Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2025-06-24The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high-quality, reliable services for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting. BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Tuesday, June 24, 2025 7:00 p.m. ACCESSING MEETING TRANSLATIONS (Accediendo a las Traducciones de la Reunión) 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 la traducción durante la reunión, par favor escanee el código QR o haga clic en el enlace para hasta 48 idiomas más): https://attend.wordly.ai/join/UOFH-5928 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 teléfono para audio o lea la transcripción puede ayudar a aquellos que tienen dificultades para escuchar). The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available or use the link above to access audio or read the transcript. ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENT By Public Comment Form: Members of the public may provide written public comment on a specific agenda item by completing the form found at https://dms.estes.org/forms/TownBoardPublicComment. The form must be submitted by 12:00 p.m. the day of the meeting in order to be provided to the Town Board prior to the meeting. All comments will be provided to the Board for consideration during the agenda item and added to the final packet. AGENDA 6:00 p.m. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: To discuss purchase acquisition lease transfer or sale of any real personal or other property interest, Section 24-6-402(4)(a) C.R.S., and for a conference with an attorney for the Board for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions, Section 24-6-402(4)(b), C.R.S., - Discussion of the Purchase of Real Property at Several Potential Locations for Relocation of the Police Department. REGULAR BUSINESS 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance). PROCLAMATION - Year of Philanthropy. AGENDA APPROVAL. PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). Prepared 2025-06-18 *Revised NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. CONSENT AGENDA: 1.Expenditure Approval Lists - Bills. 2. Town Board Meeting and Study Session Minutes dated June 10, 2025. 3. Resolution 63-25 Amendment Seven to the Agreement with SAFEbuilt Colorado, LLC Revising the Town's Collected Permit Fees from 0% to 10% & Extending the Term to December 31, 2026 for Building Services. 4. Resolution 64-25 Renew a Memorandum of Understanding with Headwaters Economics Inc., Regarding Participation in the Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire Program. 5. Resolution 65-25 Memorandum of Understanding with the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office to Complete Pre-employment Background Investigations for Police Personnel. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: (Outside Entities). 1.Base Funding Report: Estes Nonprofit Network. Outreach Director McPherson. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. 1. ACTION ITEMS: A. ORDINANCE 08-25 REZONING 685 PEAK VIEW DRIVE FROM E-1 (ESTATE) TO R (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL), FRANK THEIS, CMS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., (OWNER-APPLICANT) DAVID EMERSON, HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF THE ST. VRAIN VALLEY (APPLICANT). Planner Hornbeck. Consider an application for a proposed Zoning Map Amendment (rezoning) from E-1 (Estate) to R (Single-Family Residential). B.ORDINANCE 09-25 AMENDING SECTION 5.3 OF THE ESTES PARK DEVELOPMENT CODE (EPDC) REGARDING VEHICLE BASED ACCOMMODATIONS FOR SEASONAL EMPLOYEES. Planner Washam. Consider an amendment to remove the availability of electric and water as an eligibility requirement. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ORDINANCE 07-25 PROPOSED ELECTRIC RATE INCREASE. Director Bergsten. Continued from June 10, 2025. Present the electric rate study results. 2. RESOLUTION 66-25 MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF ELKHORN LODGE PHASE II TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK. Planner Hornbeck. Determine if the Elkhorn Lodge Phase II is eligible for annexation and make certain findings of fact related thereto in accordance with the Municipal Annexation Act and Colorado Constitution. Agenda Continues on Page 3 3.RESOLUTION 67-25 2045 TRANSPORTATION PLAN. Manager Klein. Consider adoption of the Plan consisting of the Multimodal Transportation Plan (MTP) and the Transit Development Plan (TDP). 4.RESOLUTION 68-25 AMENDMENT TO THE 2005 CONTINENTAL WATER BANK INC., WATER LEASE AGREEMENT. Utilities Director Bergsten. Consider increasing Town compensation, the return of six CBT units, and potential voluntary annexation of properties being served. 5.ORDINANCE 10-25 LAND LEASE WITH PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY (PRPA) FOR LOT 4, ELM ROAD 2ND ADDITION. Utilities Director Bergsten and Line Superintendent Lockhart. Consider leasing Town-owned land to PRPA who would sublease for the installation of a utility-scale 5 megawatt battery energy storage system. ADJOURN.       Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 10, 2025 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 10th day of June, 2025. Present: Gary Hall, Mayor Marie Cenac, Mayor Pro Tem Trustees Bill Brown Kirby Hazelton Frank Lancaster Mark Igel Cindy Younglund Also Present: Travis Machalek, Town Administrator Jason Damweber, Deputy Town Administrator Dan Kramer, Town Attorney Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: None Mayor Hall called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA APPROVAL. It was moved and seconded (Hazelton/Cenac) to approve the Agenda, and it passed unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS. None. TRUSTEE COMMENTS. Board comments were heard and have been summarized: Rooftop Rodeo would be held July 5 – 10 with the parade downtown on July 7; the next Visit Estes Park meeting would include a discussion on the next CEO search process and an update on a personnel issue; the Economic Development and Workforce Council would hold a welcome event for summer employees to provide education on a wide array of topics; and the Mayor held a Mayor’s Coffee meeting that was well attended. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Town Administrator Machalek stated the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police awarded Peni Bares with the Professional Staff Member of the Year. CONSENT AGENDA: 1.Bills. 2.Town Board Meeting Minutes and Study Session Minutes dated May 27, 2025. 3.Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated April 16, 2025 (acknowledgement only). 4. Resolution 59-25 Grant Agreement and Amendment #1 with the Colorado Association of Transit Agencies for 2025 Ozone Season Transit Grant Program Funds. 5.Revised Policy 306 Leave. 6. 2025 Art in Public Places (AIPP) Artwork Donation from Sister Cities for a Peace Pole and Interpretive Sign. It was moved and seconded (Igel/Brown) to approve the Consent Agenda, and it passed unanimously. DRA F T Board of Trustees – June 10, 2025 – Page 2 REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: (Outside Entities). 1. WORKFORCE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AT FISH HATCHERY PROPERTY. EPHA Executive Director Moulton and Real Estate Development Director Levine provided an update on the Fish Hatchery Workforce and Affordable Housing project, including a review of the previous 2022 plan, project timeline noting submittal to Community Development would occur in the next month, completion of a community survey and the key insights guiding the development, community and neighborhood meetings held to provide opportunity for discussion and engagement on the proposed development, and the 75 acre site has been reviewed for traffic, hazards, nature and wildlife, cultural and building history. It was further noted the proposed development would occur on 22 acres north of Fall River. Ronnie Pelusio/Pel-Ona, development architect, reviewed the current buildings onsite, including the Hydro Museum and accessory buildings, noting a number of the accessory buildings would be demoed. A key element in developing the site requires a review and determination on traffic impacts, evacuation plan, pedestrian connectivity, and multi-modal connectivity. Discussions with CDOT continue to determine what intersection improvements may be required to address the increased traffic associated with the development. The proposed development contains approximately 100 units with a variety of unit types, including apartments, townhomes, duplexes, and single-family homes in an effort to bring a diversity of individuals to the development. Real Estate Development Director Levine reviewed potential rental rates for a LIHTC project for homes in the 30 – 80% AMI which would include approximately 47 of the 103 units proposed. 2. BASE FUNDING REPORT: CROSSROADS MINISTRY OF ESTES PARK. Executive Director Schaffer thanked the Board for their ongoing support of Crossroads and noted 120 volunteers provide the services to the community such as Meals on Wheels, utilities assistance, rental and mortgage assistance, medical assistance, Helping Hub to assist with transportation, and a host of other services. LIQUOR ITEMS: 1. RESOLUTION 60-25 NEW HOTEL & RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE FILED BY INDIAN BITES INC. DBA INDIAN BITES 181 W. RIVERSIDE DRIVE, ESTES PARK, CO 80517. Mayor Hall opened the public hearing and Town Clerk Williamson presented Resolution 60-25 for a new Hotel & Restaurant liquor license. She reviewed the application stating all paperwork and fees had been submitted. The applicant was aware of the Training for Intervention Procedures (TIPS) requirement as the applicant owns other liquor establishments and has completed TIPS training. The applicant was available for questions. Mayor Hall closed the public hearing and it was moved and seconded (Hazelton/Brown) to approve Resolution 60-25, and it passed unanimously. 2. RESOLUTION 61-25 NEW TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE FILED BY PARK THEATER MALL LLC DBA THE SLAB 116 E. ELKHORN AVENUE, ESTES PARK, CO 80517. Mayor Hall opened the public hearing and Town Clerk Williamson presented Resolution 61-25 for a new Tavern liquor license. She reviewed the application stating all paperwork and fees had been submitted. The applicant was aware of the Training for Intervention Procedures (TIPS) requirement as the applicant owns other liquor establishments and has completed TIPS training previously. The applicant was available for questions. Mayor Hall closed the public hearing and it was moved and seconded (Igel/Younglund) to approve Resolution 61-25, and it passed unanimously. ACTION ITEMS: 1. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE 07-25 PROPOSED ELECTRIC RATE INCREASE. Mayor Hall opened the public hearing. Megan Helper/New Gen Strategies and Solutions presented the rate study, including the financial forecast, cost allocation, and rate design. She noted without the proposed rate increase the utility would not meet the required 90 day O&M reserve beginning in 2027 to maintain bond ratings. She reviewed the proposed annual increases to the electric rates that ensure costs DRA F T Board of Trustees – June 10, 2025 – Page 3 and revenues remain balanced. The increase to each rate class varies with typical residential bills realizing a 2% to 3% increase and commercial bills a 3% to 8% increase. The rate study process and public hearing dates were discussed at the May 13, 2025 meeting. Staff has engaged in outreach with the public through a number of events beginning in November 2024 through present. Staff recommended the Board consider electric rate increase of 3.5% beginning in January 2026. Director Bergsten noted the utility has experienced large inflationary pressures that have contributed to and impacted rates. He further stated the utility has a large service area with a small number of customers which increases the cost of service. John Guffy/Town resident stated the importance in considering sustainable energy sources. He commented an increase in rates may reduce the demand on energy. Greg Peterson/Town resident and local business owner stated concern with the current rates and the proposed rates. He noted his electric bills in 2025 have increased well above the proposed 5%. It was moved and seconded (Hazelton/Cenac) to continue the public hearing to June 24, 2025, and it passed unanimously. 2. REVISED POLICY 225 CHILDCARE FUNDING GUIDELINES. Manager Bangs reviewed the revision to the policy which included feedback provided by the Board at the February 25, 2025 study session. The revisions primarily address the development of efficient budget and funding distribution processes, staff spending authority and funding program descriptions. The policy has been revised to include an update to the policy statement, the Town’s role, outlining the Workforce Housing and Childcare Lodging Tax Fund, appropriations to the 6E Lodging Tax Fund, childcare expenditures, priority grant program, priority grant framework, childcare stability initiative, childcare assistance request, and outlining funding requirements with details on eligible expenditures and childcare funding agreement. The policy would establish staff spending authority for awards up to $50,000 with all other funding requests presented to the Town Board for approval. Board discussion ensued on who would qualify for the childcare incentive included in the policy under the childcare initiative. Concern was heard with regard to childcare providers being eligible for the incentive if they are caring for their own children as well as other families children. Attorney Kramer noted that the policy states the incentive would be available to childcare providers caring for four unrelated children. Further discussion was heard on the staff’s spending authority, and it was noted that staff, including Deputy Town Administrator and Housing and Childcare Manager would discuss all expenditures within the spending authority. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Younglund/Cenac) to approve the revisions to Policy 225 Childcare Funding Guidelines and its exhibits as presented, and it passed unanimously. 3. RESOLUTION 62-25 CONTRACT WITH EARLY CHILDHOOD COUNCIL OF LARIMER COUNTY FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTES VALLEY CHILDCARE FUND. Manager Bangs presented a service contract with Early Childhood Council of Larimer County (ECCLC) for the administration of the middle- income childcare tuition assistance program which comes forward after the completion of cost-modeling and program build-out for the Estes Valley in collaboration with Larimer Child Care Fund and the use of existing Countywide software, BridgeCare, for the administration. Staff recommends partnering with ECCLC for a number of reasons, including cost-effectiveness of expanding an existing program rather than the creation of a new program, alignment with regional strategic planning and long- term goals for Larimer County, complex and easily accessible data tracking that ensures families are accessing programs and funding sources in a desired hierarchy (CCAP first), allows for a blending of private and public assistance, high level of administrative support and automated services for both families and childcare providers, and accessibility and familiarity for families applying for assistance. The recommended program budget for the 2025-2026 year (July 2025 to August 2026) would total $160,000 in 6E funds with $50,000 in 2025, $100,000 in 2026 and $10,000 in administrative costs (10%) for ECCLC, and 10-15 children to be served depending on the age of the children. The program’s goals would create an equitable childcare DRA F T Board of Trustees – June 10, 2025 – Page 4 system through increased access to childcare assistance and improve financial stability for the underserved communities through offsetting the cost of care for middle- income families. The program would support working families in the Estes Park R-3 School District earning 80 – 110% AMI with copays calculated as a percentage, 10% or less, of the household’s monthly income. The child, 0 – 5, must be enrolled with a licensed provider within the Estes Valley, at least one parent must work within the Estes Valley, and not receiving CCCAP or other EVICS assistance. The administrative cost of the program would be well within the costs for other programs similarly situated in Colorado. It was moved and seconded (Hazelton/Younglund) to extend the meeting past 10:00 p.m., and the motion passed unanimously. Board comments and questions have been summarized: questioned how Larimer County’s proposed sales tax would impact the program; clarified that only children within the Estes Valley would be served; questioned if the application would only be available online, and if so, would there be local support to assist families with the application process; and questioned why EVICS proposal was not included in the staff report for consideration by the Board. Public comment in support of the EVICS proposal to administer the Estes Valley Childcare Fund to serve the middle-income, including Logan Kirk/Town resident, Carol Myers/County resident, Louise Olson/Town resident, and Maricruz Ortiz/Childcare provider. Comments were summarized: EVICS supports families and providers within Estes Park; would administer a program within their current budget; 100% of the providers work directly with EVICS, including licensed exempt childcare providers; questioned the advantage of having a separate entity manage funds for a different income status; concerned with young children watching younger siblings due to the lack of affordable childcare; and the current proposal would not support families need for flexibility in choosing a childcare provider. Sarah Schmidt/EVICS Childcare Resource Specialist provided a proposal from EVICS to administer the program locally. EVICS would utilize the current staff to provide oversight and administration of the program at no additional cost which would allow for all funding to be used to assist families. Through EVICS there would be no limitation on using only licensed childcare facilities, thereby providing families with the additional flexibility to use licensed exempt childcare. The application process would be open during the entire year to allow for new members of the community to apply throughout the school year and could be implemented immediately using EVICS current platform. EVICS requested the Board amended the motion to award the funds to EVICS to administer the middle income program. Board comments and questions have been summarized: questioned why staff has recommended ECCLC over EVICS which has no additional administrative costs to manage the program; requested clarification on what BridgeCare software provides that EVICS software does not provide; questioned the ability to use the funds for licensed exempt providers; questioned if there were other non-Estes Park programs providing middle income assistance; questioned the accountability between the two entities; stated concerns with the past history with EVICS and noted they have made improvements; stated concerns that EVICS may come back to the Town for additional funding of the program if grant funds are not available to cover the administrative costs of the program; noted the public comment received favors the EVICS proposal; and questioned if the Town could utilize EVICS services in the future. Manager Bangs stated EVICS does not have the ability to manage the new program currently; BridgeCare provides connectivity to Colorado licensed providers and Colorado Shines; how the funds are used remains a policy conversation, however, staff recommended funds be prioritized to fund licensed facilities; BridgeCare would be the program used by the County and ECCLC if the County sales tax was approved by the voters to administer funds with an emphasis on middle-income families; and the current contract term would be for one year and could be terminated or renewed per the contract. DRA F T Board of Trustees – June 10, 2025 – Page 5 It was moved and seconded (Igel/Hazelton) to extend the meeting past 11:00 p.m., and the motion passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Lancaster/) to table the Resolution 62-25 and bring the item back, and the motion died lacking a second. Further Board comments were heard and have been summarized: would support the ECCLC contract with the understanding the item could be considered annually; the administrative costs with ECCLC are significant; EVICS can support and provide funding to licensed exempt providers to expand available options to families; and ECCLC may not be an option in the future, and they have a history and knowledge of administering similar programs. It was moved and seconded (Brown/Igel) to deny Resolution 62-25, and the motion failed with Trustees Brown and Igel voting “No”. It was moved and seconded (Brown/Hazelton) to approve Resolution 62-25, and the motion passed with Trustee Igel voting “No”. It was moved and seconded (Brown/Hazelton) to extend the meeting to complete the agenda, and the motion passed with Mayor Pro Tem Cenac voting “No”. 4. PERFORMING ARTS CENTER - STANLEY PARK. Town Administrator Machalek provided a review of the request by The Guild for the Town Board to donate approximately four (4) acres with a 100 year lease on the Stanley Park (10 – 12% of the property) for Encore Performing Arts Center. Numerous converstations with the Town Board have occurred regarding the center beginning in December 2023. The Guild anticipates the center would cost $20 million with an annual attendance of approximately 200,000 to 400,000 and an annual operating expense of $5.5 million. The current Stanley Park Master Plan does not include a performing art center. Under consideration would be the addition of an “add alternate” contingent on the execution of an agreement between the Town and the Fine Arts Guild of the Rockies by the end of 2025 to include provisions such as an agreed upon full fundraising amount, include a $1 million reclamation reserve to be used if The Guild cannot successfully operate the facility for 10 years, and fundraising timeline. It was moved and seconded (Lancaster/Cenac) to approve the addition of the Encore Performing Arts Center as an Add Alternate to the Stanley Park Master Plan, contingent on execution of an agreement between the Town and the Fine Arts Guild of the Rockies by the end of 2025, and it passed with Brown abstaining. 5. REVISED POLICY 671 TOWN FUNDING OF OUTSIDE ENTITIES. Town Administrator Machalek reviewed the proposed revisions to the policy, including updating the list of eligible entities for base funding, clarify the requirements for reporting from base funding entities, clarify eligibility requirements for community initiative funding, and make the process for event sponsorship funding more efficient. Discussion ensued amongst the Board on the benefits of partnering with Estes Nonprofit Network to complete the review of applications versus the full Board evaluating applications. It was moved and seconded (Igel/Hazelton) to approve the revisions to Policy 671 Town Funding of Outside Entities as presented, and it passed unanimously. 