The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Light and Power 1988-08-04e LIGHT AND POWER COMMITTEE ~~' August 4, 1988 AGENDA 1. Service Building a. Zoning delay b. Park site REPORTS a. Ski Estes Park b. Disconnects c. Rate Conversions d. Bankruptcies e. Public Power Week f. Platte River Power Authority g. Rocky Mountain Electrical League A bujj ~j#Â»3Dour of Service Building site area regarding potential park site FECEIVED 2 6 1988 To: Vicki O'Connor Town Clerk Town of Estes Park, Colorado rOWN ADMINISTRATOR The undersigned, being registered electors of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, hereby certify that they are the organizers of a petition effort to protest the adoption of Ordinance No. 16-88 zoning the real estate known as Elm Road Addition to the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, as C-O Outlying Commercial District, pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes 1-40-115(1) as amended, and pursuant to the provisions of said C.R.S. 1-40-115(1) as amended, request a fifteen day extension from and after the 30 day period after final passage and publication of the above Ordinance, so that petitioners can secure the necessary signatures for the Petition of Protest. The persons who represent the petition effort are: 1. Robert D. Mitchell 2. Helen E. Mitchell 3. Norman H. Silge 4. Curtis Thompson 5. Marjorie D. Oliver Attached is a copy of the Petition. It is the intent of the organizers to file, the necessary signatures within the extended time. Dated this 25th day of July, 1988. 6 * L . *i ~ fi 371.(-9'j 1 0 L*,7 4%444113 b. tvvAA,UJ C. .0 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this -25+h day of Jhi ly , 1988 by Robert D. Mitchell, Helen E. Mitchell, Norman H. Silge, Curtis Thompson and Marjorie D. Oliver. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: May 13. 1989 81/ul Â£02. Ldl.L-j Notary Public - i Â·-14.-,A 1 11~6 J f : TOWN OF ESTES PARK 1 1 44) N - ...1 92? TÂ· , 11'. il'r $ 4,1' hi . .4, -tr ., t ; fl 1 1,-4,4/*"CY.1 --* f,))49./% , jur*-*,4 v f.k Estes Park, Colorado 80517 July 27, 1988 Mr. Robert D. Mitchell Ms. Helen E. Mitchell Mr. Norman H. Silge Mr. Curt Thompson Ms. Marjorie D. Oliver Moraine Route Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Subject: Petition of Protest Dear Mr. Mitchell, etal: Pursuant to your notice, we reviewed your Protest Petition which was filed with me July 26, 1988. Please-be advised the petition format is hereby approved; there- fore, your request for a fifteen (15) day extension from the 30-day enforcement period of Ordinance #16-88 is granted. The petition must be filed no later than August 16, 1988. Sincerely, TOWN OF ESTES PARK Vickie O'Connor Town Clerk 1' C 1 1111/ 1 11)(1 11Â·11Â·1,11('tte ( Sfit) '52,(, 0, tti - 4*644.100 t O. 2/hoihe) MEMO TO: Gary Klaphake, Town Administrator AUG 1 19~ FROM: Gregory A. White , TOma.nuti:STRAVOR DATE: July 29, 1988 RE: Elm Road Zoning Petition This memo is written for the purpose of outlining procedures and options following the filing *of the Petition of Protest concerning Ordinance No. 16-88 zoning the Elm Road Addition, C-0. 1. The Petition is in conformance with the requirements of Section 1-40-115 C.R.S. 1973. As such, the Town Clerk has to grant the request for an additional 15 days to secure the necessary signatures on the petition. The statute provides that a petition must be signed by at least 5% of the total number of electors of the Town registered on the date the Town Clerk approves the form of the petition. Also, the petition must be signed by registered electors. 2. If on or before August 16, 1988, a petition is filed containing the appropriate number of signatures and those signatures are confirmed by the Town Clerk as being appropriate, the Town Board has two options. i. The Town shall reconsider the ordinance and repeal the ordinance. il. If the Town does not repeal the ordinance, it shall submit the ordinance to the vote of registered electors at a regular or special election. The appropriate date for an election is the general election to be held on November the 8th, 1988. NOTE: The Town Clerk needs to certify to the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder this ballot question at least 60 days prior to the election. 3. If a majority of the electors voting at the election votes in favor of the ordinance, the ordinance would take effect at that time. The ordinance itself is held in abeyance for the period of time until the election. The Town has the following potential options with regard to this matter. 1. The Town can follow the procedure set forth above with regard to an election if the appropriate petition is filed with the appropriate number of signatures. 2. The Town can repeal the ordinance following the filing of the petition as the petition requests. Repeal of the ordinance would leave the Town with the following two options. a. Adopt the same ordinance with the emergency clause. The emergency clause could be justified with regard to the necessity to begin construction immediately on the project. Adoption of an emergency clause prevents anyone from challenging the ordinance through the referendum process outlined in Section 1-40-115 C.R.S. 1973. b. Adopt another zoning ordinance placing the property in another zoning classification. If the zoning ordinance is adopted with an emergency clause, the process of referendum would not be available as set forth above. However, it should be noted that any of the residential district classification would only allow the use through the special review process. Going through the special review process would be time consuming and also raise the potential of Court challenges at any stage with regard to that review process. Problems Associated with Option 2 above: a. Petitioners could claim that the Town's readoption of the ordinance was merely an attempt to prevent them from exercising their constitutional right of referendum. Although the Colorado Supreme Court has upheld, in several decisions, that the emergency clause prevents referendum, I am not sure that a sequence of events as outlined above would be successful with regard to this matter. b. A significant problem is the fact that the Petitioners could resort to the initiated ordinance process set forth in section 1-40-116 C.R.S. 1973. This process differs from the referendum in that an actual ordinance is initiated by petition that with the requisite number of signatures and procedures is then placed before the voters. It should be noted that a notice of intent to file such a petition creates a 180 day period of time in which to file the petition. This 180 day period would merely complicate and delay final resolution of the matter. 3. Build the project without the necessary zoning. The Colorado Annexation Ordinance allows building permits to be -2- issued by the Municipality in its discretion for recently annexed land that has not been zoned. However, Section 17.36.010 of the Municipal Code prohibits that act. Although it is my opinion that the provisions of the Colorado Annexation Statute would control over the Municipal Code, violation of the Municipal Code by the Town raises certain legal and political questions. 4. The Town could, through the local media, attempt to prevent the petitioners from obtaining the necessary number of signatures. There are no legal barriers to this method of operation. The above represents a listing of potential options available to the Town following the receipt of the notice of petition of protest. I have not listed any practical or political considerations with regard to the above options as that is the province of the Town Board in consultation with the rest of the Town staff. Status of the Aldridge Contract on the Light and Power Shop: At the time of filing the Petition of Protest, the Town had complied with the provisions of paragraph 13 of the information for bidders in the contract documents. Under the provisions of paragraphs 14 and 15 of that document, the Town has the right to withdraw the award of contract at any time prior to the execution of the contract by the Town. The execution of the contract agreement by the Town would only follow the filing by the contractor of those documents set forth in paragraph 13. The contractor is entitled to no compensation or damages if the contract agreement is terminated any time prior to the issuance of the notice to proceed. The notice to proceed would only be issued following the award of contract. It is my recommendation that the contractor be given written notice of the filing of the petition of protest. That notice should provide that the contract procedure shall be suspended until August 16, 1988. At that time, the Town should either proceed to award the contract under the provisions of paragraph 14 or withdraw the award of contract at that time. Withdrawal of the award of contract prior to August 16, 1988, by the Town would terminate the obligation of the contractor to perform under the contract agreements. Also, the Town would be faced with rebidding the project even if the petition of protest is not filed by August 16th. It is my opinion that the Town should receive written acceptance from the contractor of the suspension procedure. -3- 91 *:4 v TOWN OF ESTES PARK Light and Power Department Robert L. Dekker ah A =ar A Director i*44,7. k,[ --- -' " /32â‚¬12/K twilrial -7-x - /0 - 2281 +4---4 4 Â»C-. ./-#9(?{i&~. fÂ«r .2 12-5 A< -94-0\â‚¬14*1~~~ -1~~i~V- r - f $ f , S. V Estes Park, Colorado 80517 August 4, 1988 MEMORANDUM TO: Light and Power Committee FROM: Robert L. Dekker SUBJECT: Light and Power Service Building The following are rough estimates for the Town's additional costs if construction of the L&P service building is delayed and/or moved to a different location: Delayed until Election Costs - $ 5,000 Additional successful Re-bid - $ 5,000 Cost election Work at existing shop - $10,000 $20,000 Move to: Williams Property $187,900 Nytes Property $288,700 Parrack Property $174,000 Nagle Property $274,000 RLD:cj P. O. Box 1200 Telephone (303) 586-5331 1 0 4 6 Shutoffs for July, 1988: 63 calls, 22 notes, 12 off. <'c 001 TOWN OF ESTES PARK MEMORANDUM 1 -9 22 + 886-I ' P lenbnv e,Da Light & Power Committee Â§@INBM@9 4--- 1: &52%*EN @ EN@Â§@ 51 i @@9 0 9985121 08 ----- -- 911 (0 ,-1 .-1 914 r-1 (D t-4 00 r-1 A Mi#faima m Â§ S 0-r--1-r-1,-1 6 -I W--I---I-W- .1 4 0%*gififi li@ 4 * -i; 113 9 4 ~1}55Â§&Â° rlr-Ir-irtr-1,-1 00 (0 [9 (D (0 41 ...... m %*%9919 Â§1 M ...... 11Â§0@*0 6 R %#55Â§509%415 6 6 1+ 14 tâ„¢ 00 00 4 1+ 00 G) 01 5/Â§%@02Â§900Â§1 irm Ma9gw}@wgm@0 M{Â§55*M 1% I =i rs =i 4 4 -6 0 -052300 m E b~Â¢ ANNMMM 2 24 @INg@*Â§ 2 4 ------ da mi S.9Â§ 519 58 Di R e 0%5*15=R/sim= 5 IM ./Ii 606506Mt<500~0009 ---- 3-m- ~MIBIE#EA~Ee 5@9%09@@ium .il 5Â§95@@@am NE B 210 QB M N~ MERs** 8 :Mal#183111*whE: 0 % 6ZE'IEZ$ (OIE'GEES) AGE'*I- %00'OOI 3$ 900.00I 0I9'006'9$ 29.0 889'I9Z'I PUEEED % CF KIZK 11 % (F NmAL 88-IO-IO Z 88-IO-I0