Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2024-05-14 May 14, 2024 4:30 p.m. — 6:45 p.m. Board Room EP TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION AGENDA ACCESSING MEETING TRANSLATIONS (Accediendo a las Traducciones de la Reunion) y rn ', To access written translation during the meeting, please scan the QR Code or click �•• this link for up to 48 other languages (Para acceder a /a traduccion durante la flu reunion, par favor escanee el codigo QR o haga clic en el enlace para hasta 48 • idiomas mas): Cot 1. " r https://attend.wordly.ai/join/FLUL-1105 •. '.• Choose Language and Click Attend(Seleccione su lenguaje y haga clic en asistir) Use a headset on your phone for audio or read the transcript can assist those having difficulty hearing (Use un auricular en su telefono para audio o lea la transcripcion puede ayudar a aquellos que tienen dificultades para escuchar). No public comment will be heard This study session will be streamed live and available on the Town YouTube page at www.estes.org/videos 4:30 p.m. Big Horn Parking Structure Design Considerations for 3rd and 4th Level. (Director Muhonen) 5:05 p.m. Relief for Downtown Business Impacts from Construction. (Town Administrator Machalek and Director Muhonen) Dinner provided to the Board at approximately 5:30 p.m. 5:50 p.m. Governance Orientation. (Town Administrator Machalek) 6:35 p.m. Trustee & Administrator Comments & Questions. 6:40 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items. (Board Discussion) 6:45 p.m. Adjourn for Town Board Meeting. Informal discussion among Trustees concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 4:15 p.m. 1 1� A IP TOWN OF ESTES PARI Report PUBLIC WORKS To: Honorable Mayor Hall Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director Derek Pastor, PMP, Public Works Project Manager Date: May 14, 2024 RE: Big Horn Parking Structure Design Considerations for 3rd and 4th Level Purpose of Study Session Item: Present to the Town Board three (3) ideas for consideration regarding the Big Horn Parking Structure project. These concepts will guide the direction for the design of the parking structure. Town Board Direction Requested: Town Board input on which option would be preferred for incorporation into a Request for Proposal for the design of the parking structure. This will also guide staff in the preparation of future budget requests. Present Situation: The Cleave Street Improvement Project is currently underway with an expected completion date of Spring 2025. This project will eliminate 41 parking spaces on Cleave Street that are currently used by the adjacent residents, business owners, employees, and guests. (See Cleave Street Corridor Rendering) Based on conversations between Public Works and the Estes Park Housing Authority, three (3) options have been discussed regarding the future design of the Big Horn Parking Structure: 1. Design and build a two-level `microstructure' consisting of a ground level parking accessed from Cleave Street and an additional level of parking accessed directly from Big Horn Drive. This would provide an estimated 40-45 additional/new parking spaces and mitigate the loss of parking spaces caused by the Cleave Street project. This is the project concept previously shared with the Town Board in 2023. The estimated design cost is $200,000 and the estimated construction cost is $2,000,000 2. Design the new parking structure with two new elevated levels a parking. Based on the topography of the slope on Big Horn, we believe both the second and third levels would be separate and accessible from different points on Big Horn Drive. The first level parking would still be accessible from Cleave St. We anticipate 40- 45 spaces on each level. The intent would be to have the design and construction documents expanded to include all three levels. See the attached Big Horn Parking Structure Concepts sketch. The estimated design cost is $400,000 and the estimated construction cost is $4,000,000 a. Aspects of this idea were discussed with Community Development: i. It was determined that the maximum height of this structure could be no taller than 30ft above the average of the finished grade (1st level of Cleave Street and 3rd level of Big Horn). There is no concern of exceeding the height restrictions for this option ii. The structure will need to have a 10-foot setback from the adjacent residential building to the west (EPHA) and an 8-foot setback on all other sides. 