finance Officer McFarland and Clerk Williamson Absent None Chair Blackhurst called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None. PUBLIC WORKS Utility and Access Easement - 403 Aspen Avenue. An additional easement on Lot 7, Block 5, Country Club Manor Addition was required for sidewalk improvements related to the Prospect Avenue reconstruction project due to the relocation of Estes Park Sanitation line. The utility and access easement has been executed by the property owners. The Committee recommends approval of the Utility and Access easement on Lot 7, Block 5, Country Club Manor Addition as a consent item at the September 14, 2010 Town Board meeting. MPEC Proforma and MarketinctiStudv. Finance Officer Mcfarland stated an RFP was issued for a proforma and market study for the Multi Purpose Eventtenter (MPEC) at the Fairgrounds at Stanley Park after the July 27,2010 Town Board Study Session. Six proposals were received as follows: Firm Name Bid Amount* Strategic Advisory Group (Atlanta, GA) $48,500 AECOM Technical Service (Arlington, VA) $45,000 Economic and Planning Systems (Denver, CO) $44,970 Markin Consulting (Minneapolis, MN) $35,910 C.H. Johnson Consulting (Chicago, IL) $34,500 Greenplay (Broomfield, CO) $24,900 *bids exclude reimbursable costs. The proposals were reviewed and it was determined that all firms were equally qualified to perform the analysis and study. The timeframe for completion ranged from 4 to 6 months with some stating a shorter timeframe could possibly be met if required. This analysis would differ from the information prepared by staff previously in that it would include participation by other groups, a market analysis with needs assessment, and a financial resource analysis. A final report would be prepared with draft recommendations and action plans to be considered by the Board. After further discussion the Committee recommends approval to contract with Greenplay to complete a Proforma and Market analysis for the Multi Purpose Event Center for $24,900 from #204-5400-544-22-02 as an action item at the September 14, 2010 Town Board meeting. The Committee request staff contact Greenplay to verify if the report could be completed by the end of the year. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee - September 9, 2010 - Page 2 REPORT ~ Pavement Condition Index Report. Director Zurn reviewed the current condition of the 58 miles of mostly residential roadways owned and maintained by the Town. He stated the pavement condition index (PCI) was just completed for the roadways and found 8.38 (14%) miles of the system are in very good condition, 17.63 (31%) good, 16.12 (28%) fair, and 15.41 (27%) poor. The PCl continues to decline with an average of 69 (low end of fair) or 75% of the useful life of the roadway. The continued downturn over the last decade is a result of underfunding roadway maintenance. This downturn in PCI would accelerate at current funding levels because the rate of deterioration increases exponentially when conditions are below a PCI of 75. He stated at current funding levels there would be further degradation of the roadways and lead to costly rehabilitation or reconstruction, costing three times more than maintenance. For example an asphalt roadway with a 20 year lifespan has a flat deterioration for the first 5 to 10 years, and without maintenance the roadway deterioration would accelerate. The recommended maintenance would consist of a slurry seal after 7 years at a $1/square foot to keep the water out and bring the roadway back into a good rating. Without the maintenance the roadway would need potential rehabilitation or reconstruction at a cost of $410 $14/per square foot. Administrator Halburnt stated staff continues to educate the public and the Board on the issues related to the roadway system, including the funds needed each year to maintain the system. Possible funding options are a Street and Stormwater Utility and/or impact fees. Director Zurn would recommend the Board fund roadway improvements at $1 million a year for the next 10 years to bring the system back to a good rating. The Committee recommended staff include examples in future presentation such as the total funds needed to bring the system into a good rating and provide the cost of redoing a poor condition road such as Manford Avenue. MISCELLANEOUS Trustee Ericson requested a brief report on the Town's alternative energy grants issued in 2008-2010 on how it is working and if it has lowered individual utility bills. There being no further business, Chair Blackhurst adjourned the meeting at 8:46 a.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment July 13, 2010, 9:00 a.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Board: Chair Bob McCreery, Members John Lynch, Chuck Levine, Wayne Newsom, and Pete Smith; Alternate Member Jeff Moreau Attending: Chair McCreery, Members Lynch, Levine, Newsom and Smith Also Attending: Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, Planner Shirk, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: None Chair McCreery called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None 2. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of minutes of the June 8, 2010 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Levine/Smith) to approve the minutes as presented, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. LOT 2, BARLOW SUBDIVISION, 340 E. ELKHORN AVENUE - Variance from Estes Park Municipal Code Section 17.66.060 (12) Roof Signs, to allow the replacement of two non-conforming roof signs. Director Joseph reviewed the staff report. He stated the section of the sign code that pertains to this application is 17.66.060(12) Roof Signs. There was a previous misinterpretation of this code, which subsequently allowed a sign to be placed on the applicant's roof because the sign had an angle of 45 degrees or less from vertical. More recently, it was determined that the correct interpretation of the code meant a roof having an angle of 45 degrees or less from vertical shall be considered a wall where signs are concerned* Director Joseph explained that when a change of business occurs along with a change in signage, a structure with non-compliant sign is required to bring those signs into compliance. Director Joseph stated there is a new tenant occupying the structure, and a new sign is required. In order to continue using the existing sign locations, the building owner needs a variance. Once the variance is obtained, the building owner enjoys the benefits of the variance for any current or future tenants. This is the first variance request for this structure. Director Joseph explained that by looking at the architecture of this building, one would be tempted to place a sign on the wall facing Elkhorn; however, there is a street tree directly in front of the building that would block the view of the sign. Staff has determined the street tree is the physical constraint of the sight. Due to the size and shape of the building, staff has determined there is a hardship and special circumstance to place the signs lower on the structure. Members Smith and Lynch made suggestions to the applicant for alternative sites for the signs. Public Comment: . Steve Barlow/Applicant stated he would like to replace the old signs with the new in the same location. He stated the previous owner was there for 16 years and had signs in the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' ' Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2 July 13, 2010 requested location. Mr. Barlow stated if the signs were placed on the side panels, as suggested by Member Lynch, they would only be visible by those already in the plaza and not visible to those on the street. Member Smith was concerned about the size and height of the proposed signs. Mr. Barlow stated the top of the proposed signs are 20 feet high. Director Joseph clarified that this building does not receive the full sign frontage because of its size. Sign frontage is one and one-half square feet of sign area for every linear foot of frontage exposed to the street. The amount of signage that is currently on the building is compliant with the sign code. Chair McCreery stated the business owner has the right to determine the sign placement on his building. He did not find these signs offensive, and questioned why this type of sign was disallowed. Director Joseph explained that the disallowance of roof signs is not an unusual standard in sign codes. The property owner can freely choose between the different types of signs and how to use his total cumulative square-foot allocation. If an owner decided to use all their allotted square footage on one sign to be installed on the roof, it could ruin the architecture of the building. Member Newsom was in agreement with Chair McCreery. Director Joseph stated the current sign code is in the process of being revised, and a creative sign code review process that would allow more flexibility with the regulations has been proposed. The creative sign code process would be a way to reward good design with greater flexibility. In this case, he cautioned the Board that they are not charged with judging the finer points of the design of the sign. Their decision should be based on whether or not there is hardship and if so, what is a sufficient amount of relief. It was not the board's charge to find a solution for the property owner. Chief Building Official Will Birchfield stated the total allowable signage for this business was 30 square feet, based on the amount of building frontage. The proposed roof signs are 24 square feet. Director Joseph stated in theory, the applicant was free to ask for one sign measuring 24 square feet rather than two 12 square feet signs. Mr. Barlow stated the actual size of each sign is slightly smaller 12 square feet. Chair McCreery stated that he related this application to the prescriptive rights with real estate. Unless the goal was to clean up the sign code when applications such as this came before the Board, he was supportive of the variance request. It was moved and seconded (Newsom/Lynch) to approve the variance request to allow the replacement of two three-foot by four-foot roof signs in the location described in the submitted application, with the findings recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously. 4. REPORTS Director Josepli introduced Jeff Moreau, who will serve as the alternate for the Board of Adjustment through June 3, 2012. There being no further business, Chair McCreery adjourned the meeting at 9:32 a.m. Bob McCreery, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary TOWN or ESTES PARK~ i -9- - -7-1,-/ FIA:.I" -' 115%1Til Â¥1119 .79'EF--4 -1 1,2 I t44-dtjaria~ 57 - i Memo 1 .- b TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Wes Kufeld, Chief of Police .AL-- Date: September 14,2010 RE: Resolution #10-10 Approval of Northern Colorado Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Background: Larimer County Emergency Manager Nillson presented the plan in August and did not communicate that a Resolution is needed for the Hazard Mitigation Plan to be eligible for FEMA funding. Therefore, staff is bringing forward this request. Budget: No budgetary impact. Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of Resolution #10-10 Northern Colorado Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Page 1 RESOLUTION 10-10 ADOPTING THE NORTHERN COLORADO ~ REGIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and property within the Town; and WHEREAS, undertaking hazard mitigation actions will mitigate the potential for harm to our citizens from future manifestations of such hazards; and WHEREAS, an adopted Hazard Mitigation Plan (the "Plan") is required as a condition for future funding for mitigation projects from multiple Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) pre and post disaster mitigation programs; and WHEREAS, the Colorado Division of Emergency Management and FEMA Region Vlll officials have reviewed the Plan and approved it contingent upon official adoption by the participating governmental entities and/or municipalities; and WHEREAS, this Board has already adopted the Plan at the August 24, 2010 Town Board Meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO. 1. The 2009 Northern Colorado Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan, developed by and for Larimer County, the city of Fort Collins, the city of Loveland and the towns of Wellington, Estes Park and Berthoud, is hereby adopted as Larimer County's official hazard mitigation plan. 2. The county, in conjunction with the aforementioned cities and towns, is authorized to submit this Resolution to the Colorado Division of Emergency Management and FEMA Region Vlll officials in furtherance of their effort to secure final approval of the aforementioned Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK this 14th day of September, 2010. Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 7-OWN or ESTES PARI< ENGINEERING~~ Report TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham, Town Administrator Halburnt, Town Trustees From: Scott A. Zurn, PE, CFM, Public Works Director Date: September 14,2010 RE: Street and Stormwater Presentation Background: The Town of Estes Park street and stormwater facilities include 58 miles of roadways; approximately 750,000 feet of roadside drainages including ditches, curb and gutter, and combinations of these; dozens of miles of riverbank; 13 bridges; and, hundreds of roadside culverts. A conservative estimate of the replacement value of these community assets is upwards of $100 million. ~ Streets: The Public Works Department has inventoried the conditions of the road system owned by the Town of Estes Park. The Town currently owns approximately 58 centerline miles of roadway which is mainly comprised of local residential roadways. Conditions of the roadways break down as follows: PAVEMENT CONDITION NUMBER OF PERCENTAGE CONIDTION OF MILES OF SYSTEM INDEX PAVEMENT 86-100 VERY GOOD 8.38 14 % 76-85 GOOD 17.63 31 % 66-75 FAIR 16.12 28 % E 65 POOR 15.41 27 % The Pavement Condition Index (PCI), continues to decline and as a system average it currently stands at approximately 69. The continued downturn over the last decade is a result of underfunding roadway maintenance. This downturn in PCI will accelerate at current funding levels because the rate of deterioration increases exponentially when conditions are below a PCI of 75. The rating of 69 also indicates the roadway ~ infrastructure, on average, has expended approximately 75% of its useful life, leaving Page 1 only 25 % of the system's life remaining. It is anticipated that funding at current levels will result in further degradation of the overall street PCI. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASTHO) states that "delaying roadway maintenance until rehabilitation or reconstruction is needed costs the public three times more than regular maintenance of roadways over a 25-year period of time". For example, the Town of Estes Park's recent reconstruction of Prospect Avenue, which was rated in a poor condition, cost $12.15 a square foot (or $290 per linear foot), as compared to regular maintenance which is estimated at $4.50 per square foot over a 25-year period for this stretch of road. The following two pie charts represent the respective conditions of roads in the Town of Estes Park and in Larimer County. Estes Parks Roadway Conditions Summer of 2010 .1 , I OVery Good 1 Good 0 Fair 7 1 Â·Â·K Â·~' O Poor . :4 limill'll#.'lull.....................I...-Illi.-- Larimer County Roadway Conditions December 31 2008 - - IL Il I I,~,,,Il,I,~I~~I'~" I , ...~~~~~~ I. ~~ ................"/.11.C==%=E=.SM.=* 1 ~ Â· Â·-2; ye"- rl,EEE~~~~~5-1..MI +~t;i. ~ i )-.9/ 1/1 El Very Good -Â· .iÂ» 1 Good 0 Fair 19 . . 1..... , 1 6.1 0-11.~ 1,11 Ir 11. 1 1,~11 O Poor h. 1 11 I ..1! Ili,7 11 -1 4.1 , 2.1 4. 1,11 E .. " 04.WEI~. ...1 ...11111 1111~11111111â€ž111111,1â€ž11,1,-Ilii, i, i i ii'lili,/1,111,~11~YN!1*NMI@%*r''h'CY~*~.**Â·â€¢Â·-, il= Page 2 ~ The following graph depicts the universally adopted asphalt deterioration curve and the various rates of deterioration. In addition the graph depicts the local related maintenance costs. EXCELLENT - -... 49% DROP pt aooD -|IN QL'ALITY Spending about $ I per S.F. on ~ preservation maintenance operations prior this point FAIR - - - - - - Overall condition of Estes Park 75 % OF LIFE roads today (PCI) POOR- 40 % DROP ~ 47--~~~~~~~~~ Spending from $4 to $14 on IN QUALITY ~ ~~ rehabilitation or reconstruction L____. ~ YERÂ¥ PCM)R - 12 % OF LIFE - lilli 5 10 15 20 25 TIME C YEARS) 1~ Town-owned section of Dry Gulch Road, 2002 1tr Itr Town-owned section of Dry Gulch Road, 2010, after no maintenance for eight years (see photos on the next page) Page 3 PAVEMENT CONDITION The rate of deterioration from "Fair" to 44 "Poor" condition: .11 At left, the Town- Dry Gulch Road as owned section of it appears in 2002. '--/ M **. By the summer of 2010, this stretch of road has 5.< '.0 - i %267#714 4 - deteriorated to a 7/4-*. very poor condition , and requires -e - 0.- %* . fyi. f-.....#.-kfÂ·.i<JOI-Â·ill'.403: - reconstruction. Due to funding constraints, no . it. c maintenance has . occurred on this * section of roadway ./ a 1 in the past eight years. . 7. Cost Estimate to reconstruct Dry Gulch Road: $1.1 million. Dry Gulch requires complete reconstruction. Page 4 tr * . . 1 . V .* I '. ' I. Manford Avenue : 2000 Manford Avenue : 2010 Cost estimate to reconstruct Manford Avenue: $1.7 million Manford Avenue requires complete reconstruction. . 0 j '- - 'PL 04 . & I s - 03%:i. fAUk 412. ./ 2* , I .H + 1:41 tai % . Stanley Avenue : 2002 Stanley Avenue : 2010 Cost estimate to reconstruct Stanley Avenue: $500,000 Page 5 A 4/ -1 4 1 1 .f.- n I 1 -2 - ~4 J-4â€¢1~ *fit - 79 - I . Kh#. 2- f !Â·K , 1 24Â¢ b ~ 4..2 4 ~1 1 . 4,#,8 .. 1.-, . 1- 1 +29 - t Cleave Street : 2002 trzf' Cost estimate to reconstruct Cleave Street: $850,000 Cleave Street : 2010 --I~ '/~4/:9'.M :%91: tÂ«*304Â»1:ti- ..~ 'D 1 r 7-7.- 12:/2.-1-~ ER.Â»FE~'llp.~. 2. A â€¢ â‚¬ 1. I ?ege .-/*Ir- ..1,2.2.-0. - ..3+U.*#fill. I .6121:tje*4*tif~ 1 t I >-92-~ =6+4<~2#-*Pa.%-1...1 2 :--9391~--for-fit :7:7( A. ....9 4/ C'il 14%,W." 1 ..:;dp*- Wr)*2&; i.u~T. .. r . 74<:6' ~."a.'Af..1, 1 6..Ildâ‚¬*:~429%1/L.*1,~ . Town-Owned Riverside : 2002 Town-Owned Riverside : 2010 Cost Estimate to reconstruct Riverside from Crags Drive to Ivy Lane: $650,000 Page 6 Stormwater Facilities The Estes Park Master Drainage Plan, prepared by RG Consultants in December of 2009, called for nearly $10 million in capital improvements to correct localized flooding and for improvements to be in compliance with the Clean Water Act in two study areas - at multiple properties on Elm Road and southeast Prospect Mountain. These recommended capital improvements are in addition to the ongoing repair of existing drainage facilities - the maintenance of bridges, riverbanks, culverts, curbs, gutters, inlets, and ditches - which has been historically underfunded at less than $50,000 per annum. 2009 Estes Park Master Drainage Plan - v - Prepared by RG -45 - - Consultants, - * â‚¬*A- - 7- , .4 * December 2009 7 - ...- 9,6 ..k J. 2 2/ 41 421 1.--. r'."th;UÂ·~â€¢F Recommendations for -1Â¥ : - i, r W JA Bil- 1 le,"40' - * h : I -- capital improvements 0 1- 1,, ii*Â·A~R- 2. to correct localized i % ~ _ /.~di~ flooding and for -- compliance with the /BA- 4 1~ .2 A ~ ~ â‚¬* + vlllll Clean Water Act. * v L 9 ....Y - -4 < .~ 2 -4*. Prospect Mountain (Study Area A) Cost Estimate: $ 8,314,966 Elm Road (Study Area B) Cost Estimate: $ 1,529,893 TOTAL FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS IN THESE TWO AREAS: $9,844,859 Page 7 - '1 - 1 1"' 1 , 1,4 , . . I 14 .... -- A.2; Â· 1 1,1 I . * drÂ» y Creekside Court - edge of road collapse from erosion. 9 Cost estimate to repair and reinforce Fish Creek culvert under roadside: $15,000. Brodie Avenue. I . 1 79 1 . Cost estimate to replace with . concrete box culvert: $250,000 Rath â‚¬ 6 - 42 4 â‚¬ 4* :t- .... -4 -1/ . .=4- Â¥ 0/, A - . e . * Fish Creek culvert under Country Club Drive. Cost estimate to replace with concrete box culvert: $150,000 Page 8 ~ Solutions: In order to bring streets to maintainable levels, staff predicts funding will need to increase from the current $400,000 per year to approximately $1 million per year, for 7- 10 years. To bring the street system to maintainable levels (fair and stable condition) at one time, approximately $7.5 million is required, with ongoing funding of $750,000 in maintenance (in today's dollars). Nearly $10 million in drainage improvements would be needed to bring just two areas of the Town of Estes Park for compliance with the Clean Water Act and to correct localized flooding. For the past five years, budgeting for these concerns has been as follows: Year Street Budget Actual Drainage Actual expenditures on Budget expenditures on streets drainage 2005 0 0 0 0 2006 $190,000 $194,127 $50,000 0 (postponed until 2007) 2007 0 (spent on Post Office 0 $37,000 $24,565 parking lot) 2008 $250,000 $164,941 Incl. in streets Incl. in streets - 2009 $395,000 $70,760 (balance + Incl. in streets Incl. in streets $125,000 moved to 2010 for Prospect project) 2010 $465,000 632,401 (YTD) Incl. in streets $6,000 (YTD) In order to bring facilities to a maintainable level, it is estimated the following would need to be budgeted for the next 10 years (in today's dollars); also provided is an estimated maintenance budget for the next five year thereafter (in today's dollars): Year Street Budget Drainage Budget Total street & stormwater 2011 1,000,000 300,000 $1,300,000 2012 1,000,000 300,000 $1,300,000 2013 1,000,000 300,000 $1,300,000 2014 1,000,000 300,000 $1,300,000 2015 1,000,000 300,000 $1,300,000 2016 1,000,000 300,000 $1,300,000 2017 1,000,000 300,000 $1,300,000 2018 1,000,000 300,000 $1,300,000 2019 1,000,000 300,000 $1,300,000 2020 -2025 750,000 300,000 $1,050,000 Page 9 WI 16 . 6 0 .24 Iii 0 :3#6:0 i.wir Ar i /ji . / 20 U e 0 0 .t=E39 U,1 h / -11 / :.REF 1.1-1 U 1% :E I -1 / I il Z o ...1 t- - +0/4,01 5, 4 -Â»I. 1 81'j j 011 3 / /4 32/ ~ 5 ' / 0 7/9 111-At -&#4402 .//3///7 2 * r 42 ... 3 & 8 1 : 14 7.. 2 -' / 23 g/ LLâ‚¬ 7117 26, , 7 ---I-- 1 M Al i - 2 0 4% 1 2/ . \ '. LN '11 OR c ~ ff 41 ~ > 4/ -9...1.9/ h-.1 8, Z L... m h -1% 1 / ./ N -1 4 ~-Â¢100 , 0 0/ . -y--4 #1 1 **\ , . / 44 * 49 Z r-- , 1 01 -I 4 k 01 + Â£ RD -:f 4i 0, 4~ 23 1 &.. FISH CREE" ..4 z 1 11 1 1 13AV NIVHA 1.NIVS & -,1 ./ 4 - - 1 ----- - g~ 9 - L T ..1 >1 0 ~ ~. biO NO~IVAV 9%\\ / 2 - 1/4,AU ' Crl t SUNRISE CT 1 #0T A Ni iSV3 â„¢<.V 0/ /1 \ 1 1 1 14\-Â· , / I Y 3Â»4 4/ 1 71 h 4 3 / 1- 1 -- 413/1 SNOi -.--f-i-/7--I /1 - -~ 4 - t~ - 11 1 ti r 'r Lrocr~=1 l.1 + - _ 2-7-4 4, 1 i . 1, i j , ~ 3AV HOh~rL../- + c.PECTMOUNT#NRD \i J Nl 193M ~ /tb \ JUNIPER OR 419 / 9Â«- KORK-QT . <. -:~ 77 1 + V K 0 i - Â«Â»Of 0, 1 1 1%1\ g 1 /\\ 44%14. - f 1 -1 3ROF --3, r/3 f . 9\ le} I 0.' - 6 i. . I el ,/ \ , 8 44& C 1, I / it i Z . V. -/ . ' 49 1 4 0% *e -- 4-i <Ce< ZA 1 f *01 le --=- 19 0%4% jtâ‚¬A p C -- 5 I j V W 0-1. 1 1 ,/r\\ i'16& i ------ 1 41 v 62.-Â·- # 0 --- I 431 4. 943 L - y. 1 9, 1 1.4~ 4 4 / 1.-.---~~-r~rot.US LN ,739&'c, --\: %4 ,-- . .p D //4Â¢> /\8,\Â·- 6: Â·. ... ) ./ W Â¥afs~ t + -1 W - 7':I, T, 3 d~#14*~ 3>\ 0/ / 426 - - 69, 1*303 OIl 0 I > 4/2-2 0/441 54-' 1 94 Ul i -7 0 Nl WndS 8.. lz..T i 6/3 , I ' . %i .T- NAV SNOÂ¥lS Â¢ i --WI , ~.~ :*ARE) . 6, A., ' 4 lilli ft , ./.- C' '' - 8 01 3 I .- -I # 01' r-- 9 Â£ 12/ V O- - 1,4 945 3. Â· \ '70: / E Â£ 1/7 Ver> \ -14 f \ / 1Â· d> 6 M . CO / '. - 4*4... ' G : - . 9 - -- ---- tty 2- ---AV~ 't *, S .1 1 C 3/ 1 Â£UJ 7 , 0 ' 10Â» ../. : . :! , , 1 L-/ f / le)- ~4 9 at 1/ 8 S 0 HIC L....1 f i .2 F g / 4144 \-4 16 9 . 07- 4 - 0 -- -9 z .kl. .51 .19' t h . A 4 #ff 0- M 4 . -' 0 20\ \ 4// N ., 2%. 9~ I 4 / 4 C bio 11,41'09 CO ''' 0 + 1 , 0/ % I ki , 63- / 2 f <i 7 \ / t: / i o f 741 LU LU \.ah *c k.- a 4 X 1 v co ; ~Qh C IU 111 0 1 6. C O 1 1 k T ...15- > oo OO 71 com e \ EB.~ ~ ~~ 0 0- LLO> 3 2 4- t# \ 10#0 m '~ , I 190 cf O 0 2 0 0 2 J -i - ... 4 1 BAIL LN,- --7 - - 2. .2-1 - U gn 14 4 1 ey) 5.: < O 1 14 127 VV ' .,In W 6 ..! A <Â· -1 -- 1.1. LL 05 f ZB 1- 2 D ) CL 04. ... Cally.I R\ve, oveland Heights Gâ‚¬ /3101 -2-Â·13*â‚¬944 1I 20'-0 Estes Par c Road Conditions N .....00 .1/1/ ' I '1 ......... - - PINE LN OAD 43 'PBONEER LN CLARA DR MoilS AN. '.4./ , .2- MU%At - ak~ 843* -0,Â«.9 3 f 4,3/611/47 < Ght-WiNNOJ 4SPENGLEN Iz-1 44Â«Eb ~ii!:, : Unt! 0 - liN:; .U.5 WÂ·'r : i&'sic sel .- I U) C> 7. A : 0 0 , g,- 9 4 - 0- & 0 i :e 3 -4/ . 2 ELI . r. CC . ':{ OU Holne Au2r--r 0 - 0 e I Z - m' i ./ M D .3 n// 0 F F Â¢ si \ Ch 2 - 2 â€ž 60 ' f 4, $ 3 \-1.~ t â‚¬y 5 1 0 -- - W -1~J~~~----- - C e. LN - .... . 4, OR f ZI - 1 /,4-..9 O --* I . R4I ' W S -.14J. 4 \ : 11 74 5 Â»/ le % -Irdra/4% > - 0\ bao -1 1 44..-~ir 1 11 91 1 0 7,vt, - - .39 *14---Â·4.-~ v NI'Qp~-\ , 1 01 V . a-- 4 I...4 \ 11 3 / v 414 _ k - _ F1SHOS4FRE) 5-U Â£ I. AV NIVWA .1.NIVS ~ \,N . Z I \ -- C i rti 11 3 1 US ~ L. Ba N(/IVAV ~ +04,\.\ N , 1, 1. +8\se.~ i~ ~Â· --~---\. cl . 1\ /0-1 -3 } 1 ~ 0 5\ 4 1 6 \0- N(ra // F Nl isva r,U Lit ..M / 0 / â„¢J 40 9 1113 Ujf i D f Cyr 0 K.-1 1 MOOV3Vy 3Nld 0 0 DR 1 | 3AV Holl-,r â‚¬ cr ; 1 9.99 4 4> El=-1 tk ; 990'3>PECT MOUNTA14 RD 416. %_123 /9 1 '6 " 28039'Â¢lkINVE) , ' 94&40 7 1 91 -0 6 ;ANSÂ«n. t- 0 / 6, \ Orf 1 / Â£ 1 4- - S j 4 , Nl &00 .C*r (36.....,4&63 me ' , 1 34 , , --7- 9 \ 0* *ev, 4/)-aistu 9- .... . 'A \ 49 A $ 1 - 1 -1 t f,OS (-~4\ - - ~ 1. 0 1 h ,// 2., .%......./ -0 3. ,~ NU 4 \ '' 1 .... 1 , 9> 1% ././-*~ *46- 1 44/K . -- + j 0 fe . 1-4/ . ---- 0*ty 1. .'.ip.N 450514 /9- 4),4 I 91 432-- (, /,/ 'k. 6 3 jill. O tÂ» t S: ' HONDIUS LN eli-Â»di h 0 g- 24 / %-9064 '.- 91,2 F. W \ Â¥4\0- RD . 0 4 --a. N-7 hIndS =1 0 /-U 30 N * iAV E)NO~.1.9 ~ ./Â·Â· -1 W -,1 - 1 " . 0 7 mA lL .01 /Â« 1 3 , .1 rt Â¥1 4 1 :7\ 9% r \1 9% QC O 5 4 4 Â· EPA dÂ·L I. I. . / 4- 2 :, Hoet 4 - 2 0 5 1 995 ~--I 6 '+ Oe f CD 1 J // E Th L. 0 . 0 1 1 o Z --562- 4 W 33 U.1 20 0 4144, g 0222221 C * 92 ~ M i 2 â‚¬7--- 4 7 ~K TERRACE LN .2-, ~- Lur i - -- / 1 , f , 5 . 1 0 1 0 %2% b e / /0-JPl ,+I \, . e 5/ 0 Z 9/ 10 ~..444, 4 0/' 0 \~~\ 4400 4, C 1 ~10 964. / \ 1 ~01 / C - - 01 1 O 2 0 .22 HILLCREST â€¢ 2 ('0 1 -0 E M , , O 4, v CD m I 'V . y b .5 2 27 2 I / 10 d 0 N 9.D 43 ... I , 5 2 % 7.4 a. ' 9, ' ~- . ~ 1 1 , ~CL ./ ; 0 : / M CD . $ 1 604 OF /4 O of< .2 - h '40 e e of e 0 0 ' A 0 /1. d. e 1%. 