6. REMOVAL OF BELLE MORRIS FROM THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD. Trustee Igel and liaison to the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) stated concern with the performance of Board Chair Morris. He noted the Town Board has the responsibility to ensure the environment at the meetings are healthy and welcoming to all voices and members of the board. He noted more specifically that the Chair has not implemented previous recommendations to reduce the frequency of TAB meetings, to limit TAB involvement in projects, maintaining decorum at meetings, condeming the application and selection process of the newly appointed members, and communication failures that have included TAB dicussions without the inclusion of the liaison and the Chair leading conversations through electronic communicaiton DRA F T Board of Trustees – June 10, 2025 – Page 6 in violation of the Sunshine Law. He recommended the removal of Chair Morris, the appointment of a new Chair, and a Town Board review of the expectations for TAB. Board comments and questions have been summarized: the Town Board should review term limits for all appointed boards and committees; the former TAB liaison Trustee Martchink recommended the sunsetting of TAB as the larger projects in Town have been completed and further noted the TAB meetings were not productive; questioned if TAB should be sunsetted at this time and use ad hoc committees when appropriate in the future for transportation projects; suggested the TAB members could vote to remove Morris as the chair and elect a new chair; there are minority opinions from members that are not being considered due to the Chair’s management of the meetings; concern that Trustee Igel was continuing to participate as a member rather than as a liaison; concern TAB receives public comment at their meetings that should be directed to the Town Board; TAB has been a high performing board; the Chair’s leadership may not be the reason for the shift in the performance of TAB; and suggested TAB elect a new chair and the Town Board appoint a new liaison to address the concerns. Wally Wood/TAB member spoke in support of Chair Morris and recommended the Town Board consider a new liaison for TAB. Melissa Wood stated TAB should take a vote of no confidence and be the responsible party to remove Chair Morris. Belle Morris/TAB Chair stated concern with how she as a volunteer has been treated. She commented the liaison had not provided facts or a written statement for the record in the packet to outline the concerns and recommendation for her removal. Misti Marcantonio/TAB member requested respectful dialogue at the TAB meetings especially when dissenting viewpoints are shared. The reactions by the Chair have provided an environment of negativity and lack of support in sharing these views. Aracely Thomas/TAB member stated she attended her first meeting as a newly appointed member and was concerned by the remarks and expressions made by the Chair during the meeting. The Chair’s responsibility should be to maintain decorum and that was not the case during the meeting. After further conversation, it was moved and seconded (Igel/Brown) to remove Member Belle Morris from the Transportation Advisory Board, and it passed with Trustees Hazelton and Lancaster voting “No”. Whereupon Mayor Hall adjourned the meeting at 12:27 a.m. Gary Hall, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk DRA F T Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado June 10, 2025 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 the Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 10th day of June, 2025. Board: Mayor Hall, Mayor Pro Tem Cenac, Trustees Brown, Hazelton, Igel, Lancaster, and Younglund Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Machalek, Deputy Town Administrator Damweber, Attorney Kramer, Town Clerk Williamson, Manager Lizotte and Deputy Town Clerk Beers Absent: None Mayor Hall called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. HUMAN RESOURCES STRATEGIC PLAN. Manager Lizotte outlined services provided by Human Resources (HR), presented results of the Town’s organizational culture survey and reviewed the HR strategic plan. The organizational culture survey was first launched in February 2020 and continues to be conducted biennially. The electronic survey has been sent out to all employees, with information collected and analyzed by a third party, Graves Consulting, to ensure confidentiality. Summary of results were reviewed and included: Good overall participation with 73% of staff completing the survey; no categories scored below 3 out of 5 (average) with most questions improving from 2022; and in general, employees like working for the Town. Recurring themes throughout the survey included: high cost of living; competitive wages; a need for fairness across the organization (no favoritism); listening to employees; and take action on the survey results. She reviewed highlights from the 2022 organizational culture action plan including: Implementation of manager/supervisor training; re-visited flexible work options beyond telework; reviewed and revised the Performance Appraisal Process, now the Employee Success & Development (ESD) process; transportation assistance options were no longer identified as a priority; and continue ongoing conversations about organization wide guiding principles. The 2024 survey results were reviewed by the Engagement Committee to generate concepts for an action plan which were reviewed by managers/supervisors to develop an action plan for presentation to the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) for consideration, approval and implementation. The 2025 Organizational Culture Action Plan includes communication focused action items overseen by the ELT. Revisions to the current survey/questions are anticipated before re-launching the survey at the end of 2026. Staff stated a limitation of the survey was the anonymous input which does not allow results to include changes in sentiment over time from specific individuals or departments. Board comments and questions have been summarized: Whether the survey was distributed to other entities or Town staff only; any common themes identified; which questions were open ended; whether the Town has a specific process for concerns or complaints against a specific employee or department; the level of response rate since 2020, and whether the Town has a method for handling anonymous concerns such as a hotline. The Board commended staff on the deployment of the organizational culture survey and the action plan. The HR Strategic Plan was developed in 2019 in coordination with the Town departments and Graves Consulting with focus areas, including training and development, recruiting, selection and onboarding, retention, engagement and communication, compensation and benefits, and infrastructure. The three strategic objectives in 2025 would include the selection and implementation of a new Human Resources Information System (HRIS); benefits analysis benchmarking; convert current employee files to electronic, and identify and begin utilizing electronic employee file DRA F T Town Board Study Session – June 10, 2025 – Page 2 structure. The ESD process was implemented in 2024, the 2025 process incorporated feedback received in 2024 and supervisor/manager training was implemented in 2024 and would occur each year. The Town would work with the interdepartmental safety team to select Reasonable Suspicion training for managers and would develop a framework for succession planning. Staff have updated the exit interview process, clarified how data could be utilized to affect change, and would provide Town Administration and ELT turnover rates and high-level exit survey data. In 2025, data gathered for a comprehensive benchmark study of employee benefits would be analyzed and used to submit budget recommendations for 2026. Staff stated current employee files are being digitized and once converted would be stored in an electronic file structure. Town Clerk Williamson stated gratitude for the work of Manager Lizotte and commended her efforts to develop and oversee the newly implemented Manager and Supervisor training. PROCESS FOR CLASSIFYING VACATION HOME AND ACCOMMODATIONS BUSINESS LICENSES. Town Clerk Williamson reviewed the current definitions for vacation home, accommodations site, and accommodation unit. She reviewed the current conditions and the development code which allows single-family homes, two- family and multi-family dwelling units as a use by right in accommodation zoning districts. Properties have been condominiumized for individual ownership, change operation models, and some developments were approved with development conditions such as limiting full time occupancy. Properties that have changed the model of operation have moved from a centralized reception and management to independent management of short-term rentals as determined by the property owner. These changes have created a need to review the similarities and differences between operations, to determine how properties should be licensed such as applicability of a life safety inspection or other potentially applicable accommodations or vacation home requirements. She reviewed examples of accommodations operation in Town which varies slightly including: accommodation zoning district (A or A-1); whether the unit was individually owned; does the condominium have onsite management or allow 3rd party management; does the development approval allow long-term occupancy; or allows only long-term occupancy by the owner(s). Staff stated the primary purpose of bringing this topic forward was to ensure these properties and the short-term rental operation are conducted in a safe manner and to treat similar situated properties consistently as it relates to licensing and regulations. Town Attorney Kramer stated hotels are not required to undergo a life safety inspection. Staff are requesting guidance on properties which have overtime become less like a hotel and more like a vacation home and whether life safety inspection would be applicable. Previous code amendments attempted to address these types of properties in the past with the addition of a separate category for Individual Accommodation Units; however, staff have found it difficult to define the use and which properties it would apply to. She reviewed classification factors including: Residential or non-residential zoning; whether the unit was granted a certificate of occupancy under the International Residential Code (IRC) or the International Business Code (IBC); whether the unit was used for household living; whether the unit qualifies as a dwelling unit; unit was part of several units in the same development under common management with centralized, on-site, in-person customer service; and whether other units similarly situated in the same development are used similarly. Board comments and questions: Code requirement or definition differences between accommodations or vacation homes; how Larimer County Assessor classifies the properties; if on-site management and services offered was a key determining factor; some Board members were reluctant to base categorization off something outside of their control like property taxes; the number of properties identified which need to be addressed; and what the potential building code implications would be. Concerns were heard related to the life safety inspection only occurring as part of the initial licensing process, and questioned whether they should occur more frequently. Staff would draft an ordinance for additional discussion at a future study session, with proposed redlines of the current code. DRA F T Town Board Study Session – June 10, 2025 – Page 3 VACATION HOME TRANSFERABILITY. The Estes Park Municipal Code Section 5.20.110(c)(1)(b) Non-Transferable licenses, prohibits residentially zoned licenses issued after October 18, 2021 from transferring to any person upon sale or other transfer of ownership. Town Attorney Kramer stated the code could create issues when properties transfer to family members, are transferred to limited liability corporations (LLC), or there are revisions to trusts, especially revocable trusts. He stated the Board could consider requiring non-transferable licenses to be issued to natural persons, restrict transfer of ownership of LLCs by equity percentage, allow transfer to specified relatives, or allow up to two natural persons as licensees from the beginning of licensure. He stated trusts may be harder to determine when changes are made and could increase burden on staff to track. Board comments and questions have been summarized: Whether property owners of licensed vacation homes would be allowed to transfer a license to descendants; recommended the annual renewal require owners to confirm changes to ownership; concerned with the impacts to families who have owned properties for generations; concerns with the transferability of licenses would further increase the value of properties with vacation home licenses; whether the Board should consider changes similar to Larimer County regulations; and support was heard to allow updates to bring any properties into compliance with any changes to the code. The Board consensus was to support vacation home licenses be held by a natural person(s) and staff was directed to identify family members for transferable licenses. TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS. Trustee Igel stated he was approached by the owner of Brownfields to provide a presentation on the business viewpoint of today’s challenges. Trustee Hazelton questioned whether the presentation may be beneficial at a Visit Estes Park meeting. The Board was in support of allowing the presentation at a future study session. FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS. It was requested and determined the Development Code Update would be scheduled for August 12, 2025. There being no further business, Mayor Hall adjourned the meeting at 6:42 p.m. Bunny Victoria Beers, Deputy Town Clerk DRA F T COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Honorable Mayor Hall Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director Date: June 24, 2025 RE: Resolution 63-25 Amendment Seven to the Agreement with SAFEbuilt Colorado, LLC revising the Town's collected permit fees from 0% to 10% & extending the term to December 31, 2026 for Building Services PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Review and approve an amendment to revise the terms of service and extend the current Professional Services Agreement (Agreement) with SAFEbuilt Colorado, LLC, for the provision of building safety services. Present Situation: Since 2020, the Town and SAFEbuilt have had a contractual agreement for staffing the Building Safety division in the Community Development Department for provision of building and inspection services (Attachment 2). This Agreement and the services performed pursuant to it have proven satisfactory over the terms of the Agreement. Proposal: Since the last formal action on this Agreement, the Town and SAFEbuilt have negotiated a change to the Service Fee Schedule. The change will reduce the fees charged for inspection and plan review services from 100% to 90% of permit fees collected by the Town. No other changes to the Agreement are proposed. The negotiated terms are agreeable to staff and SAFEbuilt, and as such, both parties desire to extend the terms of the revised Agreement (Attachment 3) to December 31, 2026. Advantages: •This amendment will allow building and inspection services to continue without interruption •The revised terms will allow the Town to retain 10% of collected permit fees Disadvantages: •This Agreement precludes the provision of building services through a Town staffing and resource model, should that model be desired Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the amendment to revise the terms of service and to extend the current Agreement with SAFEbuilt Colorado, LLC, to provide building safety services. Finance/Resource Impact: The Town will now retain 10% of collected building and inspection fees. With the current Agreement, the Town does not retain any percentage of collected fees. Level of Public Interest Public interest has been low. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of Resolution 63-25. Attachments: 1. Resolution 63-25 2.Professional Services Agreement with SAFEbuilt Colorado, LLC (Original Contract Pages 82-93) 3.Professional Services Agreement with SAFEbuilt Colorado, LLC – Amendment Seven RESOLUTION 63-25 APPROVING AMENDMENT SEVEN TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SAFEBUILT COLORADO, LLC, FOR THE PROVISION OF BUILDING SAFETY SERVICES WHEREAS, the Town and SAFEbuilt Colorado, LLC, (Consultant) entered into a Professional Services Agreement (Agreement), by which both parties established the terms and conditions for service delivery for the period of January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020, with the option of four additional renewals, on an annual basis, upon agreement of both parties; and WHEREAS, on July 15, 2020, the Town and Consultant instituted Amendment One to the Agreement to add Permit Technician services; and WHEREAS, on January 19, 2021, the Town and Consultant instituted Amendment Two to the Agreement to exercise the first of four renewal options and extend the term of the Agreement through December 31, 2021; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 2021, the Town and Consultant instituted Amendment Three to the Agreement to exercise the second of four renewal options and extend the term of the Agreement through December 31, 2022; and WHEREAS, on December 13, 2022, the Town and Consultant instituted Amendment Four to the Agreement to exercise the third of four renewal options and extend the term of the Agreement through December 31, 2023; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2023, the Town and Consultant instituted Amendment Five to the Agreement to exercise the fourth of four renewal options and extend the term of the Agreement through December 31, 2024; and WHEREAS, On December 10, 2024, the Town and Consultant agreed to extend the Agreement through June 30, 2025, so that negotiations on mutually agreed upon terms for services could take place; and WHEREAS, the Town and Consultant have agreed upon terms and desire to extend the agreement through December 31, 2026; and WHEREAS, all other provisions of the original Agreement shall remain in effect, to the extent not modified by this and previous Amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: ATTACHMENT 1 The Board approves, and authorizes the Mayor to sign, Amendment Seven to the Professional Services Agreement with SAFEbuilt Colorado, LLC, in substantially the form now before the Board. DATED this day of _______ 2025. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney AMENDMENT SEVEN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AND SAFEBUILT COLORADO, LLC This amendment is entered into to amend the Professional Services Agreement previously entered into on January 1, 2020, by and between Town of Estes Park, Colorado (Town) and SAFEbuilt Colorado, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of SAFEbuilt, LLC, (Consultant). Town and Consultant shall be jointly referred to as the “Parties”. Amendment Effective Date: Effective July 1, 2025. RECITALS AND REPRESENTATIONS Parties entered into a Professional Services Agreement (Agreement), by which both Parties established the terms and conditions for service delivery for the period of January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020, with the option of four additional renewals, on an annual basis, upon agreement of both Parties; and On July 15, 2020, Town and Consultant instituted Amendment One to the Agreement to add Permit Technician services; and On January 19, 2021, Parties instituted Amendment Two to the Agreement to exercise the first of four renewal options and extend the term of the Agreement through December 31, 2021; and On December 14, 2021, Parties instituted Amendment Three to the Agreement to exercise the second of four renewal options and extend the term of the Agreement through December 31, 2022; and On December 13, 2022, Parties instituted Amendment Four to the Agreement to exercise the third of four renewal options and extend the term of the Agreement through December 31, 2023; and On December 12, 2023, Parties instituted Amendment Five to the Agreement to exercise the fourth of four renewal options and extend the term of the Agreement through December 31, 2024; and On December 10, 2024, Parties agreed to extend the Agreement through June 30, 2025, so that negotiations on mutually agreed upon terms for services could take place. Parties hereto now desire to amend the Agreement as set forth herein. ATTACHMENT 3 NOW, THEREFORE Agreement is hereby amended as set forth below: 1. Fees for Inspection Service and Plan Review Services, as described in the second and third substantive rows of the table within section 6 of Exhibit A to the Agreement, are hereby updated per the below table: 2. Section 25 of the Agreement is hereby amended so as to extend the amended Agreement through December 31, 2026. All other provisions of the original Agreement shall remain in effect, to the extent not modified by this Amendment Seven and previous Amendments. IN WITNESS HEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Amendment to be executed in their respective names on the dates hereinafter enumerated. SAFEbuilt COLORADO, LLC By: _________________________ ______________________ Title: ________________________ Date TOWN OF ESTES PARK: ____________________________ ______________________ Mayor Date ATTEST: ____________________________ ______________________ Town Clerk Date APPROVED AS TO FORM ____________________________ Town Attorney COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Honorable Mayor Hall Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director Date: June 24, 2025 RE: Resolution 64-25 Renew a Memorandum of Understanding with Headwaters Economics Inc Regarding Participation in the Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire Program (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Renew the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Town of Estes Park and Headwaters Economics, a non-profit and independent research group, regarding the Town’s voluntary participation in the Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire (CPAW) Program. Present Situation: On June 8, 2021, with adoption of Resolution 47-21 (attached), the Town Board approved a MOU permitting the Community Development Department to collaborate with Headwaters Economics on wildfire hazard planning. Such collaboration would include efforts to promote awareness and educational opportunities, ensure land use regulations address potential wildfire threats, and by improving local partnerships. To date, Headwaters Economics has provided staff with educational materials and technical recommendations for updates to the Development Code to help reduce wildfire risk. These recommendations have been provided to the consultant working on the Development Code update, with continuing discussion between the parties to evaluate the recommendations for inclusion within the Code. Proposal: The MOU ended on December 31, 2024. However, as efforts to update the Development Code are ongoing, there would be significant benefit to renewing the MOU and securing the continued assistance of Headwaters Economics. As such, staff is recommending the MOU be renewed and remain in effect until the Development Code update is complete, with renewal proposed through December 31, 2026. Advantages: •The Town secures expert professional recommendations, research assistance, and educational opportunities/materials by participating in the CPAW program •There is no cost to the Town to renew the MOU and participate in the CPAW program •Participation in the CPAW program could potentially help with preservation of property and life should a wildfire event occur Disadvantages: •There are no disadvantages to renewing the MOU Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of Resolution 64-25 to renew the MOU and extend the effective period to December 31, 2026. Finance/Resource Impact: There is no financial/resource impact of the MOU renewal nor for participation in the CPAW program. Level of Public Interest The level of public interest is anticipated to be low. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of the MOU as drafted. Attachments: 1. Resolution 64-25 2.Memorandum of Understanding Renewal 3.Resolution 47-21 4.Memorandum of Understanding dated May 12, 2021 (Pages 68-71) RESOLUTION 64-25 RENEWING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK AND HEADWATERS ECONOMICS, INC. REGARDING PARTICIPATION IN THE COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSISTANCE FOR WILDFIRE (CPAW) PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Town entered into a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) with Headwaters Economics, Inc. on June 8, 2021, to receive technical assistance on the subject of wildfire hazard planning and risk-reduction, at no cost to the Town, through the CPAW program; and WHEREAS, the expiration of the MOU was December 31, 2021. It was extended to December 31, 2022, then December 31, 2023, and then to December 31, 2024, so that additional collaboration could occur; and WHEREAS, the MOU expired on December 31, 2024, However, as efforts to update the Town of Estes Park Development Code are ongoing, and will be ongoing for the next 18 to 24 months, there are benefits to renewing the MOU; and WHEREAS, the Town, through its Community Development Department, and Headwaters Economics, Inc. have determined that renewal and extension of the MOU are necessary to fully achieve the specific objectives for the partnership, which are detailed in the MOU; and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to renew and extend the MOU referenced in the title of this Resolution for the purpose of voluntary participation in the CPAW program, for which there remains no cost to participate, to December 31, 2026. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The Board approves, and authorizes the Mayor to sign, the MOU Renewal document referenced in the title of this Resolution in substantially the form now before the Board. DATED this day of , 2025. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney ATTACHMENT 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING RENEWAL Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire (CPAW) The parties, the Town of Estes Park, Colorado (Town), a municipal corporation, and Headwaters Economics, Inc. (Contractor), whose address is P.O. Box 7059, Bozeman, MT 59715, make this Memorandum of Understanding Renewal this 24th day of June, 2025, at the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, considering the following facts and circumstances: 1 RECITALS: 1.1 On June 8, 2021, the Town and Contractor entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated May 12, 2021, for Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire. 1.2 Expiration of the MOU was December 31, 2021. It was extended to December 31, 2022, then December 31, 2023, and then December 31, 2024, so that additional collaboration between the parties could occur; 1.3 The Town and Contractor desire to extend the MOU for an additional time period coinciding with the update to the Town of Estes Park Development Code, which will have an 18-to-24-month project duration. 2 EXTENSION: The term of the MOU is hereby extended until December 31, 2026. 3 PROVISIONS CONTINUE IN EFFECT: All provisions of the MOU remain in full force and effect. All provisions of the MOU relating to the interpretation or application of the MOU shall apply equally to this Renewal as though fully set forth herein. This instrument forms a contract only when executed in writing by duly authorized representatives of the Town and Contractor. By their signatures on this document, the signatories represent that they have actual authority to enter this Renewal for their respective parties. Signature page follows ATTACHMENT 1 CONTRACTOR Date Title: _______________________________ TOWN OF ESTES PARK Date Title: _______________________________ ATTEST: ____________________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney HR & Police To: Honorable Mayor Hall Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Jackie Williamson, HR Director Ian Stewart, Chief of Police Date: June 24, 2025 RE: Resolution 65-25 Memorandum of Understanding with Larimer County Sheriff’s Office to Complete Pre-Employment Background Investigations for Police Personnel PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER – Policy Revision QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: The Town Estes Park Human Resources and Police Department seek to utilize the resources of the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office to conduct pre-employment background investigations of prospective Police personnel. Present Situation: Police personnel pre-employment background investigations are currently conducted by Police Department staff, generally Detectives. This is in addition to the regular background check completed by Employers Council for each prospective candidate with an average cost of $400 to $500. This collateral duty pulls staff from their primary assignment and exposes them to sensitive personal information about applicants who may become their coworkers. Human Resources and the Police Chief have been researching alternatives to ensure backgrounds are completed professionally, conducted in a timely manner with a full report provided to the Town, and in a cost-effective approach. Police staff contacted both Larimer County Sheriff’s Office and the Fort Collins Police Department to discuss an option to utilize their police professionals to conduct backgrounds for Estes Park. Fort Collins stated they did not have the capacity to consider the Town’s request. Proposal: The proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) would allow the Town to utilize the services of the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office Background Investigations Unit to conduct background checks on candidates for employment with the Estes Park Police Department. This unit’s duty is to complete backgrounds in a confidential manner and provide accurate information. This unit does not evaluate a candidate’s background, rather the investigator provides detailed information found during the investigation for the hiring manager/agency to review. The Police Professional Services Director will be the primary liaison between the Estes Park Police Department and the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office Background Investigations Unit. Advantages: • Increased efficiency by combining Human Resources and Police Department background processes. • Cost savings in both real dollars and staff time by both departments and the ability to accurately budget with a fixed cost. • Removes the possibility of current staff learning sensitive personal information about potential coworkers. • Allows current Police staff to perform their assigned duties without interruption when a background investigation is required. • The Larimer County Sheriff’s Office Background Investigations employs seven highly trained and professional investigators. Disadvantages: • Background investigations conducted by Larimer County will cost $300 each for the term of the MOU; however, this cost is significantly lower than the current cost of both the Employer’s Council background and staff time that is allocated to each of these investigations. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the MOU with the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office. Budget: The approval of the MOU would decrease the overall cost of the background checks and utilize the current funds budgeted in 101-2100-421-2721 ($4,000) account for 2025. The 2026 budget will include $3,600 to complete up to 12 backgrounds. Level of Public Interest: Low Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of Resolution 65-25. Attachments: 1. Resolution 65-25 2. Memorandum of Understanding RESOLUTION 65-25 APPROVING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH LARIMER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE FOR THE COMPLETION OF PRE-EMPLOYMENT BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS FOR POLICE PERSONNEL WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to enter Memorandum of Understanding referenced in the title of this resolution for the purpose of defining and establishing mutual agreements, understandings, and obligations between the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office and the Estes Park Police Department for the completion of pre-employment background investigations for department personnel. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The Board approves, and authorizes the Mayor to sign, the Memorandum of Understanding referenced in the title of this resolution in substantially the form now before the Board. DATED this day of , 2025. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Special Council ATTACHMENT 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Between the Larimer County Sheriff's Office and the Estes Park Police Department Regarding Background Investigation Services This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into as of the last date signed below by and between the Larimer County Sheriff's Office (hereinafter referred to as “LCSO”) and the Estes Park Police Department (hereinafter referred to as “EPPD”). This MOU sets forth the terms and understanding between the parties regarding the provision of background investigation services by LCSO for prospective EPPD candidates. I. Purpose The purpose of this MOU is to establish a cooperative framework whereby EPPD may utilize LCSO's Background Investigations Unit to conduct thorough background checks on potential candidates for employment with EPPD. II. Services Provided LCSO agrees to conduct full background investigations on applicants as requested by EPPD. Services will include, but are not limited to: •Comprehensive review of criminal history, employment history, educational background, and personal references. •Interviews with employers, coworkers, family, and other relevant individuals. •Documentation and submission of investigation results to EPPD. The completed background report will be submitted to Estes Park Police for their determination whether a candidate will continue in the process upon review of the completed background investigation. LCSO will not decide whether a candidate is hired or not. III. Annual Background Limit It is mutually understood that this agreement is based on the expectation that no more than twelve (12) background investigations will be requested and completed by LCSO per calendar year. If the number of requested backgrounds exceeds twelve (12) in any calendar year, the parties agree that: •The terms of this MOU will need to be renegotiated prior to any additional background investigations; or •EPPD will cease requesting further background investigations for that calendar year. IV. Term This MOU shall be effective for a term of three (3) years beginning on the date of the last signature below and may be renewed or amended upon the mutual written agreement of both parties. ATTACHMENT 2 V. Fees and Payment EPPD agrees to compensate LCSO as follows: • $300.00 per completed background investigation. LCSO shall invoice EPPD on a quarterly basis, and EPPD agrees to remit payment within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice. VI. Termination Either party may terminate this MOU with thirty (30) days’ written notice to the other party. In the event of termination, LCSO shall be compensated for all services performed up to the date of termination. VII. General Provisions • This MOU does not create a partnership, joint venture, or agency relationship between the parties. • Both parties shall comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws in the execution of their responsibilities under this MOU. • Any amendments to this MOU shall be made in writing and signed by both parties. VIII. Signatures Sheriff John Feyen Larimer County Sheriff's Office Date: ___________________________ Signature: _______________________ Mayor Gary Hall Town of Estes Park Date: ___________________________ Signature: _______________________ We envision a united nonprofit industry that creates meaningful, lasting impact within the Estes Valley. “The Network” aims to serve and strengthen the Estes Valley nonprofit industry by providing education, resources, and collaboration opportunities. Established in 2003, Reimagined in 2024. www.epnonprofit.org | 970-480-7805 | Support The Network We believe in bold action, authentic connection, and operating with integrity— for our industry, our donors, and ourselves. And most of all, we believe in having FUN along the way! Strong Nonprofits. Strong Community. 2025 Strategic Priorities Assemble & Sustain Nonprofit Industry Infrastructure – We are strengthening nonprofit capacity by expanding education, facilitating collaborative problem-solving workgroups, and producing research reports that inform strategic decision-making. Tell the Story of the Nonprofit Industry – Mapping services, driving local policy advocacy, and elevating statewide representation through the Governor’s Fellowship while publishing impact reports that highlight the essential role of nonprofits in Estes Valley. that demonstrate the essential role of nonprofits in our community. Establish Sustainable Financial Support – Securing long-term funding through mission partnerships, visitor-driven philanthropy, and expanded planned giving initiatives—with the goal of eliminating our reliance on competitive local funding by December 2026. $465,500 worth of FREE education delivered to local nonprofits. 161 participants over 6 months. 713 hours professional development. Nonprofit Education ˝ Our Giving Guest program has raised $32,000 for 40+ nonprofits. The Network launched Giving Guest in 2022 to bring business and tourism together to support nonprofits. Revenue doubled in 2024. Seven local business partners (and growing!) invite guests to give back. Programs Admin Fundraising 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 Expenses Economic Impact Reports Nonprofit Events Volunteer Opportunities Educational Programs Stay in touch. Newsletter Sign-up Yearly, we gather over 350 community members to celebrate philanthropy and tell the story of our nonprofit industry. Loud and proud! We Make WOW! Moments 94% of local nonprofits engage with our services. The Network completes a first-of-its-kind Nonprofit Economic Impact Survey. The Local Nonprofit Industry is a powerhouse. We report over $103M in annual revenue and economic power of 10.3% of local GDP. We build programs our nonprofits request and use. Staff is invested in the Estes Valley. Karen, Alison, and Cato have worked at The Network for a combined 26 years. Grants Donors Other 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 Income 2024 Financials Key Takeaways Collaboration Opportunities: We facilitate partnerships and networking among nonprofits and community partners. Celebrating Philanthropy: We organize the incredible National Philanthropy Day in Estes Park, an annual celebration honoring the philanthropic culture of the Estes Valley. Leadership & Organizational Development: We provide training and development programs for nonprofit leaders and organizations, and various nonprofit industry educational opportunities delivered locally. Tapping into Tourism: Through our Giving Guest program, we partner with businesses to encourage visitors in supporting local nonprofits. We’re your local Nonprofit Resource Hub. We have everything from information lists to policy templates to our lending library. Nonprofit Matchmakers. We connect volunteers and donors with nonprofits, helping match funders, elected officials, and nonprofit supporters with local organizations. The Megaphone: We amplify the voices of nonprofits, advocating for their best interests and sharing their stories of impact. Data Collection for Impact: We gather and analyze data to demonstrate the impact of nonprofits in our community, driving meaningful change and raising awareness of our nonprofit ecosystem. So, what do you do? Programs & Services The Estes Nonprofit Network is a direct service organization. Our clients are local nonprofits. All for FREE to Estes Valley Nonprofits! This study holds 24 pages of yummy data, ready for you to bite into. Scan the QR code or visit epnonprofit.org/economic-impact Scan the QR code or visit epnonprofit.org/education to see the full 2025 education program catalog. Local Nonprofits Are an Economic Powerhouse Nonprofits Create Jobs & Sustain Local Workers Volunteerism is a Powerful Economic Force Demand is Rising, but Resources are Tight Investing in Nonprofits is Investing in Community Stability Key Takeaways At the Estes Nonprofit Network, we invest in nonprofit excellence through education. That’s why we provide high-quality, accessible education programs designed to equip local organizations with the tools they need to thrive. In 2024 alone, our education initiatives generated over $465,500 in value for the Smart Nonprofits = Strong Nonprofits Estes Valley. All education programs are FREE for or Estes Valley nonprofit staff and volunteers! The Network is a trusted steward of Dollars Time Relationships Information COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Honorable Mayor Hall Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner Date: June 24, 2025 RE: Ordinance 08-25 Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive from E-1 (Estate) to R (Single-Family Residential), Frank Theis, CMS Planning and Development, Inc., (Owner/Applicant)/ David Emerson, Habitat for Humanity of the St. Vrain Valley (Applicant) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Conduct a public hearing to consider an application for a proposed Zoning Map Amendment (rezoning) from E-1 (Estate) to R (Single-Family Residential), review the application for compliance with the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC), and approve, deny, or continue the application. Present Situation: 685 Peak View Drive is a 4.46 acre site currently zoned E-1 (Estate), containing a single residence built in 1965. The site is moderately sloped, with average grades appearing to be approximately 10%. The site is located outside all mapped hazard areas (flood, fire, and geologic). The site is located within an important wildlife habitat area per the 1996 Comprehensive Plan wildlife map. The Plan mapped the site within a high use area for deer. The site is just outside an area mapped as a high use area for elk. The property was first annexed to the Town of Estes Park as part of the Dannels Addition in 1954. Zoning was established on the property in 1955 through Ordinance 152 which zoned all property in the Dannels Addition as R-1 Residential, which allowed one-family and two-family dwellings and required a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet per single family dwelling. In 1972 the R-1 zone district was either renamed or replaced with the R-S zone district and increased the minimum lot size to 18,000 square feet. Like many properties in Estes Park, the subject property was down-zoned in the 2 Town-wide rezoning in 2000 to a less intense zoning of E-1 (Estate), which has a one acre (43,560 square feet) minimum lot size. There has been considerable recent history regarding development applications for this property. In 2023 an application was submitted to rezone the subject property and adjoining three acres from E-1 (one unit/acre) to R-1 (eight units/acre) along with a concept for 30 single family lots. The applicant subsequently withdrew that application and submitted a request to rezone the western 1.8-acre portion of the previous lot from E-1 to E (two units/acre) with a concept to develop three ½ acre lots on that portion of the property. Town Board denied that rezoning request in September 2023. The applicant subsequently submitted a subdivision application to create three one-acre lots on the western portion of the property and the remaining 4.47-acre lot subject to this rezoning request. This application was approved in January 2024. Figure 1 - Vicinity Map The surrounding land use, zoning, and Future Land Use designations are depicted in Table 1 below. Peak View Dr Subject Property 3 Figure 2 - Zoning Table 1: Zoning and Land Use Summary OMPREHENSIVE LAN UTURE AND USE DESIGNATION ONING SES UBJECT Suburban Estate E-1 (Estate) Single-Family Residential Suburban Estate EV E-1 (Estate) (County) Single-Family Residential OUTH Suburban Estate E-1 (Estate) Single-Family Residential AST Suburban Estate E-1 (Estate) Single-Family Residential Neighborhood Village E-1 (Estate) Single-Family Residential Proposal: The applicants request to rezone the subject parcel from E-1 (Estate) to R (Single- Family Residential). A conceptual subdivision plan (Attachment 4) depicts twelve residential lots ranging in size from approximately 9,000 square feet to 18,000 square feet and an open space tract of 30,000 square feet. Access is shown to eleven of the lots from a new cul-de-sac that would align with Twin Drive. Access to the other lot would be via the private driveway to the west. (County) 4 Advantages: The application complies with the relevant standards and criteria set forth below and with other applicable provisions of the EPDC. In accordance with Section 3.3.D “Standards for Review” of the EPDC, all applications for rezoning shall be reviewed for compliance with the following standards and criteria: 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected. Staff Discussion: New Comprehensive Plan Current zoning of the property was established in 2000, which can be used as an informal benchmark for evaluating changes in conditions. Since 2000, a new comprehensive plan has been adopted with a different development pattern envisioned for the subject property. The 1996 Comprehensive Plan designated the future land use on the subject property as Estate, which was envisioned to allow for single-family residential development on minimum 1-acre lots. In 2022, a new comprehensive plan was adopted, changing the future land use designation to suburban estate, which envisions “medium-sized single- family homes on lots that are at least a quarter-acre in size.” As discussed in the Plan, the future land use map is a guide for decision-makers and serves as a framework for desired character of an area. A change in future land use designation from one acre lot size to ¼ acre lot size fulfills the requirement for a change in conditions to the areas affected. 5 Figure 3 - 1996 Future Land Use Map 6 Figure 4 - 2022 Future Land Use Map 7 Housing Needs The challenges associated with housing in Estes Park go back decades and are well documented in the 2023 Housing Needs Assessment. However, housing has become significantly less affordable since the current zoning was established on the subject property in 2000. Since 2000, median sales prices of houses in Estes Park have grown from approximately $190,000 1 to $692,000 2 in 2024. That represents a 264% increase in 24 years or an annualized increase of 11%. Even more pronounced, there was a 50% escalation in home values during the two-and-a-half-year period from March 2020 to September 2022 3. Median household income in Larimer County has increased at a much slower pace, from $49,758 to $88,519, or a 78% increase, from 2000 to 20234. Renters are especially challenged to find attainable housing. In 2010 41% of renters were cost burdened, which rose to 63% in 2020 5 (data from 2000 was not available). Households paying more than 30% of their gross income toward housing costs are considered cost burdened. Staff Finding: The proposed rezoning is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected, as outlined above. 2. The Development Plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. Staff Discussion: Staff has waived the requirement for a Development Plan with the rezoning in-lieu of a conceptual subdivision plan since a Development Plan is not required with single-family residential development and a Subdivision Plat will be required. This requirement is waived per Section 3.3.B.1 of the Estes Park Development Code: “All applications seeking to amend this Code to allow a change from one (1) zone district to a different zone district or seeking to amend this Code by changing the permitted uses in any zone district shall be accompanied by a development plan. Staff may waive this requirement if it finds that the projected size, complexity, anticipated impacts, or other factors associated with the proposed development or subdivision clearly justify such waiver.” Staff recommends as a condition of rezoning approval that subsequent subdivision plat applications are in general conformance with the conceptual 1 Root Policy Research. Estes Valley Housing Needs Assessment & Strategic Plan, 2023. 2 Realtor.com 3 Root Policy Research. Estes Valley Housing Needs Assessment & Strategic Plan, 2023. 4 U.S. Census Bureau 5 Ibid 8 subdivision plan to ensure consistency between applications. There has been precedent in recent years with rezoning applications in Estes Park being processed and approved by the Town Board of Trustees that were not accompanied by a Development Plan, including 507 Grand Estates Drive, Lot 2 of Castle Ridge Minor Subdivision, and The Town-owned “Fish Hatchery” project. While the Development Plan requirement has been waived, the rezoning and conceptual subdivision plan are reviewed below for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan has nine guiding principles for the Estes Valley. Relevant principles include: • Balanced and managed growth that enhances quality of life, preserves local character, conserves natural resources and wildlife habitat. • Housing opportunities sufficient to support a multigenerational, year-round community. Relevant Goals from the Comprehensive Plan are listed below, followed by staff analysis: Staff Analysis: Scenic character will be protected as required by Development Code standards, such as open space requirements (15% of gross land area), landscaping requirements, and dark sky lighting standards. Impact on viewsheds will be minimized by adhering to maximum building height limits (30 feet). Staff Analysis: Impacts to wildlife will be managed by Development Code limitations on fencing and non-native landscaping. The Development Code limits fencing in the subject area to a maximum of 40 inches in height, or if over 40 inches, gaps a minimum of six feet wide spaced a maximum of 50 feet apart. 