3. Design the structure with second and third level parking accessible from Big Horn as described in Option 2. Additionally, design a fourth level to accommodate residential housing units only (no additional parking). This would demonstrate movement toward fulfilling the housing need identified in the 2023 Housing Strategic Plan and Needs Assessment published by the Estes Park Housing Authority. This design alternative would also include a single cab elevator to access all levels, but would not be built until triggered by construction of the fourth level housing units. The intent would be to have the design and construction documents prepared now and plan to build all four levels in this structure. The actual construction could be phased as directed by available funding. The foundation and structural elements needed for four levels could be built concurrently with the first, second, and third parking levels. The fourth level housing units and the elevator could be constructed during a second phase of construction. The estimated design cost is $800,000 and the estimated construction cost is $8,000,000 a. Aspects of this idea were discussed with Community Development: i. There are no density population restrictions for the proposed fourth level of Town Housing ii. It was determined that the maximum height of this structure could be no taller than 42ft above the average of the finished grade (first level of Cleave Street and fourth level at Big Horn Drive) . There is no concern of exceeding the height restrictions for this option iii. The setback requirements are the same as for Option 2. Advantages: • Forward thinking design will better prepare the Town for future growth in the immediate area for parking and housing accommodations. • The flexibility will be designed to implement the construction in phases or during a single project as funding allows. • Additional levels and available parking may exceed the expectations of the residents and business owners concerned about the displacement of on-street parking affected by the Cleave Street Improvement Project. • With the Town's current paid parking plan, additional levels would result in additional parking revenue. Disadvantages: • Expanding the project scope increases the time required to complete the design and construction. This delays commencement of this project; however, the community may believe that added parking spaces and housing units justify the added time. • Expanding the project scope will increase both the design and construction costs; however, the design and construction costs associated with retrofitting an "option 1" microstructure in the future are believed to be cost-prohibitive and not feasible. Finance/Resource Impact: Current Impacts: Funding is budgeted in the amount of $190,000 for the design on Option 1 at this time. Additional funding may be available from the 2024 Parking Revenue Funds based on the approved 45% allotment of future parking revenue funds. Design costs are typically estimated at 10% of the total construction budget, and staff will have a more accurate cost estimate after reviewing responses to a future Request for Proposals. Future Impacts: this project will increase the annual operation and maintenance cost for Estes Park Facilities in the estimated amount of $15,000 per year. Level of Public Interest Given the scope and ultimate impact/benefit to the surrounding properties and businesses and the high turnout for the public meetings, the level of public interest is expected to be high. Attachments: 1. Cleave Street Corridor Rendering 2. Big Horn Parking Structure Concepts 3. Parking Garage Height Requirements 4. Presentation ATTACHMENT 1 CLEAVE STREET IMPROVEMENT PLAN CONCEPT PLAN ESTES PARK, COLORADO a ,,., \.....„. / )( x 'N's \--------- / II I 1 1 I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 III I I \ I I I r l I • • fi, �_� o __ I--- I 1�� 1i1 _ • •rci 40, 4. am- as __. 20, -r=:-.