1 , 4 , F 2 2 25 3 19 -2 2 99 e -4 . Canyon R\Ver -oveland Heights 00Â¥H0101 9.0 ~Se'!IN 1 % 110 NHVd S 3 1 S 3 41>*185/4 - % BO VIVHON~B - n:I wai.Ino le paloafoid ATCHAY - + 2015 Estes Park R 44'NEUNBO 80 9Nt CLARA DR COUNTY ROAD 43 PIONEER LN )Bl NVIONI / 944 \N AVE _~ c~ 3 -- -1 _ w WONDERVE - ' 1.0 H.L':33180 ~HmAGVOk!8 83ddrl HOWESTEA~ COE 33llo S - " ak 13NNnl d30 SMWOM 3118nd Mal V d S31SB =10 NMol ~ GPENGLEN 83Â¥7 Bv36 TOWN or ESTES PAREW 0 Memo Community Development TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Director Joseph Planner Shirk -5Â¢ Date: September 14,2010 RE: ORDINANCE #21-10 SMALL WIND TURBINE AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE - PUBLIC HEARING. Background: This is a proposed amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code to provide specific regulations for small wind turbines. This proposal is a follow-up to the previously approved micro-wind turbines. Budget: N/A ~ Estes Vallev Planning Commission (EVPC) Recommendation: On August 17, 2010, the EVPC made three separate votes regarding this issue. (1) 4-2 to remove the proposed Conditional Use Permit review. (2) 5-2 to recommend a 2.5 x tower height setback requirement, reduced from the 3 x tower height recommended earlier. This reduction in setback increased eligible lots from approximately 25% of the "valley" up to approximately 60% (a 2 x tower height requirement would increase eligible lots to approximately 80Â°/o). (3) 7-0 to recommend a maximum swept area of 85 square feet, modify the swept area definition to include shroud/cowling in addition to moving parts, and correction of a typo ("small-wind" instead of "micro-wind"). Exhibit A delineates the cumulative recommendation of the Estes Valley Planning Commission. Sample Motion: I move to approve Ordinance 21-10. Page 1 ORDINANCE NO. 21-10 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 5.2 ACCESSORY USES AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO INCLUDE SMALL WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 5.2 Accessory Uses and Accessory Structures ; and WHEREAS, said amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code are set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 5.2 Accessory Uses and Accessory Structures set forth on Exhibit "A" and recommended for approval by the Estes Valley Planning Commission be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully set forth on Exhibit "A". Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its ~ adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF ,2010. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2010 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2010, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Exhibit A: Small Wind FORMAT: 1) Existing text. 2) Proposed new text. Â§ 5.2 ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES A. General Standards. [No Changes] B. Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. 1. Table of Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. Table 5-1 Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts Residential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted Additional "No" = Not Permitted Accessory Requirement Use RE-1 RE Ed E R R-1 R-2 RM s Small Wind Yes |Yes |Yes |Yes |Yes | Ye-2 |Yes ~ Yes Â§518.2-h Enerqv Conversion Svstems 2. Additional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. h. Small Wind Enerqv Conversion Svstems (SWECS, or "svstem"). (1) Bul/dinc Permit Required A building permit shall be required for the installation of all Small Wind Enerav Conversion Svstems. Small Wind Exhibit A (as recommended by the Estes Valley Planning Commission) 1 (2) Limit on Number. There shall not be more than one (1) svstem on a lot. (3) Size. The swept area of anv individual svstem shall not exceed eiahtv-five (85) square feet. (4) Swept Area shall mean the largest vertical cross-sectional area of the wind-driven parts as measured bv the outermost perimeter of blades or the largest cross-sectional area of anv shroud or cowlinq enclosure the wind-driven parts. (5) Heiaht. Heiaht shall be measured from original natural grade to the highest point of the structure moving or fixed, whichever is greatest, and shall not exceed thirtv (30) feet. (6) Setbacks. a. Setbacks from all propertv lines shall be at least 2.5 times the structure height. For example: a thirtv (30) foot tall svstem shall have a minimum setback of 75-feet from the nearest propertv line. b. This setback requirement shall also applv to public or private roads that serve more than four adiacent or off-site lots, and shall be measured from the edae of public or private roads, the edae of the dedicated right-of-wav or recorded easement or the property line, whichever produces a greater setback. (7) Ridaeline Protection Areas. Small wind enerav conversion svstems shall be subiect to Ridgeline Protection Standards set forth in Section 7.2.C. (8) Noise. All svstems outside the Town limits of the Town of Estes Park shall complv with the noise standards found in Larimer Countv Ordinance 97-03 (as amended). All svstems located within the Town of Estes Park shall complv with the noise standards found in the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park. (9) Lighting Prohibited. Lighting, graphics, signs and other decoration are prohibited on the svstem, nor shall lighting be located in such a manner to illuminate the structure. (10) Operating Condition. A\\ systems shall be kept in safe operating condition. Svstems found to be unsafe bv an official of the Town of Estes Park Light and Power Department, or the Protective Inspection Divisions of the Town of Estes Park or Small Wind Exhibit A (as recommended by the Estes Valley Planning Commission) 2 Larimer Countv, shall be subiect to emergency enforcement processes set forth in Section 12.6. (11) Safety Regulations. AU small-wind energy conversion systems shall provide means of protection from any blades or moving parts by either: a. Ground Clearance. The minimum distance between the qround and anv blades or moving parts utilized on a system shall be ten (10) feet as measured at the lowest point of the swept area, or: b. Enclosures. Blades and moving parts shall be enclosed with either fencinq, arilles, guards, screening, shrouds or anv combination thereof. (12) Electrical Connections. Electrical connections and lines shall be placed below around. C. Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. 1. Table of Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 5-2 Accessory Uses Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts Nonresidential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted Additional Accessory Use A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Conditions Small Wind Energy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5.2.B.2.h Conversion Svstems D. General Dimensional and Operational Requirements. 2. Setbacks. No accessory use, structure or activity, except for permitted fences or walls shall be located or take place within a required setback. On residential lots of less than one (1) acre all accessory buildings, excluding detached garages, shall be located no closer to the front Small Wind Exhibit A (as recommended by the Estes Valley Planning Commission) 3 property line than the residential dwelling. Small Wind Energv Conversion Svstems shall be subiect to setback requirements set forth in Section 5.2.B. (Ord. 15-03 #1) 6. Maximum Number of Freestanding Accessory Buildings and Structures, Including Detached Garages, Per Single-Family Residential Lot. No more than one (1) accessory building or structure less than or equal to one hundred twenty (120) square feet and no more than two (2) accessory buildings or structures greater than one hundred twenty (120) square feet shall be allowed on a lot of two-and-a-half (2.5) acres or less. Small Wind Enerav Conversion Svstems and "micro-wind" systems shall be exempt from this limitation. Chapter 13 - Definitions Section 13.3 â€¢ Small Wind Enerav Conversion Svstem (SWECS). A wind enerav conversion svstem consisting of a wind turbine with a swept area greater than 15 square feet and less than 85 square feet, including appurtenant equipment, which is intended to primarilv reduce on-site consumption of UtilitV Power. Such svstems are accessorv to the principal use or structure on a lot. Small Wind Exhibit A (as recommended by the Estes Valley Planning Commission) 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 August 17,2010 Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission August 17, 2010,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Ron Norris, Commissioners Doug Klink, Alan Fraundorf, John Tucker, Betty Hull, Steve Lane, and Rex Poggenpohl Attending: Chair Norris, Commissioners Fraundorf, Tucker, Hull, Lane, Klink, and Poggenpohl Also Attending: Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Elrod, Larimer County Chief Planner Legg, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: None. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Norris called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were 26 people in ~ attendance. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA 3. REPORTS 4. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF SMALL WIND TURBINES Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. At their June 22, 2010 hearing, the Town Board voted to remand wind turbine regulations to the Planning Commission, with policy direction to reduce the setback and add a public review process. Planner Shirk reviewed the table from the staff report detailing the setback factors. Chair Norris commented that micro-wind turbines were not limited to the proposed setbacks. Commissioner Hull commented that micro-turbines were specifically separated from small wind turbines in order to allow them on small lots. Planner Shirk stated the current proposed draft recognized a setback of two times the structure height. The Town Board directed the Planning Commission to include a public review process to allow neighborhood input regarding location of small wind turbines. Staff recommended a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Staff discovered this RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 August 17,2010 type of permit for small wind turbines was fairly common in other municipalities and jurisdictions. The language in the CUP process would be very similar to the existing Special Review process. Planner Shirk clarified that a Special Review is for land uses, not structures or accessory uses, and is reviewed by Planning Commission and approved by Town Board or County Commissioners. Special Review appeals are heard in District Court. The Planning Commission would be the reviewing and approving body for the CUP. CUP appeals would be heard by either the Town Board or the County Commissioners. Planner Shirk reviewed the proposed code language. Neighbors would not be allowed veto power on a wind turbine application, but rather could comment on location criteria for wind turbines on adjacent lots. Code language was included to address the time limit for installation once a CUP has been issued. If the use of a wind turbine was discontinued or abandoned for a period of one year, the CUP would become invalid and staff would be authorized to proceed with code compliance. The CUP would be specific to small wind turbines. A waiver was included in the CUP proposed draft, which would apply to systems placed at least four times the structure height from property lines or easements. The waiver would not exempt any other requirements. Staff recommended the re-insertion of the CUP, the swept area of small wind turbines be increased to a maximum of 125 square feet. After introduction of new wind turbine technology at the study session, staff recommended the definition of swept area read "Swept area shall mean the largest vertical cross-sectional area of the wind-driven parts as measured by the outermost perimeter of blades or the largest cross-sectional area of any shroud or cowling enclosure of the wind-driven parts." Planner Shirk stated staff recommends a minimum setback requirement of twice the structure height. He reminded the Commission that the CUP review would allow an increase in the setback if needed to mitigate the impact in view corridors, or reduce the setback by up to 25% of the structure height. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated setbacks were the most powerful tool for controlling the visual landscape. He described a scenario using a 20-foot tower instead of a 30-foot tower, and said a greater percentage of lots would meet a setback of three times the structure height by using the shorter tower. Commissioner Poggenpohl supported the setback of three times the structure height and thought the CUP was helpful in areas where good, solid regulations do not exist. He thought the proposed regulations were solid; therefore, he would not support the CUP. Commissioner Tucker questioned the use of the Special Review process instead of the CUP, with Planner Shirk stating that process would work, with Planning Commission being the recommending body and the Town Board or County Commission being the deciding body. Commissioner Lane added the CUP would be the only one in the EVDC, and would be used only for wind turbines. Planner Shirk clarified that the current setback or the approved setback would apply, whichever was more restrictive. Public Comment: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 ~ August 17,2010 Johanna Darden/Town resident asked and received clarification about setbacks from property lines and how they related to small wind turbines. Paul Brown/Town resident was opposed to having any setback requirements other than what already exists. He suggested applicants discuss the proposal with neighbors prior to submitting the application. He thought the CUP may open the door for other discussions on other zoning issues of the EVDC, possibly for accessory dwellings. Chair Norris closed the public hearing. Staff and Commission Discussion: Commissioner Fraundorf stated there were actually four topics tied to this draft code amendment: 1) Housekeeping issues in Section 5.2.8.2.h.5 [size], Section 5.2.B.2.h.6 [swept area], and Section 5.2.B.2.h.13 [safety regulations] that could be dealt with in one setting; 2) The Conditional Use Permit; 3) The setback requirements listed in Section 5.2.B.2.h.2 [waiver]; and 4) Setbacks listed in Section 5.2.B.2.h.8 [setbacks]. Commissioner Lane clarified that 125 square-feet swept area corresponds to an approximate 12-foot diameter blade, whereas an 85 square-feet swept area corresponds to an approximate 10-foot diameter blade. Commissioner Klink stated his opposition to a CUP. He thought it would be more costly for applicants due to engineering and surveying required to support the application, and to have view corridor studies completed. These costs could eliminate several potential applicants. Commissioner Klink stated the CUP could set a precedent; adding there are no regulations on tree height, location of homes on lots, 30-foot flag poles with flickering flags, etc. He would struggle with judging whose "expert" opinions were valid. He questioned whether or not there would be specific standards for these experts to meet, similar to those implemented in the code amendments for Wildlife Habitat Assessments. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Poggenpohl) to recommend to the Town Board of Trustees not to implement the Conditional Use Permit process in E\IDC Section 5.2 Accessory Uses and Accessory Structures, regulating small wind turbines. Staff and Commission Discussion: Commissioner Lane stated the Planning Commission's role is to take input and make decisions about the appropriate uses of land, but was not sure they had the ability to make the same determinations based on engineering aspects of how something was supposed to function in a particular area. He had mixed feeling about implementing the CUP. Commissioner Fraundorf Alan agreed with many of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 August 17,2010 Commissioner Klink's comments, but would support the CUP process. Commissioner Hull supported the CUP process, with the opportunity for neighbors to comment and compromise. Commissioner Tucker would support the use of the existing Special Review process. Director Joseph clarified that a code change would be required for Special Reviews to be able to review wind turbines within that process. Town Attorney White stated there is a fundamental difference between the Special Review (SR) process and the CUP process. The SR is not a use by right, but a use subject to a review to determine whether or not you can use the property for that use. With the proposed CUP, the applicant would have a right to install a wind turbine, subject to a public review process that would mitigate to the maximum amount feasible the adverse impacts on the neighboring properties. Chair Norris was opposed to the Special Review process because it would not grant the applicant a use by right, and would support the CUP. The Commission voted to recommend to the Town Board of Trustees not to implement the Conditional Use Permit process in EVDC Section 5.2 Accessory Uses and Accessory Structures, regulating small wind turbines, and the motion passed 4-3. Commissioners Poggenpohl, Tucker, Klink, and Lane voted in favor; Commissioners Hull, Norris, and Fraundorf voted against the motion. Chair Norris requested staff to append the language on the proposed Conditional Use Permit to the version of this code that would go to the Town Board, so if the Town Board chose to amend the recommendation by the Planning Commission, they could reinsert the Conditional Use Permit process back into the amendment. Discussion occurred among the Commissioners concerning the amount of the setback from the property lines. Commissioner Poggenpohl continued to support a setback of three times the structure height, adding that a lower structure height would increase the number of allowable lots. Commissioner Lane stated the setback of three times the structure height made sense if there was strong code language to support it. Commissioner Tucker would support a setback of two and one-half times the structure height. He based some of his decision on the table provided in the staff report. Commissioner Klink agreed with Commissioner Tucker. Commissioner Hull would support an absolute minimum setback of two and one-half times the structure height. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) to recommend to the Town Board of Trustees to revise EVDC Section 5.2.B.2.h.8.a to read "Setbacks from all property lines shall be at least two and one-half times the structure height. For example; a thirty (30) foot tall system shall have a minimum setback of 75-feet from the nearest property line", and the motion passed 5-2. Commissioners Tucker, Klink, Hull, Norris, and Lane voted in favor; Commissioners Poggenpohl and Fraundorf voted against the motion. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 August 17, 2010 Chair Norris stated the last version of the code amendment, Section 5.2.B.2.h.5, indicated the size of the swept area shall not exceed 85-square-feet. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated that in light of the lower setback, he would support a lower swept area size. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Poggenpohl) to recommend to the Town Board of Trustees to revise EVDC Section 5.2.B.2.h.5 to read "Size. The swept area of any individual system shall not exceed eighty-five (85) square feet," and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Fraundorf stated Section 5.2.B.2.h.6 should be changed to add "or the largest cross-sectional area of any shroud or cowling enclosure of the wind- driven parts" Commissioner Fraundorf also stated Section 5.2.B.2.h.13 should be changedto read small wind energy conversion systems rather than micro-wind energy conversion systems. It was moved and seconded (Fraundorf/Hull) to recommend to the Town Board of Trustees to revise EVDC Section 5.2.B.2.h.6 to add "or the largest cross- sectional area of any shroud or cowling enclosure of the wind-driven parts", and EVDC Section 5.2.B.2.h.13 to read " small wind energy conversion systems", and the motion passed unanimously. Chair Norris thanked the Planning Commission, Staff, and the public for their input on this topic. 5. REZONING REQUEST, Aspen Brook Planned Unit Development (PUD), Phases I and 11, 2343 Aspen Brook Drive. 6. FUTURE MEETING TIMES There being no further business, Chair Norris adjourned the meeting at 4:30 P.m. Ron Norris, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary L .&2 E Z Â£2*22 s @>â‚¬& 5 52.% 02 a..0 2 .21= 2* c as .8 235aa i 55- 04@eaeyaR,e 24â‚¬ â‚¬2 & 9 2 0 3 2 0 a. 2 5 ~@Rm23& , R i .=02% m a. ~ ~ 2 ty@72. t %3 32 am & g ~1%9&Â§03 22 C .B r 2 2.2 8 1 0 8% .% 9 .m && 0 1,1,1 B -11 2:~ 03 ed N - ' i liti f j C 2 8 111 00 2 21% 0 -2@Eg~W gy* .% b 5%%50 if f i %32 1 2 iL da 2e3 2000 e N .2~.2 .3 :go ~- Eo~0~i Eff 2 5 2 1 if 3% 26 11:1 XMXXX U)'- 2 0 & .E 4 C E E f -0 5 % -2 % 3 # 5 .8 *5 E ~5 : m 3 ~ 52 gl L-1 O-9 0 0 2 O 0 Oao. Â° 1 j> H g 20Â©0 *~ *8 *t *E me 5 3 * CO 2% f i Eg-ZIL %~ 5 - " me q) Eggg O a. 8 2.9 1- O i 23=53 6 %2 * i- ~fi NT CJ 5 ro E Er a A 922 M 5 5 1 0 1 1 3 i* 2 2 C b m = CD 2% 3% 8 1.2 3 2m. CD-g ~ < 2 u. â‚¬ O Z ~ * -65 11 34 - a) b -W = 0 1 H 5 3 gp @ IM 1 -02 ..3:531-8 1 i . 5 2 2 3 -0 2.2 2 2 * 5 J j Z & E g I 90 3 6/1 1111 E g. = $ E Ek 2 0 a E: C C i a 2 2 8 Â®1 6 m 0 -Â¤ 9 2 - 9 * 16 2 E .24*-ic & A E â‚¬ E â‚¬ E ki : 3 - g -2- Z F 0 ECJ 2 13 B .9 25 ily 2@i & C -6. %0 ~ag E 3 1 2 -2 1 - 4 3: 0 92 .* - 231 0,1 6 '022& FE C 2 29 E c= i 9 .62 C * 9888.2& . #E go *1 - t =C\J â‚¬ -2 %12%% % 3-22 2 41 fli 14; i 2--ilt t;00.. LUHQ-w~ 3 2% < ImE g 91% Â£Â·05 9?cm **SEE iigallil)il W ==E & milit Rie Â·Â· < 181 8 9 0 v E .2 :21 2.9 Cr< Oclo 1% 2 ---w 0 c 661 IOOR av *C, 41 2125 % , e M 076 elE % , 42 SÂ®E 1 a: 1 0 2 co 9 a e o > Il> a May 18: Plann om mission; recommendation of approval with increased setbacks Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code requested Staff to decrease setback and add public FaxÂ· 970-586-0249 wwiestes.org March 16: PI on; recommendation of approval for micro-wind. iont;195TuJU~LUIZZIN'17:5'11%*:INNiU~tiJ~Ut,<RVZZZLs AND INTENT: The purpose of th DISCUSSION: At t un olicy directi e to ril 19: Board of C missioners; approved micro-wind. ssion recommendation of approval. 10 J-08 elo; 46noue 9881 acl plnoM Aelle/\ 041 sein jee; 0!ildei6odo; Jo ainlonils 6ultslxa q pe!dnooo acl *eu.1 6uiuueid 'euokle,a eseeld ~1 eq plroo JaMOJ e eq ABLU (M peA!@oied ez!.UJ!u!ul O 1 Se/~ >logqles pa peJ e pa ;senbei gueO8 841 Suoseei el# JO eu 'sse00Jd Melt,83 e jo eoue qe eln Jo '60!uoz Aleuo c review process. Â·sjol I~elUS JO SleU~~ pue Sloi efuel JO SieUMO Uee/~leq se!1!lenbe~ mnAS euiq.inl pu!M e aid Ami] le4; 6unein6aJ poddns :s 1 uo Alwe6,lip pe JOAA emu dA pu!.M Ilews :LL Br,6nr,oiss!wwoo 6uiuueld pu,M '~eu-IS Â·Lt tsn8nv 'uoisslwwOO Ouluueld 118 Bul/OBA #IM JaMO] e 1 LL]84 1 GaA,6 pue sjoql16,au salillou 1241 sseooid elou eseeld OdA3 'syoeciles lou 1O4UO 01 ls!xe Xpeelle ses to eda s!41 Dodd 'suotielleisu! autq.Irl; pul,â€¢ Ilews uo weluu.100 UOISSIUJUJOD 6uluueld 0, pepueU.leJ pJEO 1 pu!M Jo uogeir,68 00 pUB 01 peums!.I ommunity Development De egor Avenue (Planning Commiss n) 1 2 aunr Jed) pezueulluns sluelu mendments i t 11 m.5 .r %1 R 2 23 N 41 4 G .. 0 : 4-2 52 03 22 2 K . 2% 2 21 la :1/ 11 7%.5 8.20 @23 {021 1EE k ~ D-GE : 0 (5 gs a a Â° iii E i. -*i -.3 E oa '.- - B S| & 2 El â€¢ 64-2 -s 2 2 1 res AÂ¥ 8 -< U) M . eu - 1 1 7 mil & 2% 228 **2 k m m . 11 12 g &22 - I 01 11>' 4 fgama z 60Â£4 38 1 4 9 2 1 28 5 ; g 2 N 2 2 2 -m = i g -==t -~M 5 6 9 9 ve 1- E IS ws , 1 R. 2 *8/ 8 E 9. 11 It 11 I e 3. /OÂ« m LL --- P < 04 < m 21 h A e E 2 3% 32 '23 2 8E3 2 f 22% 5 2 -9'23 <6 32% 0 +00 . U) U) C 0 C 0 0 Re %%3 2& CD 5 3 - f & Â§2 2 m.3 82 â‚¬% U) Et 22 2 .6 2 - EN i& i E &2 022 508 i:a *00 # 2 .%%5 '00 F O 4 0 ZE 327 g (9% EED Ek KEEk 5 0 1 2 2 3 9 * 7 0 8 0- L w,5 8 6 4 8 @ 8 &1 &13 1# a & M < .0 , ,/,/ 06 e 8 m @88m 0315 , 'S T [ 379 ~ uo!*OV Feig UOIRTJ.AE ;O leAOidde .101 SUOIWO~|d STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend the Planni mmission REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY end a~%21123 52Â°22 EnergmyeConvers~tno~ystems, s ine EVPC Boards [1] BOA [1] ad/4 uoneoliddÂ¥ Aq sseoold AgA =ttitriIie~evVI~d~J~e~e~!1132 ieloeds@12 SSe<Old leAO,dde lueU,tdol lualuallnbe.1 bu!MO aun033 (CUP) as the "tool" to achieve this po cy. Exhibit A: Small Wind Planning Commission review and Board approval, with appeal 2) Proposed new text in underlined text. !.10 el eollade lie li I~~t esfe~'9 Jelaeq 1) Existing text in black font. Â§ 2.1 CODE ADMINISTRATION AND REVIEW ROLES B. Table 2-1: Code Administration and Review Roles. en~neit to Sed , I.%1~~~37'Re Z~~i i 1!WHad 3 i e JOJ aeoxe 'Jalae Conditional Use Permit pu!M liews :L & isn6nv 'uoissiwwoo Buiuueld pulAA HeLUS Â·LL *n6nv 'UOISS!wwoo 6uiuueld FORMAT: PROCEDURE 's a 'lesser use, so review by the "lesser' body seems appropriate) ing Commission review/approval, with appeal uggests the purpose of a CUP is to mitigate - not eliminate - potential adverse ocess. The Town Board requested the addition of a pu lic review allow Small Wind as delineated in input regardin g location of small wind tur ines. St eview in review process and code language, eview addresses principal uses, CUP would address accessory 2 Â®= E E - W EECO 0 0, & E g EN &/ ME %1 825& A E - 2 < 0 a.1 3 Â®28--8 .5 3 Em ~ 3 Ec.*FRE 0- 28&382 6 ho Di >> 0 0 .%â‚¬52~% EE-@(12 2Â·% EÂ·Â§ a.1 92@Ev ~0 *E~j ~11~IR.0 2 21@ a B t E .12* % 2 0, D.Ea 0 %15 asm_111.5 lEI-Ef@ b; d a -0~ ~ m a.1 D1 a ~ W ae u, U -21 --4 gif r > v N o Â·c J N <i- I H CID D a- a ~h~0~~ cRx0A| ~Â·~ g| ~ ~ ~0$~~r~ a Â£ 1 2 6 <a- E 21 N 3Â®8% Co ullo col 3* %2 .22 0 - O L 52 22 205 Z Be= 0 .E m E 9,1 16 I = _ 0, =34 - 8 g 38 8 2 & 131 Â£13% B -% 238 Ul 0 <5 SON Z 3 8 m w 2% 1 - mt %53 2 5 56 =1 -22& 9415-* 3 4 O : 22 24% 2Â®2(Â§ C W 8 Q F 8 2 y.% El c 2 I C>:Q.= 8 . o 3 8 2 8 8 ~ #F 113 5 & 38 i 2 K & <2233 *2Â§ 21*~5 ~ ca- 08 . Â® 0 0 w cD @ - O.05 kyc 3 cc > 2 2 ZEE 0 0 78 ai Â® E 23 1/2 C .C U) is fU L 0 Z 1 329*i iii *â‚¬232 - M K R 1 -2 *Lal-0 1-21 g "g B C un u.8152 2&9 Â£58Â£9 E 0 ~ 82* 2 - 9 0 5 Eu, 2 gEW 0 5 - 0 3 4 N e W CO 25 -2 5 8 1 0 The application for th roposed Conditional Use Permits tioates, to the Wind CUP QUE CUP 45.2.8.2.h l.10!SleAUOO AbJeU3 eceivinqapproval f the condit~n dditional Requirements for Specific Accessory Uses/Structures Small Wind Energy Conversion Svstems (SWECS, or "system'l conditional use permit shall be reouired for all systems. of the conditional use permit is ensure the that would affect the aDDroved conditional imum extent feasible, Dotential land uses, public facilities and n, ces an e is shall require the svstem the imgacts (such as to on nearbv land uses and Dronerties 5.2 ACCESSORY ted negative impacts on system 1 Standards. r me t for a conditional use De it shall propertv lines or ease ents. 145!Â£ 8Jnton.'16 eq j selu!1 1 q 10 News seele uo!108 1 8 lebpu peddetu uue asn muo!1!Puoo Suluoz le'luepisabl aul u! paniuued sa,In,0n4s/sesn Aiossaoov Â·El Patinbel eq 11846 1!UU lou Ilews luelsAS lenpiA!pu! Aue 30 BaJE 1(laNG pen,uuad = â€žsaAâ€ž Â·paL menDS GEL J eA! J-Alue/Al pue peipun peu,uued ION I ..ON.. Bale IBUOIJOeS-SSOJO 120! 