9 Staff Analysis: The Future Land Use Map is a tool to strategically direct growth towards areas of existing infrastructure. Rezoning the property in accordance with the Map’s designation of Suburban Estate is way of implementing this goal. The site is well served by existing municipal-level infrastructure, including water, sewer, and electric utilities. Minimal utility extensions will be required to serve the site and will be the sole responsibility of the applicant. The site allows for efficient delivery of public services, such as road maintenance and public safety services already provided in the area. Staff Analysis: New housing, no matter the density, will always involve some disturbance to the natural environment. The site does not contain sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands, riparian areas, steep slopes, or habitat of threatened or endangered species. Staff Analysis: A balanced mix of uses includes a range of housing types, lots sizes, and price points, as proposed here. The application would support an underserved residential use that would meet the diverse needs of residents (attainable housing) and businesses and visitors (provision of housing for the workforce). The application materials indicate eight of the proposed lots will be sold to Habitat for Humanity of the St Vrain Valley and subject to a deed restriction limits home future buyers’ income to a maximum of 80% to 115% of the area median income. This is more restrictive than what the Development Code defines as attainable housing (150% of area median income). The applicant is not seeking a density bonus offered by the Development Code for attainable or workforce housing. 10 Staff Analysis: Increasing the housing supply, especially deed-restricted attainable units, will help meet the needs of the workforce. Staff Analysis: The proposed rezoning will create new housing opportunities by allowing development of eight attainable housing units and four market rate units. Beyond the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed development would be compatible and consistent with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. The Development Code defines compatible as: Compatible or Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compatibility does not mean "the same as." Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development. Existing growth and development patterns in the surrounding area are predominately single-family residential, with densities ranging from 0.7 dwelling units per acre to 2.4 units per acre, as depicted in Figure 5. The proposed zoning allows a density of up to 4 units per acre, although the conceptual plat depicts a density of 2.7 units per acre. This is compatible and consistent with the surrounding area. The height, scale, mass and bulk of structures will be in character with the existing area by following the R zone district development code standards, such as the 30-foot maximum building height and setbacks of 15 feet from front and rear lot lines and ten feet from side lot lines. Similarly, landscaping, lighting, noise, and architecture of new development is expected to be compatible and consistent with the existing area. 11 Vehicular traffic will be in character with existing conditions in the neighborhood. The nearest traffic counts available are from Larimer County on Peak View Drive just east of Marys Lake Road. Annual daily average traffic counts there are reported as 1600 vehicles. The expected trip generation with the proposed 12 single family homes is 144 vehicles per day. If 50% of those trips travel to/from Marys Lake Road, that would represent an increase of 4.5% on Peak View Drive at the Marys Lake Road intersection. The traffic memo provided by the applicant’s traffic engineer concludes no adverse traffic impacts are anticipated, including the statement that the impact on peak hour operation at the key nearby intersections will not be significant. Staff Finding: The proposed rezoning is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan, as well as existing growth and development patterns nearby and throughout the area. Figure 5 - Surrounding Density (dwelling units/acre) Prospect Mountain 2.4 du/ac Koral Heights 0.9 du/ac Devon Hills Estates Property (Existing) 12 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. Staff Finding: No comments from service or utility providers expressed opposition to the rezoning or an inability to provide adequate services and facilities. Disadvantages: As outlined below, numerous public comments have been received expressing opposition to the rezoning. Comments include arguments that there has not been a change in conditions, concern for increased traffic and congestion, impacts on environment, and other items. However, staff’s analysis is that the proposal meets the applicable review criteria of EPDC Section 3.3. Level of Public Interest: There is a high level of public interest in this application. A neighborhood and community meeting regarding the rezoning project was held on January 11, 2025. A summary of the meeting is enclosed. In accordance with the notice requirements in the EPDC, notice of this Planning Commission hearing was published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette, on May 30th, 2025. Notice was mailed to all required adjacent property owners on May 1, 2025. A sign was posted on the property by the applicant. Extensive public comments have been received on this request and can be viewed at estes.org/currentapplications. As of this writing, 33 letters of opposition have been received from 18 individuals. Comments are summarized as follows: Change in Conditions Multiple commenters state that the neighborhood remains unchanged since the last rezoning application was denied in 2023. However, the question at hand, in staff’s view, is if there has been a change in conditions since the property’s zoning was established in 2000, including changes in adopted plans and policies and not just physical changes. Neighborhood Character & Density Many commentors see the proposed development as incompatible with the existing character of the area, citing the difference in lot sizes proposed to what exists in the area. Environmental and Wildlife Concerns Several comments raise concerns about the environmental impact, particularly regarding drainage, wildlife, and wildfire risk. Drainage will be reviewed in detail should the project proceed to subdivision platting. As an area within an important habitat area (high use area for deer), EPDC restrictions on fencing and non-native landscaping will 13 apply to any future subdivision and development. The area is not mapped within a high fire danger, but is subject to wildfire risk like all areas of the Estes Valley. Traffic Some commentors believe traffic associated with development will lead to dangerous conditions and congestion. As stated above, the traffic memo indicates no adverse traffic impacts are anticipated. Spot Zoning Some commentors believe the request would be an illegal spot zoning. However, case law indicates rezoning in conformance with adopted land use policies, such as the Comprehensive Plan, is not spot zoning. Housing Affordability Some residents argue the proposed homes would not be genuinely affordable and that the affordability crisis is being used as a pretext for development. The applicant has volunteered to record deed restrictions on eight of the properties to preserve the lots as attainable in the 80-115% maximum AMI range. Staff recommends a condition of rezoning approval that subsequent subdivision applications include recording of these deed restrictions. Recommendation: At their June 17, 2025 meeting, Planning Commission forwarded to Town Board a recommendation to approve the proposed Zoning Map Amendment, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. Future subdivision shall include a minimum of eight lots that shall be deed restricted as “attainable” to households earning a maximum of 115% of the Larimer County Area Median Income and in accordance with the requirements of Development Code Section 11.4. 2. All subsequent subdivision applications shall be in general conformance with the conceptual subdivision plan, including access, open space, and lot size and layout, unless otherwise expressly approved by the Board of Trustees. Sample Motions for the Zoning Map Amendment: 1. I move to approve Ordinance 08-25. 2. I move to continue Ordinance 08-25 to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that … [state reasons for continuing]. 3. I move to deny the rezoning application, finding that … [state reasons for denial]. Attachments: 1. Ordinance 14 2. Application 3. Statement of Intent 4. Conceptual Subdivision Plan 5. Traffic Memo 6. Neighborhood Meeting Materials ORDINANCE 08-25 AN ORDINANCE REZONING 685 PEAK VIEW DRIVE E-1 (ESTATE) TO R (SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) WHEREAS, the property addressed 685 Peak View Drive and legally described as Lot 4, Coyote Run Subdivision is currently zoned E-1 (Estate); and WHEREAS, the property owner Frank Theis of CMS Planning and Development, Inc. has applied for the subject property to be rezoned to R (Single-family Residential); and WHEREAS, the Estes Park Planning Commission forwarded to the Town Board of Trustees a recommendation of approval at their June 17, 2025 meeting; and WHEREAS, the application for rezoning meets the criteria for an Official Zoning Map amendment as listed in section 3.3 of the Estes Park Development Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The Board finds this Official Zoning Map amendment necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected. Section 2: The Board finds the conceptual subdivision plan, depicted on Exhibit A, which this Official Zoning Map amendment would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley. Section 3: The Board finds the Town, County and other relevant service providers have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required with approval of this Official Zoning Map amendment. Section 4: The application for the Official Zoning Map amendment is hereby approved conditioned upon the following, which the applicant has voluntarily offered as part of its application for consideration of the zoning amendment and which are essential to the Board’s determination to approve the application: a.A minimum of eight lots within the rezoned area shall be deed restricted as housing affordable to households earning no more than 80% of the area median income and otherwise shall meet the requirements for attainable housing in section 11.4 of the Development Code. Purchase prices may be adjusted by consent of the Town or its agent, up to an affordability level of 115% of the area median income. The Town, acting by and through the Town Administrator with the approval of the Town Attorney, shall interpret and apply this condition and prepare and approve such a deed restriction, and any amendments, with terms they find reasonable and generally consistent with deed restrictions approved previously for other attainable developments (except any deed restrictions approved previously only by an approved variance). The deed restriction must be finally executed by all its parties within sixty days of the effective date of this Ordinance, or the zoning amendment shall lapse and the subject property shall return automatically to E-1 zoning. No subdivision or development plan for the subject property shall be finally approved unless the eight lots to be restricted are identified, platted, and specifically placed under the deed restriction. ATTACHMENT 1 b. All subsequent subdivision applications shall be in general conformance with the conceptual subdivision plan depicted in Exhibit A, including access, open space, and lot size and layout, unless the Board of Trustees in the approval of such a subdivision expressly overrides this condition. Section 5: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication by title. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado this day of , 2025. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2025 and published by title in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2025, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk Exhibit A ATTACHMENT 2 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CMS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P.O. BOX 416 ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 (970) 231-6200 STATEMENT OF INTENT Rezoning Proposal Phase 2 of Coyote Ridge Subdivision in Estes Park, Colorado CMS Planning & Development, Inc. – Applicant Habitat For Humanity of the St. Vrain Valley - Applicant 1/28/25 The subject property is 4.47 acres located at 685 Peak View Drive, on the north side of Peak View Drive and approximately 1/3 mile west of South Saint Vrain (Highway 7) in Estes Park, Colorado. It is zoned E-1, which allows 1-acre minimum single-family residential lots. The Applicants are proposing to rezone the property to R, which allows for ¼-acre minimum lot size. A Concept Plan of a twelve lot subdivision is included with this rezoning application. The Applicants are willing to have the Concept Plan be a condition of a rezoning approval. Eight of the twelve lots shown on the Concept Plan are under contract to be purchased by Habitat for Humanity of the St. Vrain Valley. Access Eleven of the new single-family lots access onto a cul-de-sac in a 45-foot-wide right-of-way, including curb & gutter and sidewalk on the on the south side of the street. This new public street provides access onto Peak View Drive across from Twin Drive. The twelfth lot will have access onto the private drive in Phase One. Stormwater Drainage The entire property will drain to a new detention basin in the 2/3-acre open space lot. Utilities Underground electric and water mains will be extended to the new subdivision from locations on the west side of the subject property. One new fire hydrant will be installed in the center of the property. A sewer main will extend from the west along the south side of the new street. Both water and sewer mains will extend off site under Peak View Drive and down Twin Drive to existing mains. Phasing Schedule The construction of infrastructure for the subdivision will begin immediately upon Final Plat filing. The first house will begin construction as soon as a permit can be obtained. Statistical Information Lot Sizes: Lots 1-3 and 7-12 9,200+ sf Lots 4-6 18,000-18,200 sf Open Space Lot 29,403+ sf (15% of Parcel) Street Length 160+ lf Street Lights None (Lights already exist at both Peak View Intersections) ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 4 ATTACHMENT 5 Coyote Run Neighborhood meeting January 11, 2025 Estes Park Library Frank Theis, property owner and developer of proposed project, introduced himself and outlined the purpose of the meeting. He then introduced the Co-Applicant, David Emerson, Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity and Paul Hornbeck, senior planner in Estes Park. David Emerson then made the following presentation x Objective – give Habitat’s perspective acknowledging the opposition o Presented information about Habitat including the following topics: §Habitat’s history in the community building homes and arranging a!ordable mortgage financing including a very high success rate with homeowners paying their mortgages (zero foreclosures in 36 years) §The industries in which are people work (#1 Healthcare, #2 Education) and how they are selected. §The role we play not just to set the price of the home but to arrange financing as a certified USDA mortgage lender. §The impact to Habitat’s homeowners over the years §The types of homes we build o Presented information about the concept plan and why Habitat believes they can ensure a!ordability x Habitat- focused on land development but also like to rehab when possible. x We are focused on the 8 households that would need a homeownership opportunity x What we would be buying is builder ready lots, lots that would be ready to build on. Often we are doing the land development, Habitat’s current project at Raven was under contract since 2011 and is just now being built. Builder ready lots allows Habitatto avoid to the risk and expense of entitlement and infrastructure. The purchase price for these lots are at an a!ordable price, and the concept is supported by the comprehensive plan. Habitat will make sure it is a!ordable . Habitat would like to make the rezoning approval conditional on the 8 lots being designated attainable housing. Habitat reported that a master deed restriction can make it attainable and they sited two past rezoning requests that had conditions set upon them. One was Raven where an attainable master deed restriction had to be approved and another was in Lyons where a rezoning was granted as part of a Development Agreement that spelled out a variety of conditions related to a!ordability and preference for those residing in Lyons. This was in response to the 2013 floods. Habitat gave an overview of agreement with CMS Planning & Development as follows: x CMS sells 8 lots in a size materially consistent with the concept plan x CMS bears risk and cost of pursuing a rezoning, replat and installing infrastructure to create 8 builder ready lots xCMS agrees to attain habitat’s approval before each submission and to pursue an R designated rezoning supported by the Estes Forward Comprehensive plan xCMS and habitat agree to pursue a conditional rezoning predicated on eight lots being designated attainable xCMS will provide 0% interest financing at closing so Habitat’s desired out of pocket expenses are minimized until 7/1/2026 (1/2 sales price) and 7/1/2028 (remainder) xPurchase price is lower of appraisal or $125K/lot. Habitat believes this to be below market value to secure builder ready lots without expense 2-3 years in the future. Habitat then showed a concept plan and the development team took questions. Questions & Answers Q: Who is on the application? Is it just CMS or both CMS and Habitat? Paul Hornbeck reported that a neighborhood meeting is required before an application and therefore since there is no application it is not clear who the applicant is. However, as it states on the notice letter, CMS and Habitat are representing themselves as both applicants. Q: What di!erence will Habitat make on being the applicant? David Emerson- Habitat believes in rezoning, we need to ask for rezoning in order to do the work we do. By being involved in this transaction with a binding agreement Habitat can maximize the probability that the lots will be developed a!ordably. We can also work to ask for a conditional approval of the rezoning that designates the lots as attainable. Frank- This request is di!erent than the prior request as they are quarter acre lots instead of 1/8 acre lots. . All other lots (3) will also have deed restrictions for work force as he has seen people in this community who are unable to live here and would like those lots to help with that. Question and Comment was made – Individual provides a!ordable rental on his properties. In the past he would get 20-30 people wanting to rent when he advertised an opening, but now on his current listing has had only 2 people. He feels like there are a lot of unsold units and does not have the need anymore. Scott Moulton- ED EP housing authority o!ered his opinion. He began by asking the rate the gentleman is charging and he stated $2500 for a 3 beds/ 2 bath house Scott stated that Estes Valley has had a unhealthy rental and homeownership market in the past. While we increased the stock of rentals the rental for those homes (market rate) has not brought the prices down although the increase in supply has started to bring a healthier balance. He believes $2500 for a 3 bedroom is still a little high for most even though it is probably market. He sees a significant demand for homeownership with an a!ordable rate, Habitat does this very well, and the housing authority is having a hard time providing ownership opportunities. The Housing Authority is seeing 3-4 bedroom units renting well, but in the next many months and years they want to try to create a spectrum of housing solutions (both rental and homeownership) Q: What do people do about the rising costs of insurance? David explained that Habitat’s program ensures a!ordability at sale by setting the price (as builder) and arranging the financing (as a USDA Mortgage Lender). He explained that Habitat will take the taxes, insurance and HOA amounts and Response from Frank- 1500 SQ feet, 2 car garages, not terrible di!erent from the neighbors, di!erent styles, and our agreement is to make sure they all have di!erent front elevations so it does not look cookie cutter, Comment: An individual stated she represented the Estes Valley Residents Group and read a statement opposed to the change. Comment: If we do this in this zone – what is to keep others from doing the same? This takes away property rights from others in town. Comment: The purpose of the meeting is to get informed- get us on board or oppose, correct? I support the argument against rezoning, not that I don’t trust Habitat, I don’t trust Frank, I wouldn’t vote for this, Comment: Given the public the basics of the contract, concerned with the 3 other lots and they could go down even more Q: What happens to the wildlife? Comment: Concern for the perpetual state of construction- trucks, etc.? Response: David Takes time to build with volunteers, will do our best Q: Would this have an HOA? Response from David- Yes would have to because it needs to take care of the detention pond Comment: Concern with Frank gaining 500K per lot, think he is getting money and using Habitat’s good name for financial gain Comment- statement from United Neighborhood in Estes Park opposing rezoning Response from David- Conditional rezoning – development agreement between town and developer, outlines the requirements for the developer to have the rezoning requirements, Q: Are you willing to negotiate the number of lots and houses down so we can help people without building that many? Response from Frank- open to that Q: What keeps a homeowner from selling at a profit? David gave an overview of past Deed restrictions that govern how a homeowner could sell. Meeting concluded a little before 5PM as the Library was closing  add that to the mortgage to ensure that the total cost of owning the home is less than 30% of a household’s gross income. He also explained in his original presentation Comment: An individual wanted help with Math and asked are they quarter acre lots. There was back and forth with many and apparent confusion over the amount of houses that could be developed in the event of rezoning. David and Frank attempted to clarify the concept plan on a handout that was distributed and the screen (see attachments of those two items). Conditionally rezoned- Comment: A resident expressed concern that the 3 larger lots could be further subdivided. Response: Frank mentioned that the size of those lots would not allow a further subdividing given their size as any division would result in lower than ¼ acre lots. Paul Hornbeck concurred. Comment: A resident expressed concern about wildlife and the detention pond Q: A resident asked if the City ever changed from E1 to R rezoning? Response: Paul Hornbeck indicated that he did not have the answer to that question as he would need to research that. Q: A resident expressed concern that the people Habitat would be bringing in to own these homes don’t have the experience of living in Estes Park and asked if Habitat rehab houses? David clarified that Habitat is not bringing in people from outside Estes. That the households buying these homes are either working in Estes (and likely driving from other places) or