--ems : - j-- f .. I. i 10+0 00 .0 .0 1 1 =1111017" 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 KU 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 11 I 1 1 m I 1 1 I 1 I LEGEND GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 0 15 30 60 — — EXISTING RIGHT—OF—WAY NORTH I I PAVING TYPE 1:COLORED CONCRETE WITH SAWCUT PATTERN PAVING TYPE 2:STD GREY CONCRETE DRAINAGE PAN:STD GREY CONCRETE lippW1 LANDSCAPE PLANTER:SANDSTONE WITH TREE 0 0 PLANTER POTS TBD i/ SEATING ELEMENT TBD r PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING TBD •• BOLLARDS TBD I. ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER TBD Kimley>>> Horn DECEMBER 5, 2022 ©2022 KIMLEY-HOR ASSOCIATES, INC. SITE PLAN 4582 SOUTH ULSTER STREET, SUITE 1500 DENVER, COLORADO 80237 (303) 228-2300 ATTACHMENT 2 PLAN VIEW- SCALE 1" = 20' PARKING SPACE COUNTS 41 SPACES REMOVED 14 PARALLEL STREET SPACES REMOVED ±136 SPACES ADDED 1 1 1 NET GAIN=±81 SPACES,7 MOTORCYCLE SPACES 1 I PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS=8'X18' \`\ NEW SIDEWALK N PARKING LAYOUT CONCEPTS \`N UPPER ENTRANCE 6b SCALE 1" = 30' N. NR �• F SCALE:1"=20' LEVEL 1 _ I 556 48 SPACES 1. _ ` .- 55 -:MIDDLE ENTRANCE I \\ PROPERTY LINE �- I�^-a'-tl L-te .,-- 75 / j554 \///\ I_ ,52 9 , ----".. 4*. -'11r41. ' --% i ,a' 44 i adm EXISTING PARKING LOT N g a104' 41 SPACES(1 ADA) h � \! s p PhOTENYALTRANSrnRMEoCATIoN lb' 4 ME==r \\ ® 4 CLEAVE ST. / APARTMENTS / ® \' ® I OUTLIVE OF PROPOSED 3-LEVEL PARKNG STRUCTURE i' NEW TRANSFORMER PAD -_ (CLEAVE ST.PROJECT) 11\1\ \ " a3 ti 1 189,, 11\ 1 1� afi__ i All EXISnNG SIDEWALK LEVEL 2 -l.4 , .° ° . - -' - - 'S° \ 46 SPACES IC CLEAVE ST. i i \ y -"--,,, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '1 ) \ . 3D RENDERING D LEVEL 3 ° CLEAVE ST. 42 SPACES J APARTMENTS __ J � �i� 7 MOTORCYCLE SPACES a iii • ���� 0 o !"-7-- _, 0 0 b4 W J --=%=— CD CC C- d Z CC 0 I CD BIG HORN PARKING STRUCTURE 4 TOWN OF ESTES PARK PROJECT#: PROJECT MANAGER CONTRACTOR REVISION DATE No SHEET DRAWING NUMBER [0 CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT FOR PROJECT# DEREK PASTOR TBD 4t LOTS 1 7, ESTES PARK 97D-57T-395T ~ Ep PUBLIC WORKS ofDRAWING ISSUE DESIGNED/DRAWN: BOR CONTACT TBD ENGINEERING@ESTES.ORG-970-577-3587 BIG HORN PARKING STRUCTURE CHECKED N/A PHONE: TBD CONCEPTUAL SCALE AS SHOWN EMAIL TBD CC hnps://eslespark.Colorado.gov/depadments/publicworks DATE: APRIL 19,2024 d MASTER FILE PATH: U:\ENGINEERING\00-PROJECT FILES/CAD/PROJECTS/BIG HORN PARKING STRUCTURE TOPO.DWG SECTION VIEW LOOKING NORTH FROM CLEAVE STREET HORIZONTAL SCALE:1"=10' VERTICAL SCALE:1"=10' N O P.— n o= =o - -r o— —. 142'1 18.0.AVAILABLE BUILDING SPACE MAXIMUM BUILDABLE HEIGHT PER CODE 2— WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS EL=7598.5 — N— .. ,. _of MINIMUM FFE=7578.5 - O— CENTERLINE OF BIG S— HORN DR.ELEVATION. ... ... — 1////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /PARKING DECK LEVEL 3 / —.1 — FFE=7566.5 e //iiiiTh 7.776 // / / //////////////////////// / /// //////////////////////// / / ///// ////////// HIGHEST FINISH GRADE / .G 1//// / / N _ EL=]566.5 /////////////////// /f 7 )l'�4///////////////////- // //' //////////////////////// / '/ ///// i/////////// / PARKING DECK LEVEL 2 Co AVERAGE FINISH GRADE / ��..� .. .. .. / _Co EL=7554.5 / FFE=7554.5 = / N .APARTMENTS .////////// v ^ IEXISTING GRADE ALONG ////////// / o CLEAVE ST ��SIDEWALK O �_ N y PARKING DECK LEVEL 1 ,�� � -------- FFE=7542.5 / ` —_ `—S� —' LOWEST FINIS INI ELG 54P 5�f//////////////////////////////////////////////////7/777777'77 i`//77' �ZxZxZ/,L/G/ —/—/_///////////////////ZZ ///, ` V O ✓ 0+75 1+'25 1+`75 2+25 2+75 5 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 CD Z_ E Q cK 0 W II 0 I- U 0 CC I- 0 Z CC C- d Z CC 0 0 BIG HORN PARKING STRUCTURE 4 TOWN OF ESTES PARK HEIGHT CODE ANALYSIS PROJECT#: PROJECT# PROJECT MANAGER CONTRACTOR REVISION DATE NO SHEET DRAWING NUMBER FO DEREK PASTOR TBD LOTS 1 7, ESTES PARK 970-577-3957 0 Ep PUBLIC WORKS OF PROPOSED WORKFORCE HOUSING DRAWING ISSUE DESIGNED/DRAWN BN/AOA CONTACT TBD ENGINEERING@ESTES.ORG-970-577-3587 CHECKED SHOWN PHONE: TBD IX CONCEPTUAL SCALE AS SHOWN EMAIL TBD IX hitps.//estespark.Colorado.gov/departmenis/publicworks DATE: APRIL 19,2024 d MASTER FILE PATH: U:\ENGINEERING\00-PROJECT FILES/CAD/PROJECTS/BIG HORN PARKING STRUCTURE TOPO.DWG 4/9/24, 1:00 PM What are some typical standards for parking garage functional design?