1.leA 1Setuel @41 Uealll ilet.IS *Uatltalinball Atosseoov LU lnO elll Aq pmnseelll Se 91.led up-pu!AA elli wy ~ 8-1:1 ~ l-1:1 ~ H~ 3 ~ 1-3 ~ 31:1 ~ A-311 'SluelljeJInbal 18410 C k) euo ue4, eJOLU eq lou lIBUS meul AequmN BeJe leUOIWeS-SSOJO 1SeD.tel 841 JO elq Jo Jete omatically ermitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. sUBCI UeAUp-pu!M elli 8.Insoloue buil/~00 JO pn 11) Conditional Use Permit. QUIM IIBLUS LL ~r'15nv Â·uoissiwwoo 60!uueld pu!.M Ilews :ZL *n6nv Â·uoiss'luwoo 6uluueld version permit and commence ButuoZ le,lual)!sau @41 U! Pan !ill ed saJnloruls pue sasn AJOSSDOOV ieuo!1!PPV mum extent feas potential adverse imoacts on rte rby land uses. the decision ori I s, and the environment. se Dermit is aba Seinlon.Ils PUB Sesrl AJOSSGOOV pel]!Uiled Jo elqal 10!4sia BuiuoZ lequai)!sau 1!luled asn ieuo!1!puoo = â€ždrK)â€ž RY STRUCTURES % -0 U) 5 6 2 93 c b z r .e" o 0 g i O 0. E 0 2 ~ 12 ~ 8 5io 2 - .3 E = /1 - 0Â® - S ,@EC Lo v- 0 4 88 8* .6 11 2% 12= 0 0 Za , 3 5% 3 b 8 E 4 -0 0 0 8 5 4 z O â‚¬ co O col m -O . 2 In 4 C 5 .C ,9 tz Â£ 35 CD 0 16 6 (D m 245 0# g m== 6-09 Eg J -0 3 2,2 2 0 f P EE E *gs -m=WEE 2%8 2%-22 M â‚¬22-* â‚¬-0 802â‚¬0 2005 220Â£ i 4,22 ngs"2 tE.9 . 0 2 4 2 2229 1.- C W - E*2926 2~â‚¬ *~ $22 2 0 0 0 0%3'Ba 2 ~ Ng:* ,-100= o m Ae 220*-21 ZE-8 0 00 OWN 8 g #-0 E n (7) eioht. Heiaht shall be measured from original natural grade to Larimer County, shall be sublect to emergency enforcement test, and shall not exceed thirtv (30) feet. (13) Safety Requl ro-wind energy conversion systems Suwl Co'e ny blades or moving For examole: a thirtv ( foot tall svstem Clearance. The minimum stance between the nimum setback of 60-feet from the nearest nd and anv blades or movino Darts utilized on a system ten (10) feet as measured at the lo est point of the es. Blades and moving Darts shall e enclosed with 10-foot side yard setbacks in e smaIler zone nections. Electrical connections and lines shall be 60!UOZ 18!luepiseJUON 041 u! Pouill,Jad se,nionilS PUe Sesn AJOSSe<)3Â¥ 0 elll u! Pel;!luied seinloruis pue sesn A.losse,ov JO }UaU.lesea pepJ0383 s:0!4sia SuiuoZ lei luapisatuoN 041 u! Pal;!uued Sesn AJOSS@30\/ 1,21371*7Klutp~blcm ieuo!1!Ppv Jel11!Jel U! pung pumS as!00 elli suo!1!puoo 2'tl~u.,TZ Alauloo Ileqs )1.ted se}93 Jo 4-282*9 Zirim Zim Uri5 Jris Jrio Jris 3-fis Ablat13 Pu 90193 jo UMol 841 lo epoo leap'unIN 841 u! punol ~piepue s highest ooint of the structure moving or fixed, whichever is processes set forth in Section 12.6. ina, orilles, guards, screening, hrouds o swelualinbew leuoile,edo pue leuo!Suall!!a le,elles a -ainpruis ell; eleututnill 01 Jel.luel.U E Wons u! Pewool t setback in the larger zone placed bel oround. SPUND 6u!UoZ le!luep!Sau Moeqies JeZeeiD e seonpoid om all Dropertv lines shall b least twice the setback requirements, which vary per zoning 'SpeOJ eleA!JO JO O! r options for the Planning Comm o consider include: WANCI JO 0!lqna 01 Aid(le oGlE iie4S 1(Jet.U@Jinbm ue 'Sjol 81!S-#0 JO Jet410 PUB SUDIS 'solude.ID 'DU!1401 pelig!40,id Du!140{1 (Lt) eq bulll,ID![ IlewS JOU 'UJ81SAS @41 uo ellq!40Jd eJe UO!.le.100ep Ilv -(papuewe se) 80 outside the Town limit f th w 11 2 0 C) 78 &jb% FC= 2 - E E D 5 g 0 G P & 2 1 i -9 & 3 8 2 0 --U- -@E g g 02 a:i @33%2 ~ Lu~22 N ui %22' ZE a = bu,g g 6 2 0 i 3 % 8 @88 - - ge M CO @ , M 0 W -4 A ESM#42 -- â„¢>c =el O W e Ci = CD" 0 15 &Â§2.94 2 Z . O 0 Conversion Svstems shall be subiect to setback requirements set forth in 6. Maximum Number of Freestanding Accessory Buildings and uctures, twenty (120) square feet and no more t o (2) cd;:ers,%%:r,Yartjtmurwind' 9~s~rns :hasli Convers n Svstem (SWECS). A wind enerov Including Detached Garages, P ngle-Family Resident' or structures greater than one hundred twenty (120) feet Insdistess U~ 7:%|souu~~efZ? inJZnaaarDepaunTnant equipment, w ich is i ntended to primarily reduce on-site consumption of power. Such svstems are accessorv to the principal use or structure one (1) accessory bu th pu!/A IleWS -LL ISn60Â¥ 'UOISS!wwoo buiuueld $ SiESE@P~ME TOWN OF ESTES PARK- - 0 Memo L â€ž_- ______ _(29_ff . TO: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt From: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer Date: September 9,2010 RE: MPEC Proforma and Marketing Study Contract Approval Background: Following the July 27, 2010 Town Board Study Session, the Finance Department solicited proposals, due August 27, 2010, for a marketing analysis and pro-forma for the Multi-Purpose Events Center to be located at the Fairgrounds at Stanley Park. Six firms submitted proposals. Each firm that submitted a proposal was remarkably well-qualified to perform the requested tasks. Due to proximity, experience with similar past projects (many of which are within Colorado), immediate availability and of course project cost, it is recommended that the Town engage Greenplay. Firm Name Bid Amount* Strategic Advisory Group (Atlanta, GA) $48,500 AECOM Technical Service (Arlington, VA) $45,000 Economic and Planning Systems (Denver, CO) $44,970 Markin Consulting (Minneapolis, MN) $35,910 C.H. Johnson Consulting (Chicago, IL) $34,500 Greenplay (Broomfield, CO) $24,900 *bids exclude reimbursable costs. Budget This project will be appropriated from the Community Reinvestment Fund, and will appear with the 2010 amended budget resolution in December 2010. The accounMine item to be charged is: 204-5400-544.22-02 (professional fees). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommend contracting with Greenplay, LLC for the market feasibility and proforma analysis for the Multi Purpose Events Center. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny contracting with Greenplay LLC for the market feasibility and proforma analysis for the Multi Purpose Event Center. Estes Park presentation I am presenting this certificate as a thankyou for partnering with the Census Bureau to achieve a complete and accurate census count for Estes Park for 2010. Conducting the decennial census is a massive and vitally important undertaking, which the Census Bureau could only accomplish with the help and support of partners like you. We appreciate the time and resources that the city dedicated in helping to ensure a successful 2010 Census. Your commitment to motivate the public to complete and return the census form will have a lasting impact. Through your efforts and those of other partners in Estes Park, the participation rate for the entire city is currently at 55%, slightly behind the 2000 rate of 59%. We have found the rates for resort communities to be less than 2000, probably due to more second homes. The rates nationwide helped keep the 2010 Census below budget by letting us visit fewer homes. As a census partner, Estes Park can take pride in knowing that your organization helped ensure that the city is accurately represented in Congress and the Colorado legislature and eligible forthe funding needed for important community programs, services and facilities. Just some quick notes on the status and next steps of the 2010 effort. Field collection of data ended on July 10 but some households might still be visited by a census worker doing quality assurance checks. We are required by law to report the state totals to the president by December 31 and will deliver the redistricting file to states in February and March of 2011. Your city clerk should receive a copy of that file to begin council district updating. Various summary files will be released via our website, census.gov, during 2011 and 2012. A schedule of these releases is in the packet. Other census products are also being released. You may have seen some press coverage of our 2009 estimates recently. These are considered the federal government's official numbers between censuses. We estimate that there were 6,543 people in Estes Park on July 1, 2009, a gain of 1,000 since 2000. A copy of these estimates is in the packet. This fall we will release the American Community Survey information for 2009, which provides characteristics such as income, school enrollment, housing costs, etc. The ACS replaces the old decennial long form and will provide survey information down to the block group level. We will produce data for Estes Park for the first time this December. We have produced data for Larimer County annually since 2005. We also have data from a statistical area we call a public use microdata area for Northwest Colorado including Estes Park but not the eastern part of Larimer County, which might be more representative of the town. There is a sample of that data in the PowerPoint printout. We can provide a short data training for the city staff in the near future and can do more extensive training as shown in the Data Services brochure duringthe next year. Once again, we appreciate Estes Park's contributions to the 2010 Census effort. . in, . 19 2 l 1 L.Ul. F. 1 4.91 1 , 8 5 3 f i i Â¥ L % 3 :red = ' C '4 5 4 6 ------ ID 2 5 0 - -i#- 180 3=5, , I L.3 la i - 1 - 2 ' / b Fer er. 0 0 i: 115 , E -: 0 1 1.- -- C., 6 4 9 2 ... 11 : - r.r .ta . 1 Â£ al 1- ymp-IMF b .AMIMI'll/lip.p E. 4- 01 N imal. . 8 I -Al J 1.-' 2. .. 'mimillilillillillillillillillilillillilillillillill/,","r' 1 @ 1 21 6 14 - .pr L"-' 1% j g Â£ 2 8 2 code ot city and Etate 00t7 #03 4NeVeW 10A,N a,â€¢autrld , 90.1 73% - 78% . 64 0 3 |FLK/1/.4 00 Uir- Al, J CO Imi~illillrililimilillik -I'- -,0 â‚¬ 9- .F. m acv 0 #41 4/421.\M i .R nited States Â® SaNVH tinO NI S,ll AOS'SnsuaDOLOE 4- . e 2 fililm mal:. r ii.-/ 5 0 - 44 0 91 X .t.=- 6-1.2 13. 0. LU B U , .. 0 OL ed AVHMASSASN To area - Larimer Co. Tracts 2116 -40% Â· Â·f' Â· 11 2010 Participation Rates suoispaa pallt.401 ulayvw nox Pu/Â£4 United States ~ Census 2010 IT'S IN OUR HANDS Census 2010 Participation Rates Estes Park town: 52% National 2010 Participation Rate: 72% National 2000 Participation Rate: 72% State: Colorado 2010 Participation Rate: 70% State: Colorado 2000 Participation Rate: 73% Place 2010 Participation Rate: 52% Place 2000 Participation Rate: 59% . . . . 1 1 1 1 -D. -- . - f ? 1.4 -1 - ~. . , . COLORADO What the Data Show www.census.gov ~United States Population 5,024,748 Lensus 7/1/09 Estimate 2010 Growth Rate 16.8% 2000 - 2009 7th fastest growing in U.S 8 Local Census Offices Aurora Greeley Housing Units 2,167,658 Colorado Springs Lakewood 7/1/09 Estimate Denver Pueblo Grand Junction Westminster Largest Colorado Cities 7/1/09 Estimates Total Employment 15,757 Denver 610,345 Colorado Springs 399,827 11.1% of population is "Hard-to-count" Aurora 323,348 Lakewood 141,937 Type of Enumeration Areas Fort Collins 138,733 % Housing Units in Colorado: MailouUMailback 79.9% Denver is the nation's 24th most populous city Update/Leave 19.6% Update/Enumerate 0.3% One Race Alone in Colorado 7/1/09 Estimates % Land Area in Colorado White 89.4% MailouUMailback 4.2% Black 4.4% Update/Leave 94.1% Asian 2.8% Update/Enumerate 1.0% American Indian 1.2% Census 2010 Colorado is home to 2 federally recognized American Mail Participation Rate 70% Indian tribes. 2.0% of American Indians in the United States live in Census Related Federal Assistance Colorado. FY2008 for Colorado* Total $4,397,439,027 Ethnicity in Colorado Per Capita $890.27 7/1/09 Estimate Hispanic (of any race) 1,018,204 20.2% *As calculated by The Brookings Institution Between 2000 - 2009 Colorado gained 282.603 people of Hispanic origin DENVER REGIONAL CENSUS CENTER 6950 W Jefferson Avenue, Suite 250 Lakewood, CO 80235 Phone 720-475-3640 USCENSUSBUREAU Fax 720-533-4234 Helping You Make Informed Decisions Revised 9.9.2010 I .- /2 i- ...4 6 I . .. Â· â€¢ U) .7.-i-~. 1 92 E .. . 1 5 3 12 '. .. 6. -4-Dwi-1 *inaE~g . 32 . .. - .. .. I .. .: - .. .. . . 4 .. E-- &2 3, .. . . N - 2 882EE .. A lom<< e. liff 2 z. ... 9r~~ * . 1 I . . 0 . I .. .. ... - -1 . ... .. .f y . 0 .. .. ... .. 1;;isil ... I . .. I m E a Â® m . . 2 R 2 - - a 2 q 9 1 U) 1 1 - N i - 8 2 â„¢ 11_ 1 1 1* 2 . -1- 2 21 %10.gill'lill""Illip'q Â· 17i -3 E =220 .. . 1.-. . . a co. 9 $ ...1 1 2 0.14Â« g S E Ub 2 / <41 1 - I . . . ... ... 30 ... U)- . I . .. . .. 90 I - - UN sons!.tejoe,ello Bu snoH pue uo'Windod :ejepdn (ZdS) Z el!=1 :elepdn (US) L al!; Aleulluns leuoneN 'u!6!.10 0!ueds'H 'eoe xes @62 uo se . se l.lons sauil ajels sso.10 1e4J Seele se lIons sauil ejeis sso.lo lelÂ·li see.le 0!4de.I6 pue ainuaj U!sn04 'sa!1!lue, 'Spiollesn leonsilels pesed-eJOO pue seeiv ue!pul ueop leolls!:els Paseg-ekoo pue seeiv ueipul ueo!1 eaje pue !suep uoneindod uouedn 'e!qlunloO JO 10!Jls!(] 34) 'elels 43ee Joispodabl 2 LOZ JeqLU8300 - Z :01 Xew bieulluns Â·s'ne pue :00!21 opend pue se!Jes podaJ L-3Hd 000Z snsuao 041 01 Jelilll!9 Slualuoinseaul 'SUO!S!A!P 'suo!6ei 'sejels pal! 'suo!Â§!AIP 'suo!601 'sejelS Peliurl e41 JOJ 10# pejejej! soils!Â·'eloe.,ello 6u!snoll pue uo!Windod lA A .... amleN e>Zi'Y-pu: r!327JIroeip~eal'r! Spejl snsuao :Allde16009 leAe-I iseMo-1 ~United States 58 89 dill - - U) 0 E < 0 12%3&E 2 3 Z k â‚¬2â‚¬22 2 =,102%0 M 818 'P 6' R N -EZES Of#i@ 3 3,Â§Tor 1 4 .* E i & 3 3 *203Â£0 --4.* -1 m . 2*5 2 1&24 in :~ 2,:~3 7 82&v/33 1 . .. 4 24. E@33 1 3011~fs . to 11 I .. . 2 ; .2 E i .. 2 .. ... 17â€¢ =al . 0 2 5 1 2 .. .. . r . . . E E U EM . 8-8 5%8 OC =O aw= Se& 2 Eig 10 N 2'3 & 1 3 EOC fo V, 23 g 8%2W .. =%5% 3:&.fi m -* J 'C J :6 E ; 4 2 5 3 3 !2 0== Â· / al 1 27 5 1 1 3/3 .... 1 2. .. .. C 0 .. .. . . .. ,~ 12#1 .. ... ~ a:/all i,( .. % 52.g~ .:. . a. 4 U) 2 MU) 229 .. 0 1 ... 190 . I. ~V--r - .. .. . I .. 1//I ... Fii B Â®N . 0 lualuelddnS 3!4deJBoes iels! 87 ejels wodebl slunoo pun 6u!snoH pue uoteindo e>Iselv pue sue,pul ueop 0 SORS,lepe.le,10 seinq!.me 0!4de,Boe rican Indian and Alaska Native tribes h~lloas~~~ unit unts pue luelu ele;S0~ ~|~ eulluns Jo uong se!3!0 lediouud :Allde,50eg ieA OLOZ 041 Bu!Molloi ejp Slopls!a eA! leopols!4 Peloeles saiqei elecl peweles Joi sO! ls!.lejoe.le43 Bu:!~ 4 P geq!~!~IrseA!