living in unsustainable, unsafe or una!ordable conditions in Estes Park. Response: from David 213 Bighorn- EPHA invested in the home to make it a!ordable, rehab, bought at 400k, put in 98K, sold for $350K Comment: There was a comment from a resident suggesting this amounts to cluster zoning and claiming that cluster zoning is illegal in the State of Colorado. They also expressed their opinion that this property can’t support this much development and we need to preserve the open space Q: How would habitat manage having 8 more units when they have 5 already? Response from David- Not going to be building these anytime soon, need to get through the others first. Q: Objective of Habitat should blend into the neighborhood- how to do this with E-1 housing next door? This build will stick out based o! the zoning, Response from David- These homes would be built and sold to those households at 60-80% AMI which is a little higher AMI than what we currently build for (< 60%). He sited that their architect is Steve Lane and we will work to build it so it does not stick out. David acknowledged that the term “blend in” is subjective but we are looking to do 1 story homes with no basements so from the outside it will look a bit larger. He also expressed his opinion that it is hard to find single story 3 and 4 bedroom homes for homeowners to age in place so this site represents a good opportunity to do so. Attachment A (Handout)  Coyote Run Concept Plan & Overview 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Affordable lots under Habitat’s Program (8) Market Rate Lots (3) 3 1 2 Existing House &06DQG+DELWDWIRU+XPDQLW\6W9UDLQ9DOOH\KDYHDELQGLQJ3XUFKDVHDQG6DOH$JUHHPHQWWR SXUVXHWKHEHORZFRQFHSWSODQ6XPPDU\RIWKHDJUHHPHQWLVDVIROORZV  *&06VHOOVORWVLQDVL]HPDWHULDOO\FRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKRVHEHORZ *&06EHDUVULVNDQGFRVWRISXUVXLQJDUH]RQLQJUHSODWDQGDOOLQIUDVWUXFWXUHWRFUHDWHEXLOGHU UHDG\ORWV *&06DJUHHVWRDWWDLQ+DELWDW¶VDSSURYDOEHIRUHHDFKVXEPLVVLRQDQGWRSXUVXHDQ5GHVLJQDWHG UH]RQLQJVXSSRUWHGE\WKH(VWHV)RUZDUG&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ *&06DQG+DELWDWDJUHHWRSXUVXHDFRQGLWLRQDOUH]RQLQJSUHGLFDWHGRQHLJKWORWVEHLQJGHVLJ QDWHGDWWDLQDEOH *&06ZLOOSURYLGHLQWHUHVWILQDQFLQJDWFORVLQJVR+DELWDW¶VGHVLUHGRXWRISRFNHWH[SHQVHV DUHPLQLPL]HGXQWLO VDOHVSULFH DQG UHPDLQGHU  *3XUFKDVHSULFHLVORZHURIDSSUDLVDORUNORW+DELWDWEHOLHYHVWKLVWREHEHORZPDUNHWYDOXH WRVHFXUHEXLOGHUUHDG\ORWVZLWKRXWH[SHQVH\HDUVLQWKHIXWXUH Contact Informa!on: Habitat for Humanity St Vrain Valley; David Emerson, Execu!ve Director, 303 946-5190, Demerson@stvrainhabitat.org CMS Planning & Development Inc.; Frank Theis, Owner, 970 231 -6200, "heis3@gmail.com Illustra on Purposes only. Final lot layout predicated on further engineering and Town review and acceptance Attachment A Handout (o!ered to individuals in the room): Attachment B (Presentation) Neighborhood Meeting January 11, 2025 Coyote Run Homeownership Opportunity Introductions & Agenda Agenda ‡Objective of Agreement ‡Habitat Overview & Plan ‡Concept Plan ‡Questions & Feedback Introductions Co-Applicants: CMS Planning, Frank Theis, Owner Habitat for Humanity St Vrain Valley, Director, David Emerson Town of Estes Park; Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner Objective of Agreement +DELWDWIRU+XPDQLW\¶V,QWHUHVW ‡7RVHFXUH(LJKW³%XLOGHU5HDG\´ORWVIRUDIIRUGDEOHKRPHRZQHUVKLS ‡+DELWDWDYRLGVULVNDQGFRVWRIHQWLWOHPHQWDQGLQIUDVWUXFWXUH ‡7RVHFXUHORWVDWDSULFHDQGFDVKUHTXLUHPHQWWKDWLVDIIRUGDEOH ‡7RVXSSRUWDGHQVLW\UHTXHVWFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH(VWHV)RUZDUG&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ ‡7RSXUVXHDFRQGLWLRQDOUH]RQLQJWKDWHQVXUHVSXEOLFRIDIIRUGDELOLW\ ‡5HTXHVW(LJKWORWVEHGHVLJQDWHGDWWDLQDEOH Our Mission Seeking to put God’s love into action, Habitat for Humanity brings people together to build homes, communities and hope. Serving the St. Vrain Valley Transforming lives for 36 years Build and renovate homes and then sell at no profit with an affordable mortgage 86% of Habitat homes have original owner Less than 2% Foreclosure Rate across the U.S. (none in St Vrain Valley) Our homes represent $38M in Assessed Value Habitat homeowners in this area have paid over $1.7 Million in Property Taxes Across Colorado, Top 2 industries our Homeowners work in: ◦#1 Healthcare, #2 Education Who Qualifies for a new Habitat Home? ‡Clear Housing Need ü > than 30% of income on housing ü Safety/space issues ‡Ability to Pay ü 30-80% AMI ü Steady income/ manageable debt ‡Willingness to Partner ü 250-500 hours of sweat equity ü Training and Classes ‡US Citizen or Legal Permanent Resident How are families impacted by participating in Habitat ’s program? Long Term Impacts ‡Greater sense of well-being ‡Improved health ‡Safer neighborhood ‡Increased savings ‡Improved educational outcomes ‡Higher education ‡Reduced need for public assistance Family / Cross Generational Impact Patty was selected for home in 1999 with her 9-year-old daughter Was a Certified Nursing Assistant Went back to school and now a Registered Nurse Daughter graduated from CSU In 2020, Patty paid off her Habitat mortgage early 1/3rd of our families work in the medical field Habitat for Humanity Homes § Affordable to Buy ‡Priced at cost ‡Habitat as Mortgage Lender originate’s at 30% of a person’s income § Affordable to Own ‡Energy Efficient ‡Various Construction Professionals assist with each home § Blended Architecture ‡Various styles of homes in numerous communities § Real Estate Impact Habitat as Mortgage Lender ‡Habitat arranges financing originating mortgage at 30% or less of a household’s income ‡Habitat St Vrain is a certified Mortgage Packager for the US Department of Agriculture Direct Loan program ‡USDA Direct Mortgage Program ‡Since 1959 exists to provide affordable mortgages to low to moderate income households in rural designated areas ‡No downpayment required ‡33 and 38 year mortgages ‡Rate can be subsidized down to achieve affordability ‡Mortgage costs (including escrow) set at 29% of a household’s income Coyote Run Analysis ‡Habitat cost assumptions: $125k lot + $275k-$325k costs = $400k-$450k direct costs ‡Last two Estes Park homes had direct costs of $189k and 205k (No land, entitlement or infrastructure costs) ‡Habitat for Humanity must serve households below 80% AMI ‡50%-80% Average Median Income Household of 4; Between $59,400 ($28.56/hr) and $95,040 ($45.69 an hour) ‡Estimated Sales Price/Mortgage to be affordable; Sales Price Principal & Interest - USDA Direct Loan Escrow Total 400,000$ $1,054.75 506.91$ 1,561.66$ 450,000$ $1,186.59 569.00$ 1,755.59$ Mortgage AMI Level Income Affordable housing cost* 50% 59,400$ 1,485.00$ 80% 95,040$ 2,376.00$ ** Mortgage or rent payment (30% of income) Habitat for Humanity St Vrain Valley has built homes in 18 different neighborhoods in Dacono, Frederick, Erie, Longmont, Lyons and Estes Park. “I have worked with Habitat for over 12 years and there is no detectable difference in quality between their home construction and other dwellings in the neighborhoods where they construct their homes. In fact, in terms of final quality, our inspectors consider them as one of the better builders they encounter in the field.” - Chris Allison, former Chief Building Official, City of Longmont What is the impact on the value of neighboring homes when a Habitat home is built near them? •Habitat sites 11 national studies, conducted over many years, in many different locations; they all refute the notion that lower income housing has a detrimental affect on neighboring property values. • 2016 Trulia Research: “There doesn’t go the neighborhood” Conclusion: “In the nation’s 20 least affordable housing markets, low-income housing built during a 10-year span shows no effect on nearby home values.” National Studies •Habitat has built multiple homes in 14 different neighborhoods in Longmont. •Three local case studies show a positive impact on real estate values. Local experience Local Real Estate Impact Case Study at Mill Village * Original study completed in 2020; recent sales from 2022 and 2023 show prices between $463,000 and $635,000. Six Habitat homes built 2003-2004 and then three more Habitat homes built 2009-2010. There are a total of 28 houses on the same street (19 non-Habitat homes). Four non-Habitat houses had purchases in 2005 to 2007 and then sold sometime between 2016 and 2020 •Average Initial Purchase Price: $257,000 •Average Recent* Sales Price: $391,000 •Price Increase range: $105,000 - $160,000 Local Real Estate Impact Case Study at Quail Ridge * Original study done in 2020, recent sales from 2022 and 2023 show prices between $460,000 and $705,000. Seven Habitat homes were built from late 2006 to 2008. Five are on one block of 13 (8 non-Habitat Homes) Four houses had purchases in 2004 or 2005 just before Habitat activity and then sold sometime in from 2017 to 2020: •Average Initial Purchase Price: $291,900 •Average Recent Sales Price: $407,875 •Price Increase range: $89,400 - $144,500 Overview of Agreement &06DQG+DELWDWIRU+XPDQLW\6W9UDLQ9DOOH\KDYHDELQGLQJ3XUFKDVHDQG6DOH$JUHHPHQWWRSXUVXHWKHEHORZ FRQFHSWSODQ6XPPDU\RIWKHDJUHHPHQWLVDVIROORZV *&06VHOOVORWVLQDVL]HPDWHULDOO\FRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHFRQFHSWSODQ *&06EHDUVULVNDQGFRVWRISXUVXLQJDUH]RQLQJUHSODWDQGDOOLQIUDVWUXFWXUHWRFUHDWHEXLOGHUUHDG\ORWV *&06DJUHHVWRDWWDLQ+DELWDW¶VDSSURYDOEHIRUHHDFKVXEPLVVLRQDQGWRSXUVXHDQ5GHVLJQDWHGUH]RQLQJ VXSSRUWHGE\WKH(VWHV)RUZDUG&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ *&06DQG+DELWDWDJUHHWRSXUVXHDFRQGLWLRQDOUH]RQLQJSUHGLFDWHGRQHLJKWORWVEHLQJGHVLJQDWHG DWWDLQDEOH *&06ZLOOSURYLGHLQWHUHVWILQDQFLQJDWFORVLQJVR+DELWDW¶VGHVLUHGRXWRISRFNHWH[SHQVHVDUH PLQLPL]HGXQWLO VDOHVSULFH DQG UHPDLQGHU *3XUFKDVHSULFHLVORZHURIDSSUDLVDORUNORW+DELWDWEHOLHYHVWKLVWREHEHORZPDUNHWYDOXHWR VHFXUHEXLOGHUUHDG\ORWVZLWKRXWH[SHQVH\HDUVLQWKHIXWXUH Concept Plan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Affordable lots under Habitat’s Program (8) Market Rate Lots (3) 3 1 2 Existing House Q & A PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 6/20/2025  Board of Trustees Public Comment Name: Larry Bader Stance on Item: Against Agenda Item Title: Public Comment: To the Town Board of Estes Park, I respectfully ask that you tour the lengths of Peak View and Devon Drive before Tuesday’s town board of trustees meeting. Where the rezoning proposal for 685 Peak View Drive, of which the community strongly opposes, must be decided. It would be wise to follow the existing and recently affirmed zoning for this property. As to not upset the balance of this extraordinary mountain drive, with it’s amazing vistas, open space and abundance of wild life. Looking along the entire south side of Prospect Mountain and valley below, it’s easy to see how inappropriate the placement of a high density housing development in this particular location would be. Thank you, Larry Bader 540 Devon Dr File Upload Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Files are limited to PDF or JPG. 25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting. PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 6/19/2025  Board of Trustees Public Comment Name: Daniel R. Scace Stance on Item: Against Agenda Item Title: Ordinance 08-25. Public Comment: See pdf File Upload Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Files are limited to PDF or JPG. 685 Peak View Opposition.pdf 58.77KB 25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting. Once again Frank Theis is attempting to jam a square peg in a round hole by attempting to rezone 685 Peak View and change the character of the neighborhood. I am opposed to any rezoning of 685 Peak View for all the reasons presented during the last attempt to rezone, which are still valid for this new attempt to rezone. For me, it’s not about Habitat being a co-applicant; it’s about rezoning no matter who the applicant may be. At times like this you may or may not recognize the impact of this type of battle on folks. Sure, we talk about the chart with citizens at the top. It’s a nice concept, but in reality, when John Q. Public is faced with a battle against a developer who’s been involved for a long time with every commission or committee designed to shape development in the Estes Valley, it can be intimidating and make one feel powerless. After all, at the very first neighborhood meeting during the first rezoning attempt he stated, “This is a done deal, it’s what the Town wants.” This, in an environment where lots of things happened in the Town and people would ask, “what the heck happened here no one wants this?” So, yes, powerless, and fearful that your situation could change drastically despite what “we the people” want is bothersome. The bottom line for me is, if approved, the nature of the neighborhood would be changed, conditions would be changed, and I would feel betrayed by our “leadership”. That feeling is not just for me, but it’s for all the people that have spoken out against this proposal, concerned about their own property rights and best interests, and the future of our Town. Perhaps public opinion isn’t what really matters. It obviously didn’t matter with the Planning Commission! Let’s hope that’s not the case with the Town Board. I beg you to deny the request to rezone 685 Peak View. Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Opposition to the Proposed Development of 685 Peak View--Please share 1 message Steve Wende <stevew@stevewende.com>Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 4:39 PM To: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org> Thank you for your service to Estes Park. We first visited over four decades ago, and this has been our favorite place ever since. Like so many others, it has never lost its magic for us, and that is a compliment to you and all the leaders before you who have worked so hard to preserve the “feel” even as growth has occurred. So, again, thank you. However, the proposed development of 685 Peak View has the potential to seriously damage that ‘feel” for a significant part of the community, and send a message of an endangered future to everyone else living here. First, in all the neighborhood meetings required by law to discuss the proposed redevelopment, the residents who live nearby have been overwhelmingly against the proposal. Yet, this fact seemed to carry no weight with either the staff or the Planning Commission. Second, overriding the residents, the Planning Commission voted to recommend the proposal, only offering as their justification some elements of the Comprehensive Plan. However, that Plan, while including some citizen involvement in its creation, has never been voted on by the citizens as a whole AND, as stated in the Plan itself, is not to be taken as directive. The Plan, as with any such document, has many good points, with others arguable. Until it is tested with the citizenry as a whole its unthinking application generates surprise, anger, and profound distrust – which is unfortunately what is already happening among many residents and others looking at investment here. Third, only some elements of the Plan were honored by the Commission. The proposed development crams a large number of homes into a small piece of property, right in the middle of a major transit point for the deer and elk so crucial to the quality of life here. It creates a choke point as they move up and down Prospect Mountain. The one acre lots presently in place do not. In fact, it is not uncommon for deer and elk to have babies there which they hide in the open spaces not present in quarter acre lots. Later in the fall these animals mate all through this area. That may not seem crucial to everyone, but it seemed important to the authors of the Plan and was ignored by the Commission. Fourth, the town does need work force housing. My wife and I have been supportive of the town’s efforts in this regard, and impressed by the creative and appropriate ways such housing has been provided so far. This is NOT one of them. This proposal is not only harmful to the animals and overwhelmingly offensive to the community around it, but leaves much to be desired for whoever may eventually live there. Workforce housing is supposed to have very clear and definite advantages which this proposal lacks. Walkabiity for the surrounding area, connection to public transit, access to shopping, etc. are all missing. In addition, my wife and I are big supporters of Habitat. Over the years we have given generously to the building of many homes, and have acquired more than our share of blisters helping to help build them. We have participated in building whole neighborhoods of Habitat homes. We have never seen a location this ill- suited for their program, for all the reasons above and others I am sure you have received from other writers. Thank you again for your service. Please reject this poorly conceived proposal. Steve Wende, 641 Longs Drive. Dr. Steve Wende 713-822-7757 Be strong and courageous, do not be frightened or dismayed; for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go. Joshua 1:9 PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 6/21/2025  Board of Trustees Public Comment Name: Rebecca Urquhart Stance on Item: Against Agenda Item Title: Ordinance 08-25. Public Comment: Despite PC approval, the re-zoning request does not comply with Colorado law, anymore than the last application. There was been no change in conditions around the subject property, and is illegal "spot zoning". If approved, the decision will be subject to challenge in court. Attached is a memo on the leading case law. File Upload Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Files are limited to PDF or JPG. Case law on change of conditions.pdf 179.64KB 25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting. REZONING BY THE TOWN DOES NOT COMPLY WITH LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. The rezoning proposals are popping up like California wildfires. The public did not oppose the code changes to allow multifamily parcels to qualify for density bonuses, because a survey showed very few lots would be affected. The plan obviously was to simply rezone every undeveloped parcel developers could find. This was deception by the Town Administration. 1. Code requirements for Rezoning. EVDC Section 3.3 D requires these standards be met to approve a re -zone: 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; 2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley ; The Town Staff has in the past routinely ignored the changes in conditions requirement in case law by just stating that the application meets both standards. That is false. It IS true that the Town can rezone sections or the entire Town if it meets the Comp Plan standards, but not an individual parcel. That is “spot” re -zoning. For example, the PUD code change was not “spot” re -zoning. Also, keep in mind that if something meets the Comp Plan standards, that does not make it law or a code change. It is guidance. A specific Town decision or code change is still needed. Economic or housing pressures do NOT constitute a change in conditions. For one, those conditions existed when the Codes and Comp Plan were adopted, so it is not a change . Within the Town limits, the housing pressure has been severe since Joel Estes’ day. And secondly, the courts say : 2. Case law: “In determining whether a rezoning application is proper, the local governing body usually asks whether the proposed zoning amendment will comply with the local land use plan . If not, the application will need to show either that an error was made in establishing the current zoning or there has been a change in the conditions of the area in question that supports a zoning change. See Applebaugh v. San Miguel County Comm’rs, 837 P.2d 304 (Colo. App. 1992).” (emphasis added) “ IBC Denver II, LLC v. City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado Court of Appeals [intermediate court], Decided April 3, 2008, 2008 WL 879748 This case is where the Town wanted to put in light rail, and claimed change of conditions (basically because of increased transportation needs). It was denied, on the basis that conditions on and around the subject parcel had not changed. Numerous cases that say: “in determining whether the governmental body abused its discretion, a reviewing court may examine if the body either misconstrued or misapplied the applicable law. Marshall v. City of Aspen, 892 P.2d 394, 396 (Colo. App. 1994); Wilkinson v. Board of County Comm'rs of Pitkin County, 872 P.2d 1269, 1277-78 (Colo. App. 1993); Eason v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 85 P.3d 600 (Colo. App. 2003). Now, the Town attorney has relied on Moore v. City of Boulder, 29 Colo. App. 248, 255-56, 484 P.2d 134, 137 (1971), which distinguished the earlier Clark v. Boulder: “The Clark case, however, dealt with changing a residential to a commercial area by spot zoning. A filling station was to be allowed in a residential area. Such a zoning change was completely unwarranted by any change in the character of the neighborhood or by any valid reason for a change, constituted obvious damage to surrounding property values and enjoyment, and was incompatible with contiguous land use. Here, we are dealing with only relatively minor changes within the same range and scope of residential zoning. Furthermore, although no changed conditions are necessary to establish a PD District, there has already been a change in the character of the neighborhood bordering the proposed PD District brought about by previous adoption of ordinances creating multi-family zones in the area, and there has been an increase in the need, within the city as a whole, for more lowcost housing.” There are a few distinguishing issues in this case the “spot” zoning. Importantly, this case may have no precedent value for our Town. 1. Boulder is a home rule city (or was at the time). Estes Park is a statutory town. Those have completely different standards for land use authority, so again, the Boulder case does not apply. 2. Most of the re-zonings coming up parcel by parcel are not PUDs (PDs in Boulder). We have a PUD ordinance now, and it only applies to non-residential zones. This case was a PUD case, and does not apply where we have a specific PUD ordinance. 3. The Boulder case says: “This site is situated at a transition point between several areas zoned for multi-family, apartment and business use”. This neighborhood is not in transition. The more dense developments have been there before or as long as the surrounding single family homes. NO CHANGE IN CONDTIONS. There has not been a change to non-conforming lots since the adoption of the Code. 4. The Boulder case says “there has already been a change in the character of the neighborhood bordering the proposed PD District brought about by previous adoption of ordinances creating multi-family zones in the area, and there has been an increase in the need, within the city as a whole, for more lowcost housing.” But, there has ALWAYS been a need for low cost housing since the Deveopment Code was adopted. Maybe that was a change in Boulder, but that has always been the case in Estes Park. The bottom line, the proposed development will change the character and the conditions surrounding the subject property have not changed with non-conforming uses since the Development Code was adopted. Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> 685 Peak View Rezoning 1 message bdannels <bdannels@cox.net>Sun, Jun 22, 2025 at 5:45 AM To: "ghall@estes.org" <ghall@estes.org>, "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>, "khazelton@estes.org" <khazelton@estes.org>, "franklancaster@estes.org" <franklancaster@estes.org>, "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>, "bbrown@estes.org" <bbrown@estes.org>, "migel@estes.org" <migel@estes.org> Cc: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org> Mayor Hall and Trustees, The three attached letters were provided as public comment to the Planning Commission with respect to the proposed rezone of 685 Peak View. In the event you were not able to read the letters there, I am emailing them to you to allow your review before the final packet is available on the day of the Town Board meeting. Town Clerk, This is not an available agenda item on the online Board of Trustees Public Comment form so per the instructions there, am sending to you to be included in the meeting packet. Thank you for your consideration and dedicated service to Estes Park and its future. Attached: - Coyote Run 685 Peak View Opposition (for the current rezoning application) - Opposition to 685 Peak View rezoning (Submitted Jan 2023 for previous rezoning application. Included information is relevant to the current application.) - Adjunct Property Impact (Research on the adjunct property impact of rezoning and subsequent development;) Respectfully, Bart Dannels 3 attachments Coyote Run 685 Peak View Opposition 2025.pdf 73K Opposition to 685 Peak View rezone Jan 2023.pdf 82K Adjunct Property Impact.pdf 262K To: Estes Park Planning Commission June 17, 2025 From: Bart Dannels Subject: Coyote Run Phase II, 685 Peak View Rezone There are and will be several well-researched, coherent, logical, and compelling documents and presentations concerning the proposed rezoning of the subject property, 685 Peak View, Coyote Run Phase II. They address important rezoning factors and fact such as change in conditions, compliance with existing guidance and approved development plans, and impact on surrounding properties. I oppose the current proposed rezoning just as I did with the developer’s first rezoning request in 2023. The main reasons for my opposition have not changed: 1) financial motivation by developers because of the lucrative Estes Park housing market, using workforce or “affordable” housing and Habitat for Humanity as justifications, 2) the need for Estes to retain the character that attracts visitors and residents, and 3) placing priority on the needs of permanent Estes Park residents and property owners over those rezoning and developing for financial gain. Business development is very important to Estes Park as you are well aware not just because of your involvement with the Town Board and Planning Commission, but also as residents yourselves. It is clear from those of you who have published biographies on the Town website, even though some of you are business owners yourselves, it does not appear that any of you came to Estes to with a primary motivation of making money. Consider why you came to Estes and why approximately 6,000 full-time residents live here. The individual business interests of some people allow them to live here but most are here for the small-town aspects and advantages, the natural environment and scenery, the community, and as a place to enjoy as it was intended through careful, responsible development recommendations and decisions that weigh the needs of the residents of Estes Park versus the financial motivations of businesses. I am confident you will do just that again and disapprove rezoning of 685 Peak View as well and use the same judgement for all future rezoning requests for other development efforts. My grandfather, father, brother, and uncle were dedicated to the future of Estes Park, my grandfather serving on the Town Board for twenty years, my father on the Town Board for twelve years then Mayor for another twelve years, my brother’s twenty-plus years as a volunteer fire fighter with the Estes Park Fire Department, and my uncle’s many years as Chairman of the Planning Commission and membership on the Board of Adjustment and Improvement Authority. Their vision did not include high density development for the sake of financial gain or questionable use of workforce and “affordable” housing as justification. Thank you for your consideration of my comments and how they reinforce opposition to the rezoning of 685 Peak View. The people of Estes Park are its most important resource and priority should be given to their interests. Respectfully, Bart Dannels Don C. Smith Jan L. Smith 1435 Prospect Mountain Road Estes Park, CO 80517 June 22, 2025 Re: Ordinance 08-25: Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive from E-1 to R Dear Mayor Hall and Trustees Brown, Cenac, Hazelton, Igel, Lancaster, and Youngland: It was with a combination of bewilderment/astonishment that we learned about the Planning Commission’s decision on June 17, 2025, to forward a recommendation of Ordinance 08-25 Rezoning Application for 685 Peak View Drive from E-1 to R to the Board of Trustees. We use the terms “bewilderment/astonishment” in a literal sense because this same developer had unsuccessfully sought Trustees’ approval less than two years ago for a very similar rezoning request. That request was denied by a 7-0 vote, thus substantiating that the former request was not even a close call. Nevertheless, here the Board is again considering another rezoning request. If memory serves us correctly, this is the fourth rezoning application with respect to this property filed by the developer. The town planner evaluating the current application indicates that the rezoning should be approved because of a change in conditions. However, insofar as we can determine the only significant “change” is that involving a different (although not entirely new) Board. That said, we can only surmise that one of the developers, Frank Theis, is essentially pursuing approval by “Board shopping.” In other words, he has returned for a fourth bite at the apple, so to speak, with a new Board in place. The previous Board found his application, which also would have involved more dense building, entirely lacking. But obviously he believes that the current Board will ignore their predecessors’ decision and allow him to go ahead even though nothing has changed. We say this under the assumption that the former Board had nearly the exact same recommendation in front of it a mere 21 months ago. It is difficult not to conclude that Mr. Theis is acting in a totally self-serving manner. His decision to include a co-applicant, Habitat for Humanity, also suggests that he is desperate to somehow craft the application to earn the Trustees’ approval. Mr. Theis knew, or should have known, the zoning situation when he bought the property. And yet, since making that purchase, his unrelenting efforts have cost the town enormous amounts of time in an effort that benefits him personally while being opposed by the neighborhood and thousands of citizens. If this change is approved, it will set a precedent that any developer (or homeowner for that matter) can “shop” for the right Board to overturn a previous Board’s decision with which they do not agree. That hardly seems to reflect a strategic way to address the needs for anything, much less local housing. Sincerely, Don C. Smith & Jan L. Smith Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Rezoning application for 685 Peak View Drive markandrewhewitt@aol.com <markandrewhewitt@aol.com>Sun, Jun 22, 2025 at 9:27 PM To: Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Honorable Mayor Gary Hall and Estes Park Town Board of Trustees I am writing to bring to your attention my concerns about the rezoning application by CMS Planning and Development for 685 Peak View Drive. My name is Mark Hewitt and I have been a resident of the Estes area for 26 years. The reason I chose to live here goes back to my mother's visits prior to our moving here. She would ask, shortly after flying into Denver, to go to Estes Park. After arriving in Estes, and stepping out of the car and looking around, she would say: "I know this is just what Heaven is going to be like!" My mother has now passed away, but I want to keep our community as a little bit of "Heaven on earth". CMS apparently has made a side agreement of some kind with Habitat for Humanity, all though I have not seen it. When asked, CMS refused to disclose any of the of the pro ported agreement. This kind of side agreement between parties does not give Habitat any title or vested interest in the property cited in the application and as such does not make Habitat an applicant in the request to rezone. Habitat for Humanity is a respected non-profit organization, and in my opinion, the only possible way they got enticed into this squirrely arrangement is through some "under the table incentives". Zoning is the most important and powerful criteria and control of real estate use in any community, and should be used wisely without arbitrary changes. Do not allow the greed of one individual to upset over twenty years of quality and stable Estes Valley Development Code Zoning. I have lived in Colorado for over fifty years after my discharge from the Air Force, and over fourty of those operating a real estate company. The very first criteria that must be met in any rezoning request under the Estes Valley Development Code is: "there must be a change of conditions in the area affected." There is no change of conditions in this area! Estes park has a shortage of affordable housing, as does many locations in Colorado, as does many locations throughout the United States. Upon my arrival in Estes in 1999, the talk in the community about housing was the unaffordability of housing for those employed in Estes Park. We as citizens cannot build our way out of this problem. We also cannot change zoning to create dramatically higher density land use and destroy the natural beauty that makes our community and economy viable. Furthermore, this parcel at 685 Peak View Dr is now completely surrounded on all sides by E-1 Estate zoning. As a result any zoning change on this property would certainly be considered "Spot Zoning", which has been ruled as illegal under Colorado law. I am asking you to turn down this rezoning application ONCE AGAIN, as it was previously turned down in late 2023 by a 7-0 Trustee Board vote. This application is poorly conceived and poorly thought out. The proposed development is not supported by the many important characteristics and limitations of the Peak View area. Please do not allow this mistake to to damage the character and quality of the adjoining properties in the area! Turn down this application! Respectfully, Mark Hewitt PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 6/22/2025  Board of Trustees Public Comment Name: Joe W Dowdey Stance on Item: Against Agenda Item Title: Ordinance 08-25. Public Comment: Elected Officials, Please find attached my opposition letter to Ordinance 08-25 Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive from E-1 (Estate) to R (Single-Family). Thank you for considering my comments. Joe W. Dowdey File Upload Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Files are limited to PDF or JPG. JDowdey 685 Peak View Drive Rezoning Opposition 22 Jun 25.pdf 150.49KB 25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting. 22 June 2025 Estes Park Mayor and Board of Trustees Re: Opposition to Rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive – Coyote Run Phase II Respected Elected Officials: I attended the Planning Commission meeting on 17 June 2025 and observed the discussion and subsequent vote recommending approval for the rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive – Coyote Run Phase II. Subsequently, I reviewed the video of the meeting prior to writing this opinion. The following is my interpretation of the interactions and discussions that transpired and my opinions and positions on the topics addressed. Any inaccuracies are unintended. The Planning Commission’s decision to recommend approval of this project is a travesty for citizens of both the town and entire valley. My opposition to any rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive – Coyote Run Phase II continues and is bolstered and based on the following issues: 1) The property is identified as an important wildlife area – deer high use and, just outside the boundary of the high use area for elk. The Senior Planner made this point clear, stating the important deer use area twice during the meeting. Clearly, Staff and the Planning Commissioners either ignored this critical designation or simply have no consideration for wildlife. Furthermore, the Planner stated that any wildlife impacts would be mitigated through implementation of the Code requirements, i.e. fence restrictions, etc. As an Environmental Scientist, I find this claim to be dubious, at best. Wildlife need space – to move, forage, bear young, seek shelter, and can only tolerate close proximity to humans so much, some species better than others. Consider the safe distance to remain from a cow elk and her calf. One-acre parcels, though as one of the public comment presenters pointed out, do impact the natural environment. I agree. However, one-acre parcels provide adequate space for many of the species in the Estes Valley. I can attest that ours does based on the diversity of species that visit our property. The requested development with one-half and one-quarter acre lots, including space for ADUs, does not provide adequate space and will have a devastating adverse impact on wildlife which cannot be mitigated. 2) Once the smoke is lifted and the mirrors removed, it is clear that the current proposal is just re- marketing or repackaging of the previous plan to increase human density in an area where low density is desirable/necessary and currently exists and the impacts of the proposed development to the area are drastically understated. Again, the attainable and affordable housing hue and cry is being used as an excuse for increased density and development. The development plan for this property is deceptive and misleading regarding the actual density that is being proposed for approval as there is no mention of ADUs. To their credit, the Planning Commissioners explored this topic with the Senior Planner and Town Attorney. The Senior Planner indicated that all of the lots in the proposed development are allowed an ADU, by right. Hence, this DOUBLES the homes per lot! So, in actuality, the total 12 lots do not equal 12 living units but 24 homes! For the 8-quarter acre lots to be deed restricted, this allows 4 units per acre! The discussion also brought to light that there is no limitation on the number of occupants that can live in a dwelling. Hence, traffic congestion and parking could be worse than planned. Exploring this line of query further, a Commissioner asked if the additional impacts from the ADUs were considered during the evaluation of the proposed development. The Planner stated that only the main homes were considered as ADUs could be constructed with any property in Estes that met the minimum lot size requirements. As this is a new development and purportedly supported by the Code and vision of the Comprehensive Plan, the failure by Staff to perform a detailed evaluation of the additional impacts from the ADUs is reason enough to deny this application. Since ADUs are allowed by right, then the Town must assume that all ADUs WILL be built. Again, we are not talking about existing properties who could build an ADU, but new development based on a Comprehensive Plan that encourages the maximum number of dwelling units and human population. The Habitat Director stated that the ability of the deed restricted properties to have an ADU was desirable. 3) As I stated in previous letters, “…I would point out that the request for rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive and the rationale justifying said request have already been adjudicated and the original application denied by a Town Board vote of 7-0 on 26 September 2023. Since this denial, there have been no “changes in conditions in the areas affected”, which are physical changes to the immediately surrounding parcels. In point of fact, the Applicant’s current development of one acre lots in “Phase 1”, in accordance and consistent with the existing zoning, further supports the conclusion that no changes in conditions have occurred.” However, the Community Development Director was asked by a Commissioner what he believed, based on his experience, constituted a ‘change in condition’. The Director responded that it was his opinion that ‘a change in condition’ included administrative changes, such as the adoption of new planning, not just physical changes and that the issuance of the Comprehensive Plan constituted a ‘change in condition’. Additionally, the Director believes a change in housing needs – increase in home prices, housing needs assessment, constitutes a ‘change in condition’ as well. Relatedly, a discussion ensued regarding the use of the Comprehensive Plan by the Planning Commission – aspiration guidance or regulatory, like the Code. My take-away from this discussion is that the Community Development department advocates whichever interpretation is most favorable to development. A Commissioner pointed out that the Code was yet to be updated, though this was in progress, to reflect the new Comprehensive Plan and that the plan lacks sufficient detail or granularity for thorough analysis of a proposal. I believe that the Development Director’s, and if this is indeed the Town’s, position, that the Comprehensive Plan and/or the Housing Needs Assessment constitute a ‘change in condition’ to be an extreme overreach of authority! Such an interpretation effectively renders any and all zoning as unreliable by any property owner as changes to zoning may be approved based on the whims of the Community Development Department. This erodes the property rights of current owners while benefiting developers. See above. No changes in conditions in the areas affected have occurred. Deny this request. 4) The potential involvement of Habitat for Humanity, or any similar organization, as an Applicant does not constitute a “change in conditions” and thus is irrelevant. During the Planning Commission meeting the Town Attorney informed the Commissioners that reviewing the contract between Habitat and the Developer would be of limited value since the contract would contain several exit points for Habitat to withdraw from the contract. The Attorney went further to say that he did not understand why Habitat was an applicant. The Habitat Director emphasized that there is no guarantee that Habitat would be involved in the future and build these units as there are many steps that must be taken to achieve construction. Habitat’s involvement was not guaranteed. Hence, Habitat’s presence as an applicant and association with this rezoning request must be ignored. 5) A Commissioner commented that several of the lots are irregular and less than a quarter of an acre and asked why. The Planner replied that because of the open area size, less than the stipulated quarter acre is allowed. The Commissioner seemed to want to base support of this explanation on the fact that there are existing lots which were grandfathered in as acceptable and thus these lots could be as well. I do not agree with this concept. This is a new development. Existing properties are not in question. If this is the case, why have Code standards anyway? Why would anyone allow new construction to not meet the code requirement? I noted that the option of reducing the number of lots considered to meet the quarter acre requirement was not discussed and therefore I assume, not considered as this would result in less density. While the Code may allow the suggested variation, I believe allowing such is disingenuous to the community and thus is yet another reason to deny this request. 6) Keep in mind that denying this rezoning request does not stop development. This property can still be developed as per the current zoning – with ADUs - and as evidenced by the three lots that are currently being developed. Both the Habitat Director and Estes Park Housing Authority Director clearly stated that other options exist for providing the desired attainable and affordable housing – redevelopment, rehab, and remodels. Thus, this rezoning request is a ‘want’ and not a ‘need’. The negative impacts from this proposed development which is unsuitable for the area and insulting to the existing property owners in the area are avoidable if this ‘spot zoning’ request is denied. I recognize that the Town Attorney does not believe that this rezoning request constitutes ‘spot zoning’ as this is a change from one residential category to another and not as if in his example, putting a gas station in the midst of a residential area. I believe the immense increase in living units and population density is so drastic and catastrophically impacts the current character of the existing neighborhood that it is analogous to the gas station example. Furthermore, though I am certain the Town Attorney is speaking from a legal perspective and is ethically obligated to support his Client, the Town, I am concerned that this extreme definition of ‘spot zoning’ only supports the theoretical ‘town’ and does not protect the interests of the citizens. 7) Accurately or not, my impression of the Planning Commission’s review of the rezoning request was that while they asked excellent questions and pursued several lines of inquiry which should have raised sufficient concern to deny the request, in the end they ‘rubberstamped’ the Community Development department’s recommendation. The Community Director stated, “your staff have recommended approval.” One Commissioner indicated, I am paraphrasing and not directly quoting, I view our job is to look through the lens of whether the Planning Department provided sufficient information to support their findings. I would recommend approval. Another indicated a desire for his children to be able to move up here, so he supported the motion to approve. I find it disturbing that, while I appreciate the Planning Commission’s efforts and due diligence in pursuing detailed questions on the merits of the application, they defer to the Community Development department for such a critical decision. The Community Development department will always advocate for development and the Developer, whether a project is suitable for the community or not. They do not represent, nor are they concerned about the impacts to affected neighbors. The citizens rely on the Planning Commission to dispassionately and without bias review matters coming before them and decide issues based on established regulatory requirements, i.e. Code with consideration of both the positive and negative impacts to all of the citizens of the community. I want to believe this is how the Commission approached this application, but it seems clear to me that the concerns of those citizens that will be directly negatively impacted by their decision were ignored. Once again, the citizens are relying on the Town Board of Trustees to protect their property rights and interests. In closing, please remember to represent the entire citizenry, and not just the Developer, and consistent with the Town Board decision of 26 September 2023, deny this rezoning application. Sincerely, Joe W. Dowdey 1220 Prospect Mountain Road Estes Park, CO 80517 Mobile: 970-779-1308 Email: joedowdey@yahoo.com PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 6/22/2025  Board of Trustees Public Comment Name: Christine Bergman Stance on Item: Against Agenda Item Title: Ordinance 08-25. Public Comment: We are vehemently opposed to 08-25. Putting long time residents, properties and neighborhoods at risk to maximize profitability is gross and it's NOT who WE are as a community. This particular ongoing rezoning request is absurd for a variety of reasons which I'm sure you will hear and consider on June 24, 2025. Estes Park is a special place because of the deep respect WE have developed and built for our neighbors and this stunning environment we are fortunate to call home. Please don't let our beautiful town get caught up in the slippery slope of senseless rezoning for new developer profitability over the safety of your own neighbors and the community who have lived here for decades. Thank you Christine Bergman Prospect Mountain Rd. File Upload Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Files are limited to PDF or JPG. 25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting. PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 6/22/2025  Board of Trustees Public Comment Name: Nancy Curtiss Stance on Item: Against Agenda Item Title: Public Comment: I am against the re-zoning of 685 Peakview and feel it should remain zones for one acre lots, as it is currently. File Upload Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Files are limited to PDF or JPG. 25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting. PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 6/22/2025  Board of Trustees Public Comment Name: Christy Jacobs Stance on Item: Against Agenda Item Title: Ordinance 08-25. Public Comment: We oppose ordinance 08-25 of any rezoning of 685 Peak View-Coyote Run Subdivision-Phase 2. Please see our attached opposition letter. Christy & Jerry Jacobs, 1655 Twin Dr, Estes Park File Upload Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Files are limited to PDF or JPG. Opposition Ltr 685 Peak View toTownBoard-Final- 06.22.2025.pdf 624.95KB 25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting. Page 1 of 5 June 22, 2025 Re: Oppose the Rezoning request of Coyote Run Subdivision – Plat 2 – 685 Peak View. Dear Mayor, Trustees, and Planning Department, My husband and I strongly oppose to any rezoning request of 685 Peak View - Coyote Run Subdivision – Plat 2. As I prepared to send my original letter, I realized that much of what I intended to say had already been thoughtfully expressed by others in opposition. Our views are fully aligned with the concerns expressed in several of those letters—particularly the ones submitted on June 22, 2025, by Joe Dowdey and Dan and Tami Scace—and we fully support the points they raised." Please refer to those letters. While I was disappointed by the decision of the three Planning Commissioners to recommend approval of the rezoning to the Town Board, it unfortunately did not come as a complete surprise. The process gave the impression that the outcome had already been predetermined, raising concerns about whether community voices and thoughtful deliberation were genuinely considered. The meeting felt scripted, and it appeared that neither the Planning Commissioners nor the staA showed meaningful consideration for the community's input. What was particularly disturbing was the extent to which the Commissioners deferred to the Planning Department staA and/or the Community Development Director for their decisions or opinions—just as they had during the January 21, 2025, Planning Commission meeting and study session. It gave the impression that the Planning StaA, rather than the Commissioners themselves, were ultimately steering the decision-making process. Again, nothing has changed since the Town Board's denial in 2023. The conditions that led to that decision remain unchanged, and so do the concerns of the residents. The 2022 Comprehensive Plan and the Estes Park Development Code, which guided the Board's decision at that time, are still in effect and continue to support the same conclusions. I will point out that the “changes in conditions in the areas aA ected” that would allow a rezone of a parcel is limited to the physical area and immediate surroundings of the subject parcel, and directly relevant to the property in question, not based on broader community dynamics.  