-THA Consulting Website T-IA ATTACHMENT 3 THA CONSULTING NAVIGATION SUBNAVIGATION FUNCTIONAL DESIGN ] I 11 / Mp a a a qM I_ it N. a a a a o a a a - gum C]\ { IIIIIIIIIII � IICII � ��� I u a_� a 1 1 I .. . . . . . , __, /}^\� V V III ■ . ., _. n .\\ n \\ 2 \ vV V�V\V I `C u 1, n - Nvn , Nvn . •\N .\—V . ® ® ® \\. i What are some typical standards for parking garage functional design? Posted on April. 8th, 2019 https://www.tha-consulting.com/parking-database/what-are-some-typical-standards-for-parking-garage-functional-design/ 1/4 4/9/24, 1:00 PM What are some typical standards for parking garage functional design?-THA Consulting Website The best design of a parking facility depends first and foremost on a number of factors including user, location, federal/state/local codes, building size, functional layout, etc... However, there are typical design standards common in many parking garage designs. The following are some useful standards that may help answer some of your most common questions: Parking Space Size The size of parking spaces allowed is mandated by the local zoning or land development ordinances. For example, in Philadelphia commercial districts, the minimum size parking space allowed is 8'6" x 18'0". The size for parking stalls should be based on typical use. A general rule for this is: the lower the turnover, or the more urban a location is, the smaller the parking spaces can be tolerated by users. On the other hand, areas with high turnover, and which are less urban, will generally have larger spaces. However, variances or design wavers are often sought for parking space dimensions when conditions justify the design. Vehicle width vs. Parking Stall Width A car door opening clearance is approximately 20 to 24 inches. Adjacent parking spaces share this clearance while vehicles are parked. When parking adjacent to a built wall or structure, a common practice is to add an additional foot of stall width to the typical space. Vertical circulation for ramps Ramp slopes with parking generally range from 5% to 6.67% maximum (per Building Code). When additional overhead height is required at a tier, a speed ramp can be incorporated into the design for vehicle circulation. Speed ramp slopes can range from 6.67% to 16 % with appropriate transition slopes included at top and bottom. [ Considering vertical circulation of floor to floor heights, these typically range from 10'0" to 12'0". Applicable Building Codes, Accessible Codes and local codes dictate minimum required overhead clearance heights.Typical minimum required overhead clearances are 8'-2" for van accessible parking spaces, and 7'-0" for typical spaces and other accessible spaces. In multi- level parking structures, van accessible parking spaces are permitted to be grouped on a single level. Garage footprint dimensions The minimum dimensions for a garage footprint consist of two structural bays. Two 60 foot clear parking modules (2-way, 90 degree parking) would result in a width of 123 feet when including applicable structural members. On the other hand, two one-way bays with angled parking would be slightly less wide. Additional overall parking garage width would increase in increments of the established parking module. https://www.tha-consulting.com/parking-database/what-are-some-typical-standards-for-parking-garage-functional-design/ 2/4 4/9/24, 1:00 PM What are some typical standards for parking garage functional design?-THA Consulting Website For general planning purposes, the minimum garage length consists of the ramp, plus the turning bays located at each end of the garage. For a garage with two-way traffic there is typically 180 feet of ramp, two end bays of 28 feet, and two spandrel widths of 1 foot. For improved efficiency, the garage with two way traffic with end bay parking must have 180 ft. of ramp, two end bays of48 feet, and two spandrel widths of one foot. Variations of a typical garage layout are sometimes required based on project requirements or site constraints. An example is when the site will not accommodate a typical length ramp and both structural bays are required to be ramped at half levels to meet overhead height requirements. A single helix with a two-way circulation design should be limited to five or six tiers because of the number of turns required to pass all parking spaces. However, for a double threaded helix with one-way circulation, the design allow for a vehicle to circulate up and then back down without making a Y-turn at the top. Additionally, a crossover is provided at ramp mid- points to allow vehicles to switch from upward to downward travel to shorten the distance needed to exit the facility. Accessible Spaces Typically, accessible spaces are a minimum of 8'-0" wide with a minimum 5'-0" wide access aisle. Two adjacent spaces may share the 5'-0"access aisle. Van accessible spaces are minimum 8'-0" wide with a minimum of 8'-0" wide access aisle. Accessible parking spaces should always be located in the most convenient location for the user traveling to their final point of destination. Further, when possible, accessible spaces should always be located in covered areas. Federal, state and local codes should always be examined, as they may require additional design requirements for accessible parking. *Federal, State, and Local codes govern most of these requirements and should be thoroughly investigated. Data presented herein should be considered guidelines only. For more specific information and assistance with implementation of these guidelines, please contact THA Consulting, Inc. via email at info(dtha-consulting.com Comments are closed. https://www.tha-consulting.com/parking-database/what-are-some-typical-standards-for-parking-garage-functional-design/ 3/4 4/9/24, 1:00 PM What are some typical standards for parking garage functional design?-THA Consulting Website View Our Projects Parking Database SEARCH https://www.tha-consulting.com/parking-database/what-are-some-typical-standards-for-parking-garage-functional-design/ 4/4 ATTACHMENT 4 A IP � TOWN OF ESTES PARIc, Big Horn Parking Structure Design Considerations Town Board Study Session Tuesday, May 14, 2024 Purpose _ lePARKESTES Present to the Town Board three (3) ideas for consideration regarding the Big Horn Parking Structure project. These concepts will guide the direction for the design of the parking structure. Big Horn Parking Structure Design Considerations 2 Town Board A, Direction Requested ESTES {?, PARK Town Board input on which option would be preferred for incorporation into a Request for Proposal for the design of the parking structure. This will also guide staff in the preparation of future budget requests. Big Horn Parking Structure Design Considerations 3 Design Idea #1 i J p ESTES PARK • Design and build a two-level `microstructure' consisting of a ground level parking accessed from Cleave Street • Include an additional level of parking accessed directly from Big Horn Drive. • This would provide an estimated 40-45 additional/new parking spaces and mitigate the loss of parking spaces caused by the Cleave Street project. • This is the project concept previously shared with the Town Board in 2023. The estimated design cost is $200,000 and the estimated construction cost is $2,000,000 Big Horn Parking Structure Design Considerations 4 BHPS Levels 1 &2 i fP ESTES -- PA1K LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 48 SPACES 46 SPACES a 0 b ;_� \ �i \1, p -—-—- .>-h POTENTIAL TRANSFORMER LOCATION b V ® II Big Horn Parking Structure Design Considerations Current View from Proposed 2nd Level Entrance ESTES LANK .. '-x -� Y?. ..+ r. e.1 -47 � fir' _.-1_ ' r_4.4.1,-- ,- ,r1 _,,,,a4 ,,, --_,.,41.0,11,,„ �' __ 40 _,...._ ____„_ .,„ ..._,„ AL,./.: . . t.,„,„ ,,,...,.. ,..._ AD ,:- -+A..k..._ Hide nape Big Horn Parking Structure Design Considerations 6 Design Idea #2 i J p ESTES PARK • Design the new parking structure with two new elevated levels a parking. • 2nd & 3rd levels would be separate and accessible from different points on Big Horn Drive. 1st level would still be accessible from Cleave St. • We anticipate 40-45 spaces on each level. • The intent would be to have the design and construction documents expanded to include all three levels. The estimated design cost is $400,000 and the estimated construction cost is $4,000,000 Big Horn Parking Structure Design Considerations BHPS Plan View {p ESTES SPARK N I I i 1 I I ♦ , , c NoR ej CIgir# I , „jpoi ._3w...,,,.._.....,‘",..%.-„„,.. . FiNPAk 0 EXISTING PARKING LOT o, Effa 41 SPACES(,MA) S °, rsurnu.rs pN ,lcsFPROPOSED S{£VEL p PAR,wcsmuciuRE - a' ® 1, ILiV TRANSLOIUER PAD. i�aEAVE sr.PRo150 ®� CLEAVE ST. I Big Horn Parking Structure Design Considerations 8 i BHPS 3D Rendering [P ESTES .PARK 3r°level Entrance/Exit -__ Big Horn Ave CLEAVE ST. - il APARTMENTS 1s'level Entrance/Exit11% � '- _ Cleave Street ` ol -`%.,......._ 2nd level Entrance/Exit Big Horn Ave Big Horn Parking Structure Design Considerations 9 BHPS Level 3 i ESTESi_/,PARK LEVEL 3 42 SPACES hr. 7 MOTORCYCLE SPACES PARKING SPACE COUNTS 41 SPACES REMOVED Q 1 Q 14 PARALLEL STREET SPACES REMOVED b Q ±136 SPACES ADDED a _ -- Big Horn Parking Structure Design Considerations Current View from A Proposed 3rd Level Entrance ESTES LARK - .. •-mac _ PA® ' , ✓ �y �. •y. -'177 -:-- _ti- i< Ts IRP —, -`g -.'Y ,R c �� 1f' - -). •} • Big Horn Parking Structure Design Considerations Design Idea #3 i J p ESTES PARK • Design the structure with second and third level parking accessible from Big Horn as described in Option 2. • Additionally, design a fourth level to accommodate residential housing units only (no additional parking). • This design alternative would also include a single cab elevator to access all levels but would not be built until triggered by construction of the fourth level housing units. • The actual construction could be phased as directed by available funding. The foundation and structural elements needed for four levels could be built concurrently with the first, second, and third parking levels. • The fourth level housing units and the elevator could be constructed during a second phase of construction. • The estimated design cost is $800,000 and the estimated construction cost is $8,000,000 Big Horn Parking Structure Design Considerations A BHPS Elevations pp ESTES .PARK SECTION VIEW LOOKING NORTH FROM CLEAVE STREET HORIZONTAL SCALE'.1'=10. VERTICAL SCALE.1'=1k 2 f2 1. 7 i 'u eNn WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS \e.,sa.......,,...J ��I„„„,,,,,�,,,,,„„„,,,„„„,,,�hh MINIMUM FFE=7579.5 '////////////////////////////////////////////////� ////////////7///////////// �/////////////.////f/ff I.g a' % PARKING DECCKLEVEL a / a / --PARKING DECK LEVEL 2 / i_._. % FFE=7551/.5��(((�- —�---- % / PARKING DECK LEVEL 1 -` -%- +__________________ FFE=7512.5 P I,e.,,'- I�Gi///////1'1///////////J////////JJ/1///2////ii 277,77 °7 /U•, 4WarII<iu /.../// ///J///////////..//1'i//Q_ -�\ i: >1 — xM ISE ra rg 1"level parking entry @ Cleeve Street)EL-7542.2) 4°level flooring of 2^a level perking entry @ Big Horn Roof of Housing 3°level perking entry @ Big Horn)EL-7563.5) Big Horn Parking Structure Design Considerations 13 Current View from Higher A. Elevation on Big Horn Drive ESTES f p1 PARK SONO Goo9le Maps Q O ` '-' -;r -- ♦) ' y x E 209lig Han Or ` . Estes Pak,Colorado �•`� .s Swale SkMV Jo12023 See more dots f6 yr� _4 ems.=-- �• Ali,Ar 1 s Nqe-nm9aR.�. Big Horn Parking Structure Design Considerations 14 i Finance/Resource Impact [P ESTES .PARK • Current Impacts: Funding is budgeted in the amount of $190,000 for the design on Option 1 at this time. Additional funding may be available from the 2024 Parking Revenue Funds based on the approved 45% allotment of future parking revenue funds. • Design costs are typically estimated at 10% of the total construction budget, and staff will have a more accurate cost estimate after reviewing responses to a future Request for Proposals. • Future Impacts: this project will increase the annual operation and maintenance cost for Estes Park Facilities in the estimated amount of $15,000 per year. Big Horn Parking Structure Design Considerations 15 i Questions/Discussion [P ESTES .PARK a I.lip P NW Big Horn Parking Structure Design Considerations 16 A IP TOWN OF ESTES PARIc, Report TOWN ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE To: Honorable Mayor Hall Board of Trustees From: Town Administrator Machalek Date: May 14, 2024 RE: Relief for Downtown Business Impacts from Construction Purpose of Study Session Item: Discuss potential options to offer relief for downtown businesses impacted by ongoing construction in the downtown core. Town Board Direction Requested: • Are there any options that the Board is interested in pursuing further? • Are there any options that the Board would like to remove from consideration? • Are there any options not included that the Board would like to discuss further? Present Situation: In 2014, the Town, Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD), and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) entered into agreements to fund, design, and construct roadway and bridge improvements to improve access to Rocky Mountain National Park by reducing traffic congestion in downtown Estes Park. The project leverages a Town investment of $5.71 million to deliver a $42.00 million project. Construction of the "Downtown Estes Loop" began in spring of 2023 and it is expected to be complete by January, 2025. A term of the construction contract is that the most disruptive work must occur during non-peak months -- January through June and October through December. The project is currently in its most impactful phase, with widespread disruptions to traffic flow downtown. Local businesses are reporting financial losses attributable, at least in part, to the intensive construction activity. While sales tax receipts are an imperfect measure of total economic activity within Town limits, they do serve as a reasonable bellwether for local economic health. Sales tax receipts in January and February are down 8.71% from the same months in 2023, while the combined traffic count on US 34 and 36 is up 2.78% through the same period. To date, most of the Town's work to assist downtown businesses impacted by construction has focused on being a conduit between the CFLHD project manager and local businesses. Beyond this work, the Board also approved Ordinance 10-23 in November 2023, temporarily suspending time limitations and waiving application fees for supplemental temporary signs for properties directly impacted by construction of the Downtown Estes Loop. Proposal: Based on research and suggestions offered by members of the Board and the public, Staff has compiled a list of options that could provide various forms of relief to downtown businesses impacted by construction of the Downtown Estes Loop: Direct financial aid payments This option would provide funds directly to downtown businesses impacted by downtown construction. The Town has provided direct financial assistance to local businesses at least once in the past, specifically to provide relief for local small businesses during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. At that time, the Town partnered with the Estes Chamber of Commerce and the Estes Park Economic Development Corporation to distribute $280,000 in grants to local businesses. Funding for direct financial aid payments would need to come from General-Fund fund balance. Further exploration of direct payments would need to address the following questions: • How much money should be set aside for direct payments? • What are the eligibility criteria, including business location? • Is there one set award level? Or different award levels depending on impact? • Would there be an application process? • Would the Town administer the payments or partner with another local entity? • How would this apply to new or closed businesses? Sales tax rebate program A sales tax rebate program option would return a set amount of an impacted business' collected sales tax to that business to help offset construction impacts. The Town's Finance Department would need to manage this program due to the confidentiality of sales tax returns. This program could only apply to the Town's base sales tax revenue of 4 percent. It could not apply to the 1 percent sales tax approved by voters in 2014 and 2024. Further exploration of a sales tax rebate program would need to address the following questions: • What are the eligibility criteria? • What percentage of sales tax should be rebated? • Should there be a cap on the rebate amount for any given business? • How many months would the program run? • What period would be used for the calculation? • Is there one rebate level? Or differing levels based on impacts? Town Utility Assistance A Town utility assistance option would provide businesses financial assistance with Town water and electric bills. This assistance could take the form of utility subsidies for impacted businesses (these would need to be funded by the General Fund), or bill deferral programs for impacted businesses. Further exploration of a town utility assistance option would need to address the following questions: • What are the eligibility criteria? • Is there a maximum subsidy amount for each business/a maximum number of monthly bills that would be allowed to be deferred? • How many months would assistance be offered? Marketing match A marketing match option would use Town funds to match business spending on advertising intended to drive businesses to downtown areas impacted by construction. Further exploration of a marketing match option would need to address the following questions: • What are the eligibility criteria? • What level of match funding would be offered? • Would the Town administer the match program or partner with another local entity? One-Season Moratorium on Paid Parking A one-season moratorium on paid parking option would eliminate paid parking downtown for the 2024 season. In lieu of a paid parking season, the Town could either return Town-owned parking spaces to the pre-2021 configuration (free with limited areas with time limits), or implement a separate, time-limited approach. Further exploration of a one-season moratorium on paid parking would need to address the following questions: • What would the costs and benefits of this approach be from the standpoint of providing relief to downtown businesses? • Would the Town's parking inventory return to the pre-2021 configuration? Or would the Town look to implement broader time restrictions in lieu of paid parking? • If the Board wants to implement a program of broader time restrictions in lieu of paid parking, is it willing to allocate General Fund balance to pay for enforcement of such a program? Does one month provide sufficient lead time to order and install new signs, and negotiate revisions to the parking consultant contract? Advantages: • The options detailed above could provide assistance to some downtown businesses that are being negatively impacted by the construction of the Downtown Estes Loop. Disadvantages: • It is highly unlikely that any program the Town develops will fully compensate businesses for business loss due to construction. However, it is likely that any assistance the Town can provide would help impacted businesses weather the most impactful phase of construction. Finance/Resource Impact: The financial impact of the options detailed above varies and is generally scalable (i.e. the Board can allocate as much or as little to a strategy as the budget will support), with the exception of the one-season moratorium on paid parking. If the Board would like to place a one-season moratorium on paid parking and enforce time-limited parking in Town-owned parking spaces, staff estimates that approximately $545,151 would need to be appropriated from General-Fund fund balance. Staff will prepare more in-depth financial impact evaluations on any options the Board would like to pursue further. Town Grant Writer Kuryllo researched business impact grants and was unable to find any grant funding for businesses impacted by public construction. Both Grant Writer Kuryllo and the Estes Chamber of Commerce have identified a potential source of grant funds for a marketing match program. Level of Public Interest: High Attachments: • None TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION May 14, 2024 0 4* el 0' Governance Orientation. J le 4 ie VP ,cO 4;° 40J GO+ 1. Link to Presentation - Governance Orientation 2. Link to Policy Governance 3. Link to Policy 103 Town Board Code of Conduct and Operating Principles 4. Link to Policy 105 Agendas 1 1� EP L TOWN OF ESTES PARK Future Town Board Study Session Agenda Items May 14, 2024 May 28, 2024 Items Approved — Unscheduled: • CIRSA Liability and Risk as an Elected • Annexation and Re-Implementation of Official Joint Planning Area • Parking Enforcement Ordinance Updates June 11, 2024 • Hosted Short Term Rentals • Noise Ordinance • Governing Policies Updates • Commercial/Residential Insurance • Stanley Park Master Plan Implementation Overview Items for Town Board Consideration: June 25, 2024 • Bed & Breakfast and Vacation Home Cap • Trailblazer Broadband Construction • Liquor License Process Update • Curb and Gutter Philosophy • Project Scoping for Capacity Improvements on the Big Thompson River and Fall River • Guiding Policy for Implementation of the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Readiness Plan • Occupancy Limit Code Changes to Comply with New State Law • Elm/Moraine Parcel Expressions of Interest and Next Steps 1 1