}e N ELOZ 'equie;des - ELOZ 1!Jdv 'ejels 4 e JOJ selels :AlldeJBoao iaAe-I ls@Mol saoeld :Allde16089 laAe-I }SeAAO-I S 10!Jlsia aA,Jel ilar to the Census 2000 PHC-5 report, b I 00-percent data 0 0 .A The 2010 Census-What Your Community Needs To Know *P// The Magnitude of the 2010 Census Â· 309 Million People Â· 134 Million Housing Units Â· 236,000 Group Quarters Counted Â· 3.8 Million People Recruited (in 2009 & 2010) Â· 494 Local Census Offices Â· 223,000+ Partner Organizations Â· 10;250 Complete Count Campaigns Â· $400 Billion+ in Federal Funds Distributed Page 2 2010 Census Key Dates January 17, 2010 - Advertising Launch March 8-10, 2010 - Advance Letters Mailed Â· March 15-17,2010 -Questionnaire Mailed â€¢ March 18-19,2010- Reminder Postcard Mailed â€¢ April 1, 2010 -CENSUS DAY May 1-July 10, 2010 - Non-Response Follow-Up â€¢ December 2010 - Deliver State Population Totals to President Â· March 2011 - Complete DeliverÂ·y Redistricting Data to States C'61-i*i; 2010 1 The Questionnaire 120 million questionnaire packages 6'jil//ily# -~ 11 Â· 134 million housing units contacted by mail or in person .; Â· Each one percent increase in 4 p.: . maijback response rate saves us ./ A Â» b about $85 million in door-to-door follow-up work r >. A. # ./ 7~EZ._Z~ZEÂ¥'I.l --- - 66 uensus 2010 Questionnaire Content Â· Number of inhabitants on 4/1/10 Â· Tenure (own or rent) Â· Telephone number Â· Name Â· Age/Date of Birth Â· Gender Â· Race/Ethnicity Â· Household Relationship 5 Type of Enumeration 90 % Mailout/Mailback ~f# , k 1''I Â·~ 3,/ ..Â·t.'Â§ y;' ~' 2 - 9% Update/Leave '..P, lilli, Â£'./ Â· 1% Update/Enumerate Â· .1 . ..1, : I 1 2 :* -4 mil Page 6 2 Participation Rate Feedback Program AIR,lou, Sepâ€¢,.6~Â©â€¢ 0,h di~pl,1Â·e~ . of: Alw,27,2010 "....t -'*. v.---National *m==U=47.1 1 72% - Pallk pation Rale r -2.r 9 - 1.... ==Neim -.-Â· *332Â·>EN= State/Local Participation Rates Ta)21'M*-rainCe- 1 9-Â¢3-8.2 06. I 1 -1 4.4 ;447 -2 :4128Â· 6 .-L-1 h.,2 rt\.,31..,-2.F $,Ft ), $ ./-- -4 ~ .. . I ./4-e'le D.2./.h-,~.MCIÂ· n.-7.1. ?" m ...,0. >..Â¥!,-i. Page 8 Estes Park Participation Rates 80 % all Iitt'. 6 8.1 *2. 50 9.Â« 1 ' â€¢2000 '81. 049t t.ilia 2010 24.=mu 10 "/::11 .2,1 ~M , 1...9 Colorado Larimier Co Estes Park Page 9 3 Larimer Co. Tracts 494 - 1/09 -... ./.: ..7 : 2Â» 1%*314&11 Page 10 2010 Census --Why It Matters "Just like we can't survive without roads and bridges, the country doesn't function well without updated census data to distribute funds to areas that most need them and to support community decisions about their own future." - - Robert M. Groves, Director of the United States Census Bureau Page 11 The Use of Census Bureau Data is About... - Political power Â· Economic power Â· Advocacy power Â· Community development power Â· Funding power Page 12 4 Census Data and Federal Funding T-, 2. 1,0, t.,0,$1 C*01-GUCÂ«, A :SUnnci Programl rfaOO' C.D. . ........1- 0.-In- rÂ¥00 a#*. Ir,D,Â®1 *i-ta- -9 9,01,- D,0,- I He,el *20$,%=NÂ»4 FomAAQ,n,lt:t*slat~ Pr,â€žm -1/.-Ser... 7; 1â€¢10--*- D,~,r~rant/ --- iÂ».nl.-06.*Wi.6..u t....... *le...p,4.1~ )& /*8,4,â€žIN -- -0-441 Hw,r, ---143*iDâ€¢--UK-1 Â»'.-Â£,â€¢4- '- - - Urt,/ 1-10-,N 0,3,; 'Sce-[,6/wi -~--Qi).2/ -' - -------- 74730-/.06,:1*Â·*sh.6,4 0,-1,â€¢IR./% $....1.. - e.bi' ..~i-//Gll -ru4r4/--~'~'~ r.:â€¢*.-- *#-.5-*......Â·-6, 14.......g.... ....... .WÂ»....1.-1.- io,aril' ll to ~6UiWI7@,IN 6f- * .0...DA, ..'.".â„¢1 . *.#V*4,~~Il-â€¢--1'iâ€¢-* . 19.,me.... FantÂ»....hbeates *~1*1~'lan *= --ioeÂ·-*kisÂ·Giâ€¢Gâ€¢â€¢ar--116?m-01 --- Ntâ€¢*itb,Pnog-10, A*iC~~- wom.â€¢4 ...... C.Of~n./ AFS@1~14 -90*-3.1,0.--: .. G.01;*Il- :&002.9- OrÂ«tpiyewa,#004,Ma-1~*g/â€ž61 ~ *Â· en I 6*6 Head/*,i '--54rerl-t... .-*- 8â€¢*tw,Ant,kocal-,k-I- 2010 Census Data Can Help Your Community Answer Questions Like... Â· How many people live here? Â· How has the number of people changed? - How old or young are the people? - What race and ethnicity are they? Â· How many families are there? Â· How many single parents? Â· How many own or rent their home? 14 Brief Data Overview Â· Census Geography Â· 2010 Census Data Release Schedule Â· Importance of Redistricting Data File Â· Community Profiles (DP-1) Â· American FactFinder Â· American Community Survey Page 15 5 2010 Census Geography Â· Political Areas - States, Counties, Cities, American Indian Reservations, School Districts, Minor Civil Divisions, etc. Â· Statistical Areas - Census Tracts, Census Blocks, Census Designated Places, Traffic Analysis Zones, etc. Small Area Hierarchy Census Tracts, Block Groups, Blocks 2 '- 7 6 *Â§* ~, A L ' 21 , 1 til ' /1 - . 2 5. 1 40% ' g I' 4, ,-I. '1 -,1 ' 1 . 0 --I i i j.'... 1 . - -~ Wi T . -1 19 1 i $ U Page 17 2010 Census Data Products Release Schedule -i-Jit~-,i-, i,- -1-hkL-~ili~-u,~~, -Lif~ 12)311'10 Apportionnient Population Counts 2/11-3/1-1 Census Redistricting Summaty File (P L. 94- 171 1 for States 5/11 Demographic Profile 6/11 -3/11 Summary File 1 for States I 2,1 1-4,12 Summary File 2 for States 12/12 American Indian and Alaska Native Summary File 1/13 Congressional District Summary File (1130 Congress) 6 4 2010 Census Data Release Schedule %411111111 11 lilli lili 1 1 d , REEL_-_ ~ E7~990" Â· L.-Ii.*.r 1./.a 3.--- r#=02=-- ; -.C=1'0.,tr.. -- =1.arm -a]'....r'., 1 rm,Â·.,int==tn" Page 19 Redistricting Data File Â· Deliver DVD to redistricting officials in each state on a flow basis (2/11-3/11) Included: - First release of official population counts for all levels of geography First race and Hispanic origin counts Â· Counts for 63 race combinations Â· Total populationandage 18+ Â· Housing unit counts (occupied andl vacant) Â· Geography: Â· States to blocks Â· Voting districts, state legislative districts, 11191 Congressional Districts, school districts Demographic Profile Â· Released via American FactFinder- May 2011 Includes: Â· Race and Hispanic origin Â· Population in Group Quarters - Households Â· Housing Tenure (owner/renter) Â· Families Â· Housing Occupancy Rates Â· Age and sex Â· Housing Vacancy Rates Â· Geography: Â· Nation, states, counties, places, American indian and Alaska Native Areas 7 Demographic Profile-DP-1 ra~1, OFÂ·I. Pionle of Cenâ„¢ral Demoor~phk Wr~â‚¬:*.1,iks: 2000 -Â«ir,phk- A,PAÂ· Dp~-ray r"ler- IFw i.Â·6.iâ€¢.ie,~-,-nkki-irp,*w..,-â€žil#â€¢...i,J.1~fin~,uâ€¢.......k] ~00,0 .SPA*.IC OR LAT,110 Al,OMACt *m '9Â». ,â‚¬*ANDâ€¢Â©â‚¬ - 1,1,~A, 't. 27-2/ . : P~Â·,~i. ~L - 0, 3.,-. fiE ii .4~=A lAi- râ€¢â€¢fâ€¢- ':4%: III. . %.St/ ~â€¢gu~e~*-de, ....... DI l.h. 41,~.. m. 8. 2 t" 1>v~ ) 7,le, :F is m â€¢4 i-â€¢ 71 3" 4 x O.....Â·,.I â€¢02*1 â€ž Urwa" 1, V... d P. " vr1r~** %/ m 2 81,~1nlro,~er 7, J / 7-I"-.-. ~â€¢ UCI :9 2 1*.6-rodi:ca AcpU,14/ 1,/ I.U~1./.SU'. es=./ m.'*' . .24 1. 1 ,)00 7= 1,9 " 6%0~e 14 7 >530 m ,?1 el Il mrÂ· r,~a cr.â€¢c,m.. 111 ,~.*ami, h,--~+4â€¢ 1.% .0 - P lou,-,C,â€¢ 4-$ - ..â€ž -3 Page 22 Summary File 1 Â· Released via American FactFinder June-August 2011 Â· Includes: Table subjects: By Major Race Categories: Â·Households Â· Black or African American alone Â·Families - American Indian and Alaska Native alone Â·Ageand Sex Â· Asian alone Â· Population in Group Quarters by Type Â· Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Â· Housing Units Islander alone Â· Some Other Race alone Â· Two or more races alone Â· Geography: Â· Hispanic or Latino States to blocks Summary File 2 Â· Released via American FactFinder-Dec/11-Apr/12 Â· Includes: Repeated for more than 250 population groups: Table subjects: Â· Filipino alone Â· Households Â· Paiute alone Â· Families Â· Korean alone Â·Age and Sex Â· Mexican alone Â· Population in Group Quarters by Type Â· Colombian alone Â·Housing Units Guatemalan alone or in combination Â· Apache alone or in combinabon Â· Geography: Â· White, American Indian and Alaska Nalve States to census tracts Â· 8!ack alone or In combinabon No Block Groups or Blocks 8 American Factfinder Data Retrieval System Â· An integrated Census Bureau web site Â· Access to data from: - 2010 Census .=ad=71- - Economic Censuses - American Community Survey Data - Surveys and Estimates -~t How do I get to the American FactFinder? www.census.gov >42%4â‚¬~ 13~ p.op'Â® 8 U I ..2/4.611 Hous,hoi. M . ~2..Ll.n-U4LU= Mu f. ,=A,r- .. 91/ ....:I'l.$.1, . -.....4/ * ..- I.:Il .;......Ux,~ -kI1221 Page 26 ACS and 2010 Census THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SUIVEY AND THE 2010 CENSUS --- ACÂ»e.kâ€ž1 40,~munir. Sur.0, 2010 Cone- Arm 9/addiessrece~esa 2010{ens!.lin A~andom s3rnple of . addresses aiso rece,res al . Al,lellc..*-.Slin- . Both require your response. Laduuum. j. 27 9 American Community Survey: What is it? Â· A large, continuous survey â€¢ Key component of the 2010 census program. â€¢ Replaces census sample questionnaire (long form). â€¢ Produces characteristics, not a population count, â€¢ More current information.annual data rather than once every 10 years. â€¢ Produces information for small areas including tracts, block groups and population subgroups. 28 ACS Characteristics Educaton Incon/ Ov#Â·ent Marital status Benefits Occupancy Grandparent caregivers Employment status Structure Fertility Occupation Housing value Veterans Industry iaxes Disability status Cominuting Insurance PlaceD f blith Place of work Utilities Citizenship Health insurance Mortgage/rent Year of entry L-anquage spokeii at home Ancestly/tribal affiliation ACS Data Products Narrative Profiles Â· ACS includes a wealth of data Â· Selected Pooulation Profiles Â· ACS produces 1-year and multi- Â· Ranking Tanles year estimates . Subject Tables ACS data products put these data - Detailed Tables at the fingertips of those who need Â· Geographic Comparison Table-:s themÂ· ~ Thematic Maps Â· Custom bible; http://factfinder.census.gov . Sannal y F le Â· Public Use Microdala Samples 10 conomle ACS-DP 2,3 and 4 . -1 -.1 ..%. ----' #-/.- i F F 91-- 17.2 14* - I./."---- r. EE n.tu.r,-re----1 --Â·Â·Â·- =U '222 - .-. ........G...-'.--.-*A.,"-......%'.d....4 .....,1 1 ILâ€¢.1 I ...11 1~7.-7L Page 31 Public Use Microdata Area ~ ~.1 3 â€¢ hl 4 -<11 F N.L --4. ' -J/-- f.' 1_ ~.. ~~ .-Â·2-32 - .. 9,' Â·i i Source American Community Survey, 2006-08 Page 32 NW Colorado poverty 14:401451 litc]1â€¢lial:W,Ilq!411.11; â€¢6411 'Lâ‚¬â€¢l#illmll:141.61*PIWLâ€¢]All:61 2002 2007 S pheance 200C Sig13,licai'c,- AN fern,kes 6.6% 6.69' 9-,2.h e'Â· : . Â·â€¢ Nu '18 years 8.5-7. 10 Or: W'IM'Â· 1.â€¢I . n ,in<"5 years .1 27 4 7' 4 jauted cocirde fa 'Mlies 4.3.1 4.3. Wilb relahzÂ·d dubjeri unde, 18 yems 5.87, 4.4: 2 V. W, h rdated chitd!.1 Iindei 6 years 1 74 0 04 . 956 -am-i Â·Â· f... 9 louse'lolde., no 12 0< 281Â·7 Vvilh r' 1 Â·' , I unde, 18/tais 15 25% 39 9/ ~ 26 4-9 Wilh Â·1.~,i .] ' i, o M.1,Â·1 5 y'.Â·(vs 29.99 15 2 0.0:.4= 9111' Source: American Communily Survey Page 33 11 1 S BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL Compass Products-How Can I Access ACS Data General Data Users Business Community High School Teachers Â· Media Â· Congress Â· State and Local Governments Federal Agencies Â· Researchers Users of Data for Rural Areas Â· Users of Data for American Indians and Alaska Natives 34 1 .l a=I |. /.U .....1- 11--U-- *.' I../ 8- 1 FAO.1 U. /. tÂ».:* " ' I 'J.410 Â· ~1 | -AE Auf, Rk'ANCOMMUNd 17 *.Rvi.Y ------.. '. 1:=2~9,â€ž -m.-.. rp./Ih.P...,1 1Â·~-/2.Â·/30'/.1/I; I -â€¢u.n~=[câ€¢/*i.MI.0,10.-'r-'Ii, =219 â€¢ hdp. c,m-/.1---,i'/.-10./*.-r. -d.aÂ¢* '-I ..'MMol.th, # I ___ _ r â„¢I *.~ICAN COMMUNITY S-laY ANC â„¢E 20.0 CEII'i -'-- ' Irm-:r" i -...... #A,231=- .: Bothiegulfeyour . ~ m.= ~â€¢â€¢.,Â·Â·,â€¢,1 ./pon*e --' *:.:f :''*I 1 ...21 I-, â€¢'- â€¢ 4Â·â€¢: L .tiC;HLIGHÂ¥9 - 1 ....S....... I'l i !-3 '....----;li~73i Page 35 Population Estimates 5/' U.S. Census Bureau ---1 e.--â€¢10---1 ---Il '/-- -21-/Ilc-I- -'7;'~"â‚¬""'~' "-'7'~;Vr'I.My,Â·r,7;9**sg@tp,44 , , 1.Â·2@t -,# -,-,4,09~Â¥rc...~1=Ek,~~ FNew'sroom ., 1,/ , .9 L~ '4* A~ 1,~;~~~ It. .... ... a . ,- 7*S. 6 ~0 â€¢r ,Â· *SS,j.%F-7 14â€¢ Ir, 44 0â€¢W G ~Â·>=5 '41"i P'*duN' Ca-Ey i,w ~.4,1*. i ..$râ€¢,1â€¢â€¢ I Â®J..6 1.vt,Â·'1= 'Ii Â·-1, 11:,1, 11!...1 '..1 1 1..,1..1 41" 1,1:14.. .14 #i.IN. ...lit' ./i 0- FOR NMEDIATE RELEASE: TUESDAY: JUNE 21 2010 Census Bureau Releases 2009 City Population Â¢810*0 Estimates tonUct ./.r'â€¢.:Â·=i '.-0./Inpr I. Â·Â·Â· -~Â· IllÂ·Q'Â¢Â· 3Â·2 'I. c 1~.1 I 4% WSy f*le~//1& 1 2069 Cccu~11 ia,/t>f #Eh &0,1 cni incot'Â· â€¢i â€¢ ; i,% i Â·Â·Â·'.:in ~ 14*: bolouqh Md 'am i.d m,w NU. swÂ«li 'uth i, te./; 'Ad ID. rÂ¥- 'â€¢il,â€¢=Â·1-.'â€¢ i.mING Jâ€¢,t~$ f..........4,â€¢..11,:!pil i... INY,I]Ib)15$ 36â€¢, ic- Page 36 12 Estes Park Estimates, 2000-2009 6800 6600 6400 6200 6000 5800 5600 r-Z 5400 5200 5000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Page 37 Major Surveys Conducted by the Census Bureau American Community Survey Current Population Survey Consumer Expenditure Survey Survey of Income and Program Participation National Crime Victimization Survey National Health InterÂ·view Survey American Housing Survey-National Partnership and Data Services Program nâ€¢Wdl,Fi- 1 1.. . 1-2,272.17- ; -*- ..r 1 -. .-v 1 =7.=.7 f - - F/l'*.*- Â£+ 2 A.- CSWN* 2 4,4 ,=:r=...0. Page 39 13 aki ' Thank You America Campaign- Data Services Component Answer Data Requests Presentations , Community Data User Conferences , Topical Workshops , Computer Lab Training-American FactFinder Page 40 Questions and Comments... - -ep 41 14 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States U.S. Census Bureau Census 6950 W. Jefferson Avenue, Suite 250 2010 Denver, CO 80235 Larry Mugler Partnership Specialist Denver Regional Census Center Cell: 720-841-5219 Office: 720-475-3670 E-mail- larry.g.mugler@census.gov USCENSUSBUREAU I-4 L--73 & J W> *12 g i . 0 % 1 1 6. #te; 3+ 5 - ,%10 -0 . 0 4 4 .f 2 I .1 - -4* 1 ~~ M i /39 2 ---- j . -*.5 0* s Administration a)JaUILUOD JO JUD n V 3 21 HSASN nÂ¥3Hf'19 SnSN33 'S'n Suotspao paul.tojut 01!DIN .. .. . .. . w Z ... 4.1 E 0 . 9 0 . 4, 4 The 128th edition of the Statistical Abstract of the United States continues a proud tradition of presenting a comprehensive and useful por of the socia political, and economic organization â€¢ Expanded guide to other sources of statistical information both 3!041 pue stale uplilodod)!Ul pUE UEmo 0313(U Jo buils!1 â€¢ 'Sla UlnU UO !]Pindod SlfulloJ 314 3(]d pup p))(3 LI]oq U! alqissalle saiqel â€¢ 0 ..... 0 . e Whan .,i ' 4 " . , of the Unit d States. The 2009 edition provides: ,300 tables and graphs. 0 . I. .... 0 print and on the Web. External Media Located Here M-010490 RMMI .t 8 lcd - f=EM#Mag# 'Cil.1 I le 4, 4 m ' ' -. ~1 1 no -2 8 Â·f ~ 330 Â£ ~ .9.9 a * 285 Z 43â„¢ E â‚¬10 L EN:Zaws{ 0 0 L. 842gmingE 0 3 i t Ams=*9068 0 2 Z 1 -2 1 2 -i 1 * 2 U 6 0 0 y E 2 ham 10 0, : E -N- S 3 2 f t 2 /4. i w \ tn CD 1-000 3 1% . % 5% X\34 00' ~ 2-329 f Ek 1 S 49 11\ * 0 1 0 0 09 141@- C t:10 ro ro 1 [!11 1 1 . i , 1101. i I jili! 1 li Iii,i mu) 40! 111 :i } 1 1 4111 41,1 1 1 1 : 71 ~ P !1 ~Liz M :'.3:11 .r wil i ZE dpi i ** ji:|i '1 3 11 1 .i . 1 D 11 69 it 41 il j-i 4 Your Table Is Waiting on the Making Census Bureau Data Work For You "Placing Census Data In Your Hands" Services Program Ia}U@ 3 SnSU@ 0 Iuuo!Â§01I IgAU@(~ Partnership & Data Services SaNVH anO NI ELI /475-3670 or by e-mail at Partnership SnSN3O OLOE ZEZP'EES'OZZ xed people and e = our website at www.census.gov to access USCENSUSBUREAU The Cens U galltolsno ino AOB'snsua)@snsuao'Olup :I!.el.U-3 !lenb Jo 803nOS ino pue 'aleAOUU! 6950 W. Jefferson A nue, S 50 Let the Partnership and Data Services staff guide you to the data you need. Visit data. If you need assistance contact us at noN'snsuao@snsuao'o Internet... 1 L W A 1 f 4% / CD - 6 .2 C 0 * B. E 81% 1 -2 -2 i @ -Â¥ E -3 E 2 0 .C gu] 5 0Â©kA CL 0 406# 09 k. 0 89* 3 ff# i f ~ 3 0 03 2 6 NE 31 -5% 0 E -2 B B E -* 22%@ -% 9 23 U 0 & 10 01 c co =-c: %$ EN@ 6 B E Re 9% 8 8 48 8 - %-1 -21 $ d 1:~ 1 :% - Al . 0 ; 8 ed i i E H ONA.gEÂ°Eg'*82 - w w a c m- -09 E -.0.02 9 -- 0- ty, M =1 3 J 0 0 - M Â¤ 8-0 2 k 5 Â·O 1 5 2 H 0Â·*E s g>wic M e 0.2 0 Un 5 10 2 .2 D.om M N M & f i 2 9 2 8 E 2 * 8 00 2 2 SR 2 M o O :c k M 2 E d M A % a A Â¢ M & 04 T E BA.* 4 0 0 â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ ... 0 8 -c = CLE . ....... - l 0 W Q rd 9 e 0 0 0 A 0 U 00 E-:,9 4 G . 7 1. - 74 61 4 0 iU :I 2 14 E al E E 25 0 O + 1 .5 0 0 2 A 0 CD 9 -id Â·~ 4 290 m 0EO 2 2 R ~United States Office Partnership and ions, data workshops, provide current and -BluesaId doteAep pu ecific groups and organizations doNS}II UOIarn ; speau u *Up JO Ale,~BA U slsenb soruIEUAG jUDUIAOIdriIE[ npu[ Ierndod IOUI 01-I ding Economic Data sseursng IreuIS IOJ E le ag,jo s,ual=Bes jualawp JIels saoIA.Ies E lECI pup dnlsIeuiI'Ed elLL d American Community data users. The Denver Region covers the Transportation awareness other census, sur- Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. par nershi SZ alins 'anuaAV UOS.Ja;Jaf 'AA 0569 'saIge, xeneux,oa[qns pene,ap plIE ' 0 w JS ' Iequl ' Ieuori3 aI 'IEUCIjeu le A09Â·snsuao@snsuao'OJUp lielll-3 (PDS) is an on-going tial users. -n 00 Io; speeu elep repeds uo of)Â·snsueo 01 Ewa snsu WHAT DATA WE HOW WE CAN HE u.103 ;0 lualuUDdaa 'sn -108UI IEJOI le Suorjeluese,Id 'el'ep IaMIep Denver, Colorado 80235 0Â£9â‚¬'SLk'OZL al,1041 LEZP'EES OZL :xed as elea pue diusieuped 'se"Joid uogeIndod slonpoid neemE[ snsuao Hc[BIxe pire sBur muedsIH -luoo moA Binpmfel 33'UC) leuo!0@kl JaAUBC The Denver Regional Community/Neighborhood Profiles Population Characteristics Housing Quality/Costs Service Industries Construction support services to current and potential Governments Current Economic Indicators Yearly Population Estimates walu sionpoid e,up snsuaO OIOE apnIO U Sasuare I EJECI Retail Sales /eoueze,ex pue seIge, Bu~~ elep uo furureIi Iesn UO--spUEN P Sdelu 01 JEUI papnoId osre exe sesn nel.Ii pue sio U.S. Department of Commerce Data Services Program E JEp neeing snsi states of Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North snsuao uo sdoliSMIOM JO ~laTIEA E SIe]JO 01 aIcrepEAE OSIE ST JIEis Ino Erep neerng -sno Â·suouueAuoo pue seouaIanIOD BuIYEUI IOJ aIquIIPAE SUOISIDep pa~IOJUI Â·@Brnp OU le Inside American FactlfinderÂ® - - ./Fll j "5'5~. American FactFInder l POPULATION FINDEM MIâ€¢ lac' 51:ee, View data quickly using single-page BAW:alm ~ Fact Sheets. Â· Pict Sheet ...... ".ed States T cly/town, county, or * Â· F- Sheit rir I t:/,65 IN~. United States st~e Fact Sheets are available for: MOPLE 939-In/ | select a state Â·Â· A . seeach bÂ¥ 'd*ess , â€¢ Your state, county, city or town, ZIP Code, and HOUSING IUSINESS AND census tract. 2005-2007 Ame,1, ali Comilitinly St,Ivey 3.Ye.I Estil,lates - what'stlis? Naristive ProNe I Retere,k=e Mar GOVERNIMENT [,A P i â€žfile 1Â«,tiliglus: â€¢ Detailed race, ethnic, and ancestry groups. ABOUT THE DATA NOTE Although the Atnerican Com/1/ly Sivey (ACS) proc~.Ices popule~ion, demo,Whic and housing un# estimgtes. 1 is the Census eureus Populetion Esinates Program thst produces Ind dissemn,tes the officlat Et,males / the M i,lat,on â€¢ Detailed industries-see the Business and DATASETS lor the net,on stÂ«es cgurtes *119; * lownt 01*1 estone,tes o f housing 1.,Wls Tor stâ‚¬tes and counties Government link. DOWNLOAD CENTER Social Chaladellitics - Show more >> El-Me Pe,ce,* Mal gil, 01 El,01 Average Â®us@091@ size 2 60 09 +IÂ·001 min Average family size 319 09 4-0.01 MAPS Population 25 years and over 195,546.383 4-26.981 TOOLS AND High school graduate or highel 00 84 0 0'9 [n@Q REFERENCES BachelorÂ·s degree or higher 00 27 0 09 Â£11@2 F ly,J an y*.ans Â«Milan population 1 8 Years and 23.392,676 104 436.030 [[92 over) Disabilitf status (population 5 years and over) 41.101.667 151 468.111 Foreign born 37.234,785 125 Â«75,409 [DAR Male, Now marned, except separated (population 15 61,030,689 526 4-110,254 Â¥ears andover) Female, Now married, except separated (population 59.165.050 485 494.418 15Â¥earsandover) Speaka language otherthan English at home 54,327,142 195 4-77,002 E!* (population 5 years and over) Ur,liechâ€ž1. In-,1,1.,M ')Qn m llc *â€¢â€¢*1 Access detailed data quickly. I.~ Mal . ....1 Set Decennia/ census-Taken every 10 years, provides detailed demographic data including income, education, commuting, LQ%12!dz[X I Clear .selections home values, poverty, and much more. Economic Census data from 2007, 2002 and 1997 are available in American Factfinder al American Community Survey-Annual demographic data Â· All Einomc Pro,Irams Â· North Arner,Bar,Industry i Class,fication ./stem 0/CS' allows you to track trends and changes in your community. â€¢ pata Release Scheall Â· gcoramic Census./ Pane Â· Decen-1 Cen'ul â€¢ Americ/n Cemmunity Surwey 0 Explair, Table and Map Fords Annua/ popu/ation estimates-Annual estimated population totals for cities and towns, metropolitan areas, counties, I Stwth= eforeasy access to key statistics NOTE 2007 Econorâ„¢c De'.e and states. E â€¢UT THE DATA Number'restablishments released on a flow bas' Some Sales, rec e,pts. revenue. shipments. or business ger/apl,es andior /'//ines Irm nci yet be av/able See the 2007 Ecor/m,c done Jeni~Js Releaseseheflule for,~re Â· Annual payroll Informeltion Economic census-A detailed portrait of the nation's Â· Decennill Census Â· Number of employees Â· American economy including retail trade, health services, construction, Community Survey EconomÂ¥Â·Wide KeÂ¥ Statistics - Includes the keystatistics listed above Will cover the US, states, counties, places, and metropolitan areas across allindustnes and more. Â· Annual Population Estimalies ~ Defai/ed Sworsks liom 2007 Economic Census and Surveys Â· Economic Census Annua/ economic surveys-Annual detailed economic data Â· Annuil Economic Surveys including numbers of employers, establishments, and sales DOWNLOAD CENTER receipts. View and compare data in American FactFinderÂ® &44///a==mimm///////.O/7.4 ~<1~American FactFinder~ ~ using tables and reports. - Ranking Tables You ~e hae: LDE ) 1 -1_di b Rankina Tables â€¢ Results Quickly retrieve and compare information on population, housing, income, and industries to: View this table- i United States and States R1902. Me,lian Familv Income (In 2007 Inflation Actjusted Dollals) â€¢ Learn about communities where you live and work. Unive,se: Families O Data Set 2007 Amelican Community Survey 1-Yeal Estimates ) from //7 â€¢ Find national, state, and local population counts from 2 Survey Amelic.u, Community Suivey. Pile,to Rico Commi,nity S li ivey from 201& and income distribution. NOTE For nfo,melion an confiderÂ¢ialty protection, sampl,ng error, nonsampl,ng error. and .tions, see with statistical Sur"Y Method/oely. â€¢ Choose the best location for a business. sian,flance 5 Balk[*7 St.. I M**ME__- _Marlin of Eq,ft â€¢ Estimate your company's market share and v.-- 1, Maryland 82,404 -_ _-_169. determine growth rates. .sagilit -- _21 New Jersey - 81,823 41-755 3 > Connecticd 81,421 +Al,081 â€¢ Plan for new schools, hospitals, and road 011-..- - jilk*.s 78,497 4771 %*CLMIEE[ ._518'w 1*npshire 74,6255 41,538 mprovements. 'Ltal!& - _3?1 Haw~_ _ _~ _~~~~_ _ 73,079~ 41,983 72,8652 ,_J-2 ~30 â€¢ Direct essential services where they are ~---8 V.gr.m 70.894 _.._ _ _ Â«588, â€¢ Subiect Defir,itions ~ , 9,Rhideui~ --- 70.187 â€¢A.2,284) needed. _191 h.Â·rlesoil 69,172 i +f-7.1 â€¢ 921!1Â£!*..... 1 11 Colorado 67,491 4 ~12* C~,fofrile __ 67,484) 13 DistrictoiCÂ©Unb,a _ ___ 66,672, _ - 4.3,043 14 ...h,ninn 68 W +LA95 ~ New Y-k 4 Le~ Ti~a TM-â€¢1027. Median Val,le of Specified Owim.Occupied Housing Units: 2000 4 Universe Specified owne,Â·oceâ€žpied housing imits View data in the form of thematic maps. Data Set. Census 2000 Sillimgy File 3 (SF 31 - Sample Data NOTE DIM based on * s-Â©le except n /3, Pâ‚¬ H3, and fi Fo. M:o,m,tin on cor,lerteh Pl oteÂ¢bon, st,99,9 etri nonsarn*g erro, detÂ¥4100. and cool* cer~eel,or,2 see ~ 1 ' Â· Â· Easily see geographical patterns in statistical data on ..........agn/l 7!*sacross' 2- UOUWURM,11 a map to: US â€¢ Compare the distribution of income, housing, IN,pWy ml by | Cen- Tie .1~ and population for an area. 9&e'Lkra SmÂ¢ f .7, -\ 21 0 ..e.*44,4 â€¢ Identify locations for setting up a new service or business based on population, age, gender, and income data. Coll,n 3?9100. 660000 'Â·-Â·:,~~||06-n R 68Â»00 - 1000001 0.- 39.47 ..,: 44 ~4 1 2..7 41:14.1 ; Featur.. < W / ... m.â€¢Z ~1~.Â·,*~ Ed' RL u h.r A Street ,"IerOIL.'44*3 5 )9%1*.. tir.LF Stre-*.00Â¢y , 9*a - $:re-wl:elt=4 'Mul '/2 . G:JO US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 2009-545-238/10282 American American Factfindeft f:adS inde An,eri factfinder.census.gov an Fae FinderÂ® The U.S. Census Bureau is the most trusted and definitive source of statistics about the American people and the nation's erican economy. American FactfinderÂ® is the Census Bureau's online, self-service tool designed to deliver a wide variety of MA FactFinde population, economic, geographic, and housing information about the United States to individuals, educators, businesses, governments, and organizations. American FactfinderÂ® provides easy access to accurate, relevant, and timely information that supports learning, enhances decision-making, empowers individuals, and strengthens communities. Lan , -Â® fac USCENSUSBUREAU U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration Helping You Make Informed Decisions U.S. CENSUS BUREAU Quick Guide to American FactFinderÂ® factfinder.census.gov **f New users, start here: ~ cad- CE:~~:,~2 -696,= '~Z~J Amefican Factfinder < . Population Finder-A single source for U.S. ....,M-",M,~1 population trends since 1990. Your source for popidation. housing. economic. and geographic data POPULATION FINDER FACT SHEET Popillalion FÂ»Hlet Fact Sheet-A single-page overview with links ~~ Get a Fact Slieet for your community . PEOPLE Use the Pooulation Finder to view cityitown, 1 popuiat,on trends foryour communitÂ¢ to demographic profiles, thematic maps, and HOUSING ./U.M couty or * 1 more. BUSINESS AND /3 2[ 34 GMT (EST+51 Jul 01,2009 state ~- select a state - 8 . U.S. Populatioll Clock GOVERNMENT --7. or select a slate usna amee , 0 306,808,577 People, Housing, Business and Government ABOUT THE DATA 'AN""17"mmgmiplill'llillill'll'll'llill more 00Â¤ulation cle,k; I Dece,liial Censils - taken e.gly 1 0 years to collect information -Easy-to-use links to popular tables and maps DATA SETS about the people and housing of the United States - learn motel g~!20 ./~ â€¢2 2008 Populati,NI grouped by topic. DOWNLOAD CENTER See the Courl Wesbon ResÂ©Uion Procam for wormatbon on ~ 1.j~ Estilliales are expanded to Census 20~ C/,j,t H/recmâ„¢/ l-f include the demographic MAPS Ametican Commuluty Sillvey - an ongoing surreythat 1#-~ chafacteristics ofage, race, About the Data--Learn more about the data A provides dataaboutyourcommunit,ever,yeal ~ sex and Hispanic Origin TOOLS AND MId learn mc*el aet data \ contained in American FactFinderÂ®. / / REFERENCES Pue,10 Rico CommunRy Slivey - the equ,valent of the 2008 Population Estil,Ms for counties American Community Survey for Puerto Rico and Puerto Rico municipios are now learn more I aet data I en es//4/1 available from the Data Sets Daae. Addless Seach- Pop,Ilation Eslimates PI og, ali - populat}on numbers between censuses 2007 Ackâ€žced Repot dataare now Experienced users, start here:~ Erder a street address learn more I let deta available from the Economic Census Q@12 to lind Census 2000 22!22/gle. clate Fcoi,omic relisils - pronles me US economy every 5 yeprs learn more I Get dia 2007 Is MI A, eas - No lie,1, Mai iana Data Sets-Access the detailed results from: â€¢ Biowser Notes Al li,lal Ecoi,omic Sliveys - data from the Annual Sulvey of Istantls data are now available from the Manufactures, Countf 8usiness Patterns and NonemplOYe, Economic Census Data Sets P3(Ie â€¢ Cont,der,lial#v Statistics â€¢ Decennial and economic censuses â€¢ alina Factfinder learn molel clet cleta Up,lates lo Amelical, Factfit~le, released â€¢ American Community Survey (ACS) December 9,2008. m,Ii.2 2005.2007 Amelican Coinimi,ity Sit,vey â€¢ Annual Population Estimates Program (PEP) 3-Yeal Esll,nates are now available for ~~ La Encuesta sobre la Comunidad de Puerto â€¢ Annual economic surveys F~lilM Rico y Censo 2000 Pueno Rico en eseariol cmes, counties and other areas with populations of 20,000 or more from the ~I~J Amencan Indian and Alaska Native data an,! Data Sets oaae Download Center-Download large data Fastfacts for Congress - Demographic and 2007 Commoilly Flow Sit,vey data are ~-~~ economic data for Congressional Distncts now available from the Economic Census ,, extracts from American FactFinderÂ®. Kids' Corner - Learn fun facts about Your state and take a qutz Data Sets Daae. Resources and tools for all users: Maps and Geography-Access the reference -- and thematic mapping tools in American / Settings for Optimal Usage FactFinderÂ®. - â€¢ Monitor resolution 800x600 or higher. Tools and References-Access data extraction â€¢ Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0, Netscape 7.1, or equivalent. ' and manipulation tools and reference ~ m Browser set to accept cookies. ~~~ 's documentation. â€¢ JavaScript enabled. Find answers to frequently asked questions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. factfinder.census.gov Click the FAQs link at the top of any Call or visit Partnership and Data Services in your Census American FactFinderÂ® page. Bureau Regional Office for local data and assistance, workshops, and presentations: Visit the Questions and Answers page via the Contact Us link at the bottom of Atlanta 1-800-424-6974 Detroit 1-800-432-1495 any American FactFinderÂ® page. Boston 1-800-562-5721 Kansas City 1-800-728-4748 Charlotte 1-800-331-7360 Los Angeles 1-800-992-3530 Call the Census Bureau's Customer Chicago 1-800-865-6384 New York 1-800-991-2520 Services Center at 301-763 (INFO) or Dallas 1-800-835-9752 Philadelphia 1-800-262-4236 1-800-923-8282 during normal Denver 1-800-852-6159 Seattle 1-800-233-3308 business hours, Eastern time. Go to <www.census.gov/field/www> for a complete listing of regional offices with contact information. USCENSUSBUREAU MSO/09Â·AFF Issued July 2009 Estes Park town, Colorado - Population Finder - American FactFinder Page 1 of 1 American Factfinden POPULATION FINDER city/ town, county, or zip United States I Colorado I Estes Park town ' ~estes park j Estes Park town, Colorado state ~ Colorado =1 m search by address Â» The 2009 population estimate for Estes Park town, Colorado is 6,543. Note: Information about challenges to population estimates data can be found on the Population Estimates Challenges page. View population trends... 2009 2000 1990 Population I 6,543 I 5,413 I 3,184 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 Population Estimates, Census 2000,1990 Census View more results... Population for all cities and towns in Colorado, 2000: alphabetic 1 ranked Map of Persons per Square Mile, City/Town by Census Tract: 2000 1 1990 See more data for Estes Park town, Colorado on the Fact Sheet. The letters PDF or symbol /* indicate a document is in the Portable Document Format (PDF). To view the file you will need the AdobeÂ® AcrobatÂ® Reader, which is available for free from the Adobe web site. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation? event=&geo_id=16000US0825115... 9/10/2010 ill# 1 4/7 2. Estes Park town, Colorado - Fact Sheet - American FactFinder Page l of 2 - American FactFinder FACT SHEET Estes Park town, Colorado View a Fact Sheet for a race, ethnic, or ancestry group Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights: General Characteristics - show more Â» Number Percent U.S. Total population 5,413 map brief Male 2,597 48.0 49.1% map brief Female 2,816 52.0 50.9% map brief Median age (years) 45.0 0<) 35.3 map brief Under 5 years 244 4.5 6.8% map 18 years and over 4,462 82.4 74.3% 65 years and over 1,118 20.7 12.4% map brief One race 5,350 98.8 97.6% White 5,150 95.1 75.1% map brief Black or African American 17 0.3 12.3% map brief American Indian and Alaska Native 26 0.5 0.9% map brief Asian 42 0.8 3.6% map brief Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 3 0.1 0.1% map brief Some other race 112 2.1 5.5% map Two or more races 63 1.2 2.4% map brief Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 301 5.6 12.5% map brief Household population 5,365 99.1 97.2% map brief Group quarters population 48 0.9 2.8% map Average household size 2.11 09 2.59 map brief Average family size 2.61 09 3.14 map Total housing units 3,323 map Occupied housing units 2,541 76.5 91.0% brief Owner-occupied housing units 1,527 60.1 66.2% map Renter-occupied housing units 1,014 39.9 33.8% map brief Vacant housing units 782 23.5 9.0% map Social Characteristics - show more >> Number Percent U.S. Population 25 years and over 4,047 High school graduate or higher 3,805 94.0 80.4% map brief Bachelor's degree or higher 1,752 43.3 24.4% map Civilian veterans (civilian population 18 years and 750 17.1 12.7% map brief oveo Disability status (population 5 years and over) 738 14.8 19.3% map brief Foreign born 334 6.3 11.1% map brief Male, Now married, except separated (population 15 1,322 59.4 56.7% brief years and over) Female, Now married, except separated (population 1,370 58.8 52.1% brief 15 years and over) Speak a language other than English at home 391 7.8 17.9% map brief (population 5 years and oveO Economic Characteristics - show more >> Number Percent U.S. In labor force (population 16 years and over) 2,877 64.0 63.9% brief Mean travel time to work in minutes (workers 16 years 15.9 (X) 25.5 map brief and oveO Median household income in 1999 (dollars) 43,262 (X) 41,994 map Median family income in 1999 (dollars) 55,667 (X) 50,046 map Per capita income in 1999 (dollars) 30,499 09 21,587 map Families below poverty level 48 3.2 9.2% map brief Individuals below poverty level 235 4.5 12.4% map Housing Characteristics - show more >> Number Percent U.S. Single-family owner-occupied homes 1,268 brief http://factfinder.census.gov/servleUSAFFFacts?_event==Search&geo_id=16000US0884440... 9/10/2010 Estes Park town, Colorado - Fact Sheet - American FactFinder Page 2 of 2 Median value (dollars) 233,900 09 119,600 map brief Median of selected monthly owner costs (X) 00 brief With a mortgage (dollars) 1,162 09 1,088 map Not mortgaged (dollars) 320 09 295 (X) Not applicable. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 3) The letters PDF or symbol /6- indicate a document is in the Portable Document Format (PDF). To view the file you will need the AdobeÂ® AcrobatÂ® Reader, which is available for free from the Adobe web site. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=16000US0884440... 9/10/2010 CURRENT SURVEYS Ae L juy ' a- -TI - Â» a. 1 i 71 ~7 h J. r'i'.r.7/livillillau, - -*39Â£*M*.~*i, - t. pr -1/ 1312+ - V - - Are You in the Census and in a Current Survey? Many Americans think the U.S. Census Bureau's only mission is to conduct the once every 10-year census. But did you know we conduct surveys every month involving thousands of households and businesses throughout the country? Whether you get a flu shot at a local clinic, participate in an after-school program, or draw unemployment benefits, there's a good chance that data collected throughout the decade by the Census Bureau were used in the planning of these services. Our on-going surveys, called "current surveys", collect data that are used to continuously monitor and assess social and economic trends and conditions that affect our society. Information from these surveys supply in-depth and current information on characteristics of the American people such as labor force participation, income, crime victimization, incarceration rates and measures of health. Didn't I already answer the census? You may have answered the census, a count of everyone living in the United States every 10 years, as mandated by the U.S. Constitution. However, your address-not you personally-has also been chosen to be part of a randomly selected sample for one of the current surveys conducted by the Census Bureau. Why can't you use my census answers for this survey? The current surveys conducted by the Census Bureau include niany questions not asked by the census, and the two serve very different purposes. Sharing responses across surveys is prohibited-the law protects you and your information. All Census Bureau employees, including temporary employees, are required to take an oath for life to protect personally identifiable information about individuals or businesses gathered by the agency. The penalty for unlawful disclosure is a fine of up to $250,000 or imprisonment of up to 5 years, or both. Why is my response important? Current surveys help measure present and emerging trends at the national and state levels. By responding, you help businesses, policy makers, and community planners identify and provide needed services to your neighborhood. What if I have more questions? Visit our Web site at <http://www.census.gov/survey_participants/> for more information on participating in a current survey or a census. USCENSUSBUREAU H.1)-E-CS (2009) What Current Surveys Are Being Conducted? h American Community Survey (ACS) - The American -14' lo-='Â·%,d :11 .1, Community Survey is a key component of the Census ..Mp. ....Ar~Jild,PH Bureau's decennial census program. The ACS eliminates the need for a separate long form in the 2010 Census by ,0[ -U providing detailed demographic, social, economic, and housing characteristics for the United States every year 4*.-~A instead of every 10 years. 9-= I --~.. Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) - The Consumer . Expenditure Survey program consists of two surveys, '94. the Quarterly Interview Survey and the Diary Survey, &83. 1 ) that provide information on the buying habits of American consumers, including data on their expenditures, income, ~- and consumer unit (families and single consumers) characteristics. The Census Bureau collects the survey data for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Current Population Survey (CPS) - The Current Population Survey collects up-to-date figures on people who have jobs, those who want jobs and those who are not in the market for jobs. The Census Bureau collects the information and the U.S. Department of Labor publishes the results. The survey results include a number of high-profile economic statistics, including the nation's unemployment rate that you read or hear about monthly in the news. National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) - The National Crime Victimization Survey obtains accurate and current measures on the amount and kinds of crimes committed in the United States. The survey is used to assess the impact of crime on society, and it is the primary source of information on criminal victimization. The Census Bureau conducts the NCVS for the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, which is part of the U.S. Department of Justice. National Health Interview Survey (HIS) - The National Health interview Survey obtains information about the health status of children and adults, including health conditions and functional difficulties people might have, health behaviors, such as smoking, drinking and exercise; and access to health insurance and the kinds of health services people might receive. Puerto Rico Community Survey (PRCS) -The Puerto Rico Community Survey is the version of the ACS that is conducted iii Puerto Rico. Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) - The Survey of Income and Program Participation collects information on income received from a variety of sources, on general demographic characteristics, ancl on other data related to government program participation and eligibility. USCENSUSBUREAU US Census Bureau Denver Region Serving the Community's Data Needs Federal Programs Rely on Census Data Some of the Community Programs that Depend on Census Bureau Data To Guide the Allocation of Funds to Their Projects ... - .. ./1 Employment and Training Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Health Services Community Action Programs Mental Health Centers Vocational Rehabilitation Housing and Community Development Student Loans Vocational Education ~ Handicapped Children Community Colleges Federal Aid to Highways : Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Land and Water Conservation ~ Head Start 1 Cooperative Extension Service ~ Highway Safety Law Enforcement Assistance ~ Agricultural Research R Energy Research and Development Industrial Development Special Programs for the Elderly ~ Rural Development Emergency School Aid Programs for Veterans Summer Youth Recreation Water and Waste Disposal , Senior Community Service Employment Program State Reading Improvement Program I Summer Programs for Disadvantaged Youth Nutrition for the Elderly Title 1 Funding for Schools Public Library Construction Services State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Indian and Native American Employment Unemployment Insurance US Census Bureau 6950 W. Jefferson Avenue Suite 100 Lakewood, CO 80235 Phone: 720-475-3670 <*ENT OF CQI, ' Fax: 720-533-4237 1- Email: denver.pdsp@census.gov . -,1 04