The EPDC defines the areas affected are those within the boundaries as specified in the General Notice Provision of the area in EPDC § 3.15 (B) 4, as measured from the parcel(s) in the subject code amendment application. Ord. 16-24 Page 2 of 5  I will also reference the Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-23-305 (regarding Protest against changes…extending a radius of one hundred feet from the land which is subject to the proposed change…) Note: This Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) do not use a 500-foot measurement standard like the E.P.D.C.; instead, they require a significantly shorter distance. I will not go into further detail regarding the ‘areas affected’, as many others have already addressed this thoroughly, especially Joe Dowdey and Dan & Tami Scace letters. The developer knew when he bought this property what the zoning was/is, “E-1”, and has previously stated that he knew the neighbors would not go for anything less than the existing E-1 zoning of 1- Single Family home per acre or more. It is especially troubling that a developer who has spent many years serving on nearly every commission and/or committee responsible for shaping the development of the Estes Valley, now continues to undermine the very property rights, zoning standards, and community values that residents have trusted and invested in for decades. This feels like a violation — not only of land use principles but of the public trust. THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN is a basic “Concept Plan of 12-lots and is deceptive and misleading regarding the actual density as there is NO mention of ADU’s or Density bonuses as I have laid out below. (This is also expressed within Joe Dowdey opposition letter dated June 22, 2025 [issue #2]). I had raised the question about why the Planning Commissioners were not discussing the (4) 1/2-acre lots (including the homestead) …as I mentioned that these lots/homestead would be deed restricted, market price workforce housing (allowed density bonuses). There seemed to be no discussion until close to the end, when the Developer spoke and said he needed the market price workforce housing to pay for the $1million infrastructure it was going to cost him. 1) Under this proposed rezoning, density bonuses Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) could and likely would result in a buildout far exceeding what is currently shown (4x to 8x density) particularly with the inclusion of 1/4-acre and 1/2-acre lots. a. Workforce Housing density bonus of up to 200% with NO income limits b. Attainable Housing density bonus of up to 200% could apply, with income limitations. c. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are allowed with any property that met the minimum lot size requirement (including WFH & Attainable housing). 2) No limitations on number of occupants that can live in a dwelling…traAic, parking, noise, trash, could worse than planned. Since the rezoning is a quasi-judicial process…Quasi-judicial decisions generally concern the rights of a specific person/persons, parcels and are not applicable townwide. Page 3 of 5 3) At this current time, there is an abundance of Market Price housing…so there is no immediate need for additional Market Price housing. The developer has stated that out of the 12-lots, there would be three 1/2-acre lots & his 1/2-acre homestead to be Market Price Workforce housing Deed restricted. This subject parcel is surrounded by low-density residential properties. Allowing such high-density development in the middle of a low-density neighborhood would directly conflict with the existing character of the area, negatively impact property values, strain infrastructure, and erode public trust in our town’s leadership. This level of development would NOT be consistent or compatible with the Comprehensive Plan’s VISION for Suburban Estate area, which prioritize low-density, single-family residential use in keeping with the existing character of surrounding properties. Conditional rezoning based on this particular Concept Plan sets a troubling precedent for future rezoning eAorts—potentially undermining established zoning regulations and community input. It disregards the concerns of residents who will be directly impacted by increased density and the long-term negative eA ects on neighboring properties and the overall character of the neighborhood. Red Flag: Lack of Transparency in (Applicants) Developer/Habitat for Humanity Agreement The (applicants)-developer/contractor and Habitat for Humanity have entered into a binding contract agreement based on a basic 12-lot concept plan, conditional upon rezoning approval. However, this agreement has been withheld from the public. Mr. Emerson (Dir. of Habit), stated in the January neighborhood meeting, that there is language in the contract that cannot be disclosed to third parties, but no explanation has been provided about how much density may ultimately be pursued after the conditional rezoning. This raises a sincere concern. During the Planning Commission mtg. June 17th, 2025, after much deliberation, he finally agreed to allow the Town Board to review it…NOT the PUBLIC. Again this raises much concern and deception. Without access to the full details of the agreement, the community is being asked to support a proposal based on incomplete and non-transparent information. This undermines public trust and makes it diAicult to respect the intentions of either the developer or Habitat for Humanity in this process. If this proposal is truly in the public interest, then the details should be fully disclosed to the public. Anything less is unacceptable and contrary to the principles of open, community-centered planning. It is crucial that all rezoning initiatives be conducted with the utmost transparency. This means that every detail, including contracts, agreements, and development intentions, must be made fully Page 4 of 5 accessible to the entire community, as well as to the Planning Commissioners and Town Board, prior to any formal discussions or decisions. As I have stated before, transparency is not optional — it is essential for the following reasons: 1. Community Engagement - Transparency allows residents to fully understand the implications of the rezoning and to participate meaningfully by voicing their concerns, support, or suggestions. 2. Informed Decision-Making - When all relevant information is disclosed and debated openly, the Town Board and Planning Commission are better equipped to make fair, balanced, and responsible decisions. 3. Trust Building - Transparency fosters public trust in local government and the development process. It reassures the community that decisions are being made in good faith and with the public’s best interests in mind. In the absence of transparency, especially when key agreements are withheld from public view, trust is eroded, confidence in the process is damaged, and the legitimacy of the rezoning request is called into question. Rezoning decision should not be tailored to accommodate a specific development plan that has not been adequately vetted or supported. Please do not bypass the crucial and proper process and steps of our guiding document(s) that are in place. We urge you to Please review the 2022 Comprehensive Plan and follow the process:  Please ensure that decision-makers read and consider the detailed factors outlined in the “Suburban Estate” land use designation, rather than relying solely on the applicant’s and Staff’s claim that the proposal is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan simply because it suggests a minimum lot size of 1/4 acre.  The applicant’s and Staff’s interpretation is overly simplistic and ignores the broader intent and guiding principles of the Suburban Estate designation — which emphasize low-density character, environmental sensitivity, and compatibility with surrounding development .  We urge you to evaluate the full context of the Comprehensive Plan, especially Suburban Estate (page 67) and not allow it to be selectively interpreted to serve a higher-density agenda that clearly conflicts with the existing neighborhood fabric. - Under Suburban Estate Category…Scale and intensity of the use is in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood based on factors such as:  Built character  Proximity to residential areas  Proximity to unique or highly visible viewsheds, landforms, or places of interest (i.e., Long’s Peak, Prospect Mountain Thumb, Mary’s Lake) Page 5 of 5 Appropriate Land Use & Development Types:  Single family residential subdivisions with low to medium density. Built Form:  New homes should be approximately scaled for compatibility with existing neighborhoods served by public utilities can accommodate moderate increase in density through the addition of Accessory Dwelling Units.  Guiding Principles under the Comprehensive Plan: - 3rd Bullet: “Balanced and managed growth that enhances quality of life, preserves local character, conserves natural resources and wildlife habitat.” WILDLIFE HABITAT IS VITAL IMPORTANCE AND SHOULD BE A HIGH PRIORITY! We respectfully urge you to PLEASE DENY this rezoning request. Thank you! Christy and Jerry Jacobs 1655 Twin Dr. Estes Park, CO 80517 PLEASE DON’T TAKE AWAY THEIR HABITAT and Our Neighborhood Character Momma Elk & Baby June 4, 2025 on property of 685 Peak View They crossed over from my yard to 685 Momma Deer & Twins June 15, 2025 In my back yard Across from 685 Peak View PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 6/23/2025  Board of Trustees Public Comment Name: Carl E. Cross Stance on Item: Against Agenda Item Title: Ordinance 08-25. Public Comment: . File Upload Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Files are limited to PDF or JPG. Peak View Letter.pdf 59.92KB 25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting. Dear Estes Park Trustees: I am writing in support of Preserve Estes Park (PEP) in its effort to stop the rezoning of Peak View. I was brought up believing that we have a representative form of government, and that means citizens have a say in how they are governed. When hundreds of citizens in the area surrounding Peak View say that they don’t want rezoning, for many valid reasons, this means that our town governance needs to listen and pay attention. The most important of their reasons: Peak View residents don’t want high density housing in their neighborhood. I don’t blame them since I don’t want any more high-density housing anywhere in Estes. We are told that change is hard and inevitable. I say that we need to stand against this change and preserve a town environment of our own choosing , not that imposed upon us by a “comprehensive plan” that no one wants. Don’t turn Estes into an ugly growing Denver suburb. This uncontrolled desire to cram more and more unaffordable homes into Estes is ridiculous. This means that our valued trustees must weigh the results of building more compacted homes, that still no one can afford, versus ignoring the stated wishes of the voting public to preserve Estes Park. Carl E. Cross, PhD 740 W. Wonderview Ave. Estes Park, CO 80517 PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 6/23/2025  Board of Trustees Public Comment Name: Jan Scott Stance on Item: Against Agenda Item Title: Ordinance 08-25. Public Comment: see attached File Upload Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Files are limited to PDF or JPG. To the Mayor and Town Board Members.pdf 73.57KB 25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting. To the Mayor and Town Board Members: I realize this is a newly elected board, since the issue of 685 Peak View was voted on and denied in September 2023. I hope that you would consider the neighbors who live in this area and would be directly affected by the new zoning proposal. There are many letters expressing concerns, written much more eloquently than mine, but we all have the same feeling. JUST SAY NO to this proposal. Again, nothing has changed since the Town Board's denial in 2023. The conditions that led to that decision remain unchanged, and so do the concerns of the residents of Estes Park. Thank you for your time Jan Scott 512 Devon Dr. PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 6/23/2025  Board of Trustees Public Comment Name: Tom Kaszynski Stance on Item: Against Agenda Item Title: Ordinance 08-25. Public Comment: Please deny Frank Theis request to have 685 peak view drive rezoned. He knew the zoning or should have known the zoning when he purchased the property at one home/ acre. We knew what the zoning was when we had our house built on Devon drive and we’re fine knowing someday someone would put up their dream home. What makes him so special?? Is it because he’s a “ developer” and we are just “ citizens”. OR are there some special favors going on behind the scenes ? File Upload Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Files are limited to PDF or JPG. 25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting. PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 6/23/2025  Board of Trustees Public Comment Name: Habitat Volunteers Stance on Item: For Agenda Item Title: Ordinance 08-25. Public Comment: The original will be presented at the Town Board meeting. File Upload Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Files are limited to PDF or JPG. Ltr of Support for Ordinance 08-25.pdf 684.39KB 25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting. PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 6/23/2025  Board of Trustees Public Comment Name: Chris Pawson Stance on Item: Against Agenda Item Title: Ordinance 08-25. Public Comment: Please review my attached letter File Upload Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Files are limited to PDF or JPG. 685 Peak View Letter - Chris Pawson.pdf 106.86KB 25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting. 6/23/2025 Estes Park Board of Trustees RE: 685 Peak View Rezoning My name is Chris Pawson, and I reside at 641 Meeker Drive. As a citizen, community member, and taxpayer of Estes Park, I urge you to deny the proposed zoning request. This request has been presented under the guise of addressing workforce housing, attainability, affordability, and need. However, the proposed development is not compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The area along Peak View Drive is not pedestrian-friendly due to excessive speeds, curves, and a lack of shoulders, making it unsafe for walking. Additionally, there is no change in conditions in the area to support this rezoning. Recent data indicates that home inventories in Estes Park are increasing, with many properties reducing their prices. As of June 18, Zillow lists 208 homes for sale in Estes Park. While rental inventory data is less clear, the newly rezoned Prospector Apartments, approved due to a supposed "dire need," often appear underutilized, with few cars or lights visible. Adding more supply could harm local citizens. While some argue for homes with lower price points, short-term rental properties already command ~30% higher returns than comparable homes, countering claims of insufficient affordable options. Critics would state that this is false due to the appraisal price. However, they do command a higher sale price. Furthermore, Estes Park’s wildlife is a cornerstone of our community’s identity. This rezoning would create another choke point, reducing critical grazing and birthing areas for our beloved animals. Emotional appeals from organizations like “Habitat for Humanity” do not justify this rezoning request. And if approved, there are a number of ways that the contract between the two parties could be terminated. Once a park is built upon, it is nearly impossible to revert it to its original state. I respectfully ask you to deny this zoning request and preserve the park in Estes Park. Sincerely, Chris Pawson PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 6/23/2025  Board of Trustees Public Comment Name: Laura Rustin Stance on Item: Against Agenda Item Title: Ordinance 08-25. Public Comment: Will be speaking at meeting. File Upload Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Files are limited to PDF or JPG. 25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting. PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 6/24/2025  Board of Trustees Public Comment Name: Susan Kaszynski Stance on Item: Against Agenda Item Title: Ordinance 08-25. Public Comment: The developer has tried every way he can come up with to increase profits. It is really frustrating that we have to continually fight these battles to protect our property that we have investid in. If the developer truely wants to help Habitat for Humanity sell them the 1 acre lots. File Upload Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Files are limited to PDF or JPG. 25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting. PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 6/24/2025  Board of Trustees Public Comment Name: Kristine L. Poppitz Stance on Item: Against Agenda Item Title: Ordinance 08-25. Public Comment: Dear Mayor and Trustees, Wishing you a great day! I am sharing the link to the 94 pages of opposition to the current re-zoning request for 685 Peak View Drive that were emailed to planning@estes.org. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HN0kTDVYfLPySkDWWCnd3417tP9MNhhV/view I understand that it is included in the Staff Report for the 6/24/2025 Town Board meeting; however, with the abundance of information that you receive, I did not want these great letters to be overlooked. I thank you, KLP File Upload Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Files are limited to PDF or JPG. 25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting. PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 6/24/2025  Board of Trustees Public Comment Name: Stephanie Pawson Stance on Item: Against Agenda Item Title: Ordinance 08-25. Public Comment: Please see attached File Upload Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Files are limited to PDF or JPG. June 24th 2025- PV.pdf 75.64KB 25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting. June 24th 2025 Dear Trustees, Please question the application before you this evening. I don’t believe criteria 2 for rezoning is legally met, aside from being out of character with the surrounding neighborhood and the cul de sacs being discouraged per suburban estate, the 8 lots are less than .25 an acre due to the 15% deduction for open space (chapter 7.4 of the code). The code states that this open space is to have community benefits by sighting a fishing pond as an example in the code. In my opinion this destroys our current community benefits of living amongst wildlife who birth here as well and who were just pushed onto Peak View, a rural designed minor collector road designed for emergency access with 0 walkability (and evacuation I would assume). I believe this is where Planning Staff should have withdrawn support and suggested a larger lot or potentially the cluster zoning as did Trustee Lancaster in 2023 which allows more open space. Zoning should not be fluid for one landowner or potential applicant(s). Habitat downzoned the raven property just last year and they did a great job I don’t question their intent or work but I do question an upzone to four times and the continued use of the word “potentially ”. The changes in condition that have occurred are increased inventory with over 200 homes on the market, ADU by right, unlimited occupancy, and indefinite and unprecedent 6e funds. If $6 million annually does not help to solve a workforce housing problem that’s a separate problem. Lastly, it was stated during the PC meeting by CD that the entire town is within fire risk and this area is no greater. I wish my insurer agreed so I asked, we are in a closer proximity to a high tree fire zone (The sloped Prospect Mountain) based on satellite/aerial images and the town maps that pull up in public record, insurers use both of these when plugging in our address to a database and assessing risk: https://gisdata-estespark.hub.arcgis.com/apps/7e1538531d7e447ea67f689920b15216 Thank You, Stephanie Pawson Meeker Drive Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Rezoning 1 message Vicki Papineau <rvpapineau@gmail.com>Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 8:08 PM To: townclerk@estes.org Please share in Board Packet. We request no rezoning for 685 Peak View Drive. Honor our zoning regulations/contract when we purchased our property. Longterm zoning violations are currently being experienced at 1733 Dekker Circle and 1750 Dekker Circle with a rafting business, equipment, and storage sheds with additional driveways on neighboring property. Stop these violations and mindset that this is acceptable in Estes Park. Honor our zoning regulations! Rick & Vicki Papineau 1711 Dekker Circle Estes Park, CO Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Rezoning 685 Peak View 1 message RONALD HOULETTE <operasemi@comcast.net>Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 6:43 PM To: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>, Kristine L Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com> Please forward to Mayor and Trustees. Thank you, Ronald Houlette 2 attachments PV 685 2 2 2.JPG 1432K pv 685 3 3.JPG 1524K Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Please forward to the Town Board 3 messages Jed Eide <jeide8080@gmail.com>Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 7:10 AM To: townclerk@estes.org Cc: planning@estes.org 685 Peak View Dear Planning Commission and Town Board, I want to register my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive. I don't understand what the Applicant expects, since he is essentially resubmitting the same plan that was previously rejected by the Town Board. Nothing has changed. All the original objections to the rezoning still stand. The adjacent property owners and over 1,800 others have signed a petition objecting to ANY rezoning of 685. Please respect the voice of the citizens and vote against this rezoning! Paula Eide 607 Longs Drive Town Clerk <TownClerk@estes.org>Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 8:59 AM To: Trustees <trustees@estes.org>, Travis Machalek <TMACHALEK@estes.org> Good Morning Please see the public comment that has been received regarding 685 Peak View Drive. Thank you, Town Clerk's Office 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 970-577-4777 (p) 970-577-4770 (f ) townclerk@estes.org ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jed Eide <jeide8080@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 7:10 AM Subject: Please forward to the Town Board To: <townclerk@estes.org> Cc: <planning@estes.org> 685 Peak View Dear Planning Commission and Town Board, I want to register my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive. I don't understand what the Applicant expects, since he is essentially resubmitting the same plan that was previously rejected by the Town Board. Nothing has changed. All the original objections to the rezoning still stand. The adjacent property owners and over 1,800 others have signed a petition objecting to ANY rezoning of 685. Please respect the voice of the citizens and vote against this rezoning! Paula Eide 607 Longs Drive Jed Eide <jeide8080@gmail.com>Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 5:43 PM To: townclerk@estes.org ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Paula Eide <jeide8080@gmail.com> Date: June 23, 2025, 7:10 AM Subject: Please forward to the Town Board To: <townclerk@estes.org> 685 Peak View Dear Planning Commission and Town Board, I want to register my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive. I don't understand what the Applicant expects, since he is essentially resubmitting the same plan that was previously rejected by the Town Board. Nothing has changed. All the original objections to the rezoning still stand. The adjacent property owners and over 1,800 others have signed a petition objecting to ANY rezoning of 685. Please respect the voice of the citizens and vote against this rezoning! Paula Eide 607 Longs Drive Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Objection Letter for Re-Zoning application for 685 Peak View Drive, Frank Theis's property 1 message MICHELLE DARCY <mdrc99@aol.com>Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 5:01 PM To: trustees@estes.org, Gary Hall <ghall@estes.org> Cc: planning@estes.org, townclerk@estes.org Dear Town Board, Some statements did not sit right with me about what I heard at our town’s Planning Commissioners' meeting last week. Paul Hornbeck, Estes Park Planning Department’s Senior Planner indicated that our town’s Fire Chief said that this area (685 Peak View Drive) is not in a high risk fire area and that it is not listed as such. I am very concerned about how our Fire Chief would have made this assessment. On the contrary, we are highly vulnerable in Estes Park and on all sides of our town. According to many sources, one of which is First Street Organization and USDA, who deal directly with obtaining necessary data regarding current analyses for fire/flood areas of concern, 685 Peak View Drive is showing a score of 6 out of 10 with fire vulnerability. Larimer County is at high risk of wild fires. The MORE fuel, to include too many houses in a concentrated area, and also many more potential vehicles in our area of Suburban Estates zoning, this proposal continues to a poor choice of planning. The usage of St. Mary’s Road was crucial for our Fire Department dealing with our last fire. We were lucky this last time. Our grasses quickly go to “dry,” with HIGH winds much of the time. Imagine this area being cut off to them due to potential increased larger volume fires and traffic congestion and delayed exiting, in an area that would have too much versus a more “normal” and consistent 1 acre parcels in our community. Again, the curve on our road is dangerous. This has not changed. To indicate that “studies” were done regarding the sharp curve and that there were no red flags is negligible. None of us in this area are able to drive out of our roads without taking a risk that another car would not come around those curves fast and hit us. To be honest with you, I am a builder ’s daughter. The terrain, location for what has been deceptively proposed by Habitat for Humanity and their deal Frank Theis, is not the right area to expand building in. There is one last concern that I have. I am ex-military. I have a different perspective of safety. For those of you who served in our Armed Forces, thank you for your service as well. Prospect Mountain Road is a road in our small community that should continue to be on neighborhood watch as it is. We have stopped people from inappropriately going up to the water pipes through for no good reason, through diligence on our part. Isn’t it wise to continue to keep this area on its original parcels. Wouldn’t it make sense to you all that perhaps that is exactly one of the reasons why this area has not been over built in? Safety should be a major consideration for our town. Let’s be protective of our Town and not be filling the pockets of Frank Theis. This was again voted on by our Town Board 7-0 to NOT make this error. Please, please, honor your predecessors’ decisions. Sincerely, Michelle A. D’Arcy, 1421 Prospect Mountain Road Vice President, Koral Heights HOA Estes Park, CO 80517 PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 6/24/2025  Board of Trustees Public Comment Name: Christy Jacobs Stance on Item: Against Agenda Item Title: Ordinance 08-25. Public Comment: Please see attached my Opposition Letter opposing ordinance 08-25 of the rezoning of 685 Peak View. Thank You! File Upload Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Files are limited to PDF or JPG. Opposition-Ltr-685-PeakView-cj-06.24.2025.pdf 69.45KB 25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting. June 24, 2025 Re: Opposition to Ordinance 08-25 Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive-Coyote Run – Phase2 Dear Mayor & Trustees, I oppose Ordinance 08-25 of the Rezoning 685 Peak View Drive for the reasons below; therefore, Criteria #1 has not been met. “Changes in conditions in the areas aA ected” IS NOT the Comprehensive Plan. Per the 2022 Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan As STATED under the 2022 Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan on Page 75-Futre Land Use Map Overview: Sincerely, Christy Jacobs – 1655 Twin Dr – Estes Park THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES AND MAP ARE ASPIRATIONAL. THEY DO NOT ALTER, CIRCUMVENT, OR SUPERSEDE ESTABLISHED ZONING,RECORDED SUBDIVISIONS, OR APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLANS. THE ZONING MAP AND DEVELOPMENT CODES ARE NOT CHANGED AS A RESULT OF THE ADOPTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, CATEGORIES, OR MAP. FEDERAL LANDS, INCLUDING NATIONAL PARKS, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OR TOWN AND COUNTRY ZONING MAPS. PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 6/24/2025  Board of Trustees Public Comment Name: Kristine L. Poppitz Stance on Item: Against Agenda Item Title: Ordinance 08-25. Public Comment: Dear Mayor and Trustees, Please enjoy our slide show. With thanks, KLP File Upload Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Files are limited to PDF or JPG. PEP slide show 2025 TOWN BOARD 6-24-2025T PDF.pdf 3.5MB 25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting. We are here to ask that you DENY the latest, requested re-zoning of 685 Peak View Drive. This is about the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) and the zoning laws. The EPDC and the existing zoning, which property owners knowingly purchased into. These both remain unchanged. This is not about what type of housing could be built. The Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan is not a “changes in conditions in the areas affected.” The EPDC Rezoning Review Criteria are not met. This Application cannot be approved. Public Comment “Please respect the existing conditions, conditions that your neighbors bought into and had faith that zoning exists for a reason and that it would be and should be sustained.” Dan Scace Full time Estes Park Resident Adjacent Property Owner HOUSING We support all Housing within existing zoning. We do not support changing existing zoning simply to increase density. “We cannot build our way out of this.” Numerous occasions Scott Moulton, EPHA Executive Director THE ESTES FORWARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS ASPIRATIONAL. THE DEVELOPMENT CODE IS THE LAW. The Comprehensive Plan is NOT a “changes in conditions...” “The Estes Forward Comp Plan is guiding, not regulatory, not binding.” Deputy Town Administrator Jason Damweber Town Board Study Session 7-26-2023 “Criteria have to be met.” Town of Estes Park Attorney D. Kramer Town Board Meeting 9-26-2023 Estes Park Development Code Re-zoning Review Criteria: 1.The rezoning is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; 2.The development plan, which the proposed rezoning would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley and, 3.The Town or other relevant service providers shall be able to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. •There are “ ”•Criteria #1 is met. •The application be approved. “The Housing Authority has been trying to address Workforce Housing for years…Workforce Housing issues began in 2007.” Eric Blackhurst, EPHA 8/16/2016 Planning Commission Meeting minutes “...additional Workforce Housing has been identified in all housing assessments conducted during the past 17 years.” Rita Kurelja, EPHA Executive Director 12/13/2016 Town Board Meeting minutes Lack of Workforce Housing is not a new condition. Lack of Workforce Housing has been an issue for decades. “R-1 doesn’t work for me.” Since R-1 (Attainable Housing per the EPDC) doesn’t work for the Applicant… Is the Applicant now requesting R zoning while also attempting to use a “Co-Applicant” who generally provides Attainable housing, as a cunning way to make the application appear more attractive? Applicant, Frank Theis Town Board Meeting 9-26-2023 If Habitat for Humanity “…may not be there 2 years from now…” and if the Applicant cannot build attainably, who would be able to? “Criteria have to be met.” Town of Estes Park Attorney D. Kramer Town Board Meeting 9-26-2023 If the “…areas affected…” are not the adjacent properties, the Adjacent Property Owners (APOs), and they are the entire Town, then, logically the notification letters should be sent to the entire Town. •There are “ ” •Criteria #1 is met. •The application be approved. •The Town Board agreed and DENIED the previous application 7-0! The areas affected are those within the boundaries as specified in the general notice provision of the area in EPDC § 3.15 (B) 4, as measured from the parcel(s) in the subject amendment application. Ord.16-24 “The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected” Estes Park Development Code 3.3.D.1 “Changes in conditions in the areas affected...” is not based on an opinion or up to interpretation. It should be based on what the Estes Park Development Code states regarding notification. EPDC Re-zoning Review Criteria states: If the Criteria simply stated, “changes in conditions,” then why is notification only sent to Property Owners within 500’? With the words “…in the areas affected,” notification is clearly the “areas affected,” the Property Owners within 500’ of the subject property. “The rezoning is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected;” “Has there ever been an application in the past that used the whole Town as the areas affected?” “Is there a precedent in the Estes Valley or the Town of Estes Park to use the areas affected for the entire Town?” Former Town Trustee P. Martchink Town Board Meeting 9-26-2023 “I don’t have an answer for that.” Town of Estes Park Planner Washam Town Board Meeting 9-26-2023 The answer is no. Unprecedented opposition to any Re-zoning of 685 Peak View Drive AND… Almost 100%: •Of the Adjacent Property Owners (“…the areas affected…”) are against any proposed rezoning! •Of the Property Owners who were sent notification letters are against any proposed re-zoning! Remember, the Citizens are at the top of the Town of Estes Park’s Organizational Chart. Over 1,800 Citizens signed a Petition objecting to any re-zoning of 685 Peak View! The CITIZENS are at the top of the Town of Estes Park’s Organizational Plan. Re-zoning must be “…consistent with existing growth and development patterns nearby.” Planner Washam Town Board Meeting 9-26-2023 The requested re-zoning is surrounded on ALL 4 sides by one (1) acre parcels including those currently under construction. NOT “…consistent with existing growth and development patterns nearby.” “This is a program of empowerment. It doesn’t empower anybody if they feel that their houses stick out in a neighborhood.” D. Emerson, Habitat for Humanity Neighborhood Meeting 1/11/2025 ¼ acre lots surrounded on ALL 4 sides by 1 acre lots will make these houses “...stick out…” “There are concerns about neighbors and fitting in.” Chair Cooper Planning Commission Meeting 4/15/2025 Truly “Attainable?” “It remains to be seen if that will happen here.” D. Emerson, Habitat for Humanity 685 Peak View Drive Neighborhood Meeting 1/11/2025 “Habitat may not be there 2 years from now.” D. Emerson, Habitat for Humanity Planning Commission Meeting hearing re-zoning 6/17/2025 “If it gets re-zoned to ½ acre and then the ADUs on it...now we’re looking at even more density. ½ acre plus an ADU.” This application is requesting less than 1/2 acre lots, less than ¼ acre. (with potential ADUs doubling the density). That is requesting even more density with 8 units per acre. 24 homes. Town Trustee C. Younglund Town Board Meeting 9-26-2023 “Board of Directors is concerned that re-zoning this parcel surrounded by low density housing not only does not meet the legal requirement of changes in conditions, it could undermine the character of portions of Town with larger parcels.” Estes Valley Residents Association (EVRA) Board Statement 1-2025 The Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan page 75 TRAFFIC EPSD will NOT allow School buses to stop at dangerous intersections such as Peak View Drive and Twin Drive. Wildlife will not stop for anything. This property is not appropriate for Attainable Housing which should be located within walking distance of retail shops, bus lines, and civic/recreational areas. 685 Peak View Drive has a WALKABILITY SCORE* of only Totally car dependent. ~55 min. walk to downtown *National Walk Score Index Denser Development would increase congestion on our limited evacuation routes. EVACUATION “It is not a matter of if, but when.” Trustee Lancaster 5/9/2023 During his interview for Town Trustee vacancy “It is imperative we do not create a higher density community that increases our chances of never controlling a fire. When mixed with high fire danger and our ever present high winds we’ll never stand a chance.” Mayor Koenig Estes Park News 10/25/2021 “Elk are moving due to building. We don’t like elk on the streets.” Planning Commissioner Arterburn Planning Commission meeting 4/15/2025 WILDLIFE BEFORE AFTER Wildlife pattern already detrimentally changed due to infrastructure buildout and only 2 of the 3 one (1) acre lots under construction BEFORE Existing home Existing home Existing home “Spot re-zoning is more intense in use than the surrounding neighborhood.” “…overall re-zoning a small area without regard to changes in conditions…” Town of Estes Park Attorney D. Kramer Town Board Meeting 9-26-2023 Spot zoning is illegal in Colorado. •“…encourage relatively high-density” •“…while providing additional open space and trail/bikeway linkages to Downtown Estes Park and existing systems” E-1 Estate Zoning District. •“…preserve the predominantly lower density residential uses that have been established in the Estes Valley.” •“This zone implements the "Estate (E-1)" future land use designation contained in the Comprehensive Plan.” •“The district regulations permit single-family residential uses at densities of one (1) dwelling unit per acre.” E-1 vs R Zoning EPDC: Chapter 4 Spot zoning is illegal in Colorado. 1 acre parcels LESS THAN 1/4 and 1/2 acre parcels requested “The key characteristic of spot re-zoning is the unjustified benefit to a particular property owner.” countyoffice.org 1 Developer vs. over 1,800 OPPOSITION signatures on a Petition opposing ANY rezoning of 685 Peak View Drive. Estes Park Comprehensive Plan “…cul-de-sacs are discouraged…” “So, if I hear you right, there’s no changes in conditions in the neighborhood but the change is in what you’re applying for?” “I believe that the Comprehensive Plan supports this and that is a change in the community.” Frank Theis Neighborhood Meeting 1-11-2025 The Comprehensive Plan is NOT a “…change in the community…” and it is definitely NOT a “…changes in conditions in the areas affected.” Concerned Citizen Professional Comment “Building new homes without corresponding investments in infrastructure— such as grocery stores, schools, healthcare facilities, and transportation—can strain existing services and diminish quality of life.” The Guardian USA Public Comment “We did our due diligence when we bought our property.” “Zoning laws exist for a reason.” “Consider this, granting a re-zoning would be a slap in the face to the Citizens, your Constituents, who invested in their properties, their homes, for some, their life savings, with the realization that their investment was secured by the fact that the area near and around them is zoned E-1, 1 home/acre.” Concerned Citizens Public Comment “Applicant knew when he bought the property that it is one (1) house per acre. To boldly purchase and to bank his chances that the Town would change the existing zoning is misleading and disrespectful to the full communities that surround this property and would set a bad precedent for our Town.” Concerned Citizen Public Comment “People who have purchased or constructed homes in the area did so with the knowledge that the existing zoning requirements would preserve the character of the neighborhood and the value of their property. Allowing such a fundamental departure from the density of the adjacent properties violates the trust that existing property owners relied on to protect their property.” Concerned Citizen Application is not consistent with the Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan page 67 Applicant’s “Concept Plan” within Suburban Estate is not consistent with the Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan page 67 685 Peak View is NOT on the Future Opportunities Map per the Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan Town of Estes Park SIGN-IN SHEET FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Individuals wishing to be heard during Public Comment proceedings are encouraged to be prepared and will generally be limited to (3) minutes in order to allow everyone the opportunity to be heard. Public Comments are expected to be constructive. Written comments are welcome and should be given to the Town Clerk prior to the start of the meeting. Town Board Meeting June 24, 2025 Ordinance 08-25 Rezonina 685 Peak View Drive From E-1 (Estate) t<^R (Sinale-Familv Residential), Frank Theis, CMS Planninci and Development, Inc.. (Owner-Applicant) David Emerson, Habitat for Humanity of the St. Vrain Valley (Applicant). NAM^ (PLEASE PRINT) ^^^k ^^^]V 2 ^njfi Ffi^rz- ^^^/c /!(>, $-/.. ^,^6..^ ^ ^ 4 ci^P 'ElW 5 7 ^ •ri ^'i /?L; $7 /-^ 6 C^^\^^^ ^/6-^ey ^^^/} ^^^Y 8 , /./ ,, , •) / . " /7/ ? , /'.,,/6^"^ ,^^!'7 9 U^A Ru^r'^ 10 ,- ^ "-^\->\)Y. V'v^-i./<^,) 11 ^ . ^ /-" (S' /'v /l-^C\ / '^ C.- /\ -c-' /' AY T^Al '^A^i^S^l 13 ^. . ^? F(\. &.C'^J-' n<5 •Kl 14 7-^•H- K^I^A STREET ADDRESS ll£/ f^m^ 575 'I^Vo/J /^s -T^)^ ( XT} \y^' € 5'5~ v? i^-.<- ^ -y 75, Lo^G^ ^^ S'-hA-^K h\ {^•V/ /''1caft- Ar ^5Y^Pfv^J ^ ^ I.-Af / it) r^ M l'^- ^^" ,/<-(/^-/^ 7C'i/- H.^fi.u /^/^ 70// ^or^a (A. / / / '7 c ^ ^ VC^tt ^c^/} L "1 F-FOR A-AGAINST AT: _zL A-~^~ ~^_s~A_ -^ A ~A_ ±_ JE_ r' .^^ \S. ])<rrv 5»v\'.J/k \^<^'^tA »\^ P\ NAME (PLEASE PRINT) ^v^^\^\'w^z 16 ;'T) ,^ , ,A-^^c- c c ^. L-^ r^'.,' k^-3 "r7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 STREET ADDRESS ^^ l^-vON 01^ . ('{'/''> -^c .^^/4-/ //.t.\ F-FOR A - AGAINST~T _A_ Community Development To: Honorable Mayor Hall Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Kara Washam, Planner II Date: June 24, 2025 RE: Ordinance 09-25 Amending Section 5.3 of the Estes Park Development Code Regarding Vehicle Based Accommodations for Seasonal Employees (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: To amend the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) to extend the one-year pilot program and to amend the access requirements for electric and water connections for the Vehicle Based Accommodations for Seasonal Employees (VBASE) program, in order to allow qualified individuals to use an RV or similar vehicle as a temporary dwelling unit on private commercial property pursuant to § 5.3.D.7. of the EPDC. Present Situation: In recent years, housing related costs have escalated in the Town of Estes Park and rental shortages have increased, as evidenced by the 2023 Estes Valley Housing Needs Assessment & Strategic Plan. As a result, Planning staff met with other Town departments and external agencies in April 2023 to discuss a pilot program to allow vehicle-based accommodations for seasonal employees, ask questions, and gather feedback. Attendees included staff from the Building Division, Public Works, Parking/Transit, Utilities, Police Department, both Sanitation Districts, Estes Valley Fire Protection District, Estes Park Economic Development Corporation, and Estes Chamber of Commerce. Most attendees were in favor of developing and implementing a pilot program. Town Board Study Sessions were held in May 2023 to discuss the concept at a high level and February 2024 to review a first draft of regulations prepared by staff. A public hearing was held on April 9, 2024 before the Town Board of Trustees to consider Ordinance 06-24 (Attachment 2). The Board voted to approve the ordinance, amending the EPDC to allow VBASE. The VBASE pilot program season opened on May 1, 2024, and closed on October 31, 2024. No applications were submitted in 2024 but staff received a few inquiries. A survey was sent out and one response was received. Regulations, including the requirement for “full hookups” was cited as a reason to not pursue the VBASE program. On April 8, 2025, the Board voted to approve Ordinance 04-25 (Attachment 3) to extend the pilot program for another year, to be automatically repealed effective April 30, 2026. The Board directed Staff to consider removing the requirement for water and electric connections for eligible vehicles in the pilot program. This suggestion stemmed from the increase of self-contained vehicles and a concern that the connection requirements contributed to a low number of applications in the program's first year. Staff presented the proposal to the Estes Park Planning Commission (EPPC) at the public hearing on June 17, 2025, requesting feedback and recommendation. EPPC recommends amending the access requirements for electric and water availability for eligible vehicles. Proposal: Staff requests approval of Ordinance 09-25 to amend the access requirements for electric and water for qualified occupants of the Vehicle Based Accommodations for Seasonal Employees (VBASE) program, pursuant to § 5.3.D.7. of the EPDC and to extend the VBASE pilot for an additional year by amending the automatic repeal date to October 31, 2026. Advantages: • Self-contained recreational vehicles could qualify for the VBASE program if the requirement for electric and water connections is amended. • Removing some of the more restrictive requirements could lead to a higher number of program applicants. • Removing these requirements is expected to have a relatively low impact on Town infrastructure, utilities, and other services. • Extending the VBASE program through October 31, 2026 will allow the program to continue for a full season without interruption and without the need for an ordinance to amend the repeal date. Disadvantages: • Removing the requirement for electric connection on-site may result in the use of generators, which the VBASE program prohibits. Action Recommended: At their June 17, 2025, meeting, Planning Commission voted 3-1 to forward a recommendation of approval to Town Board. The Commissioner voting against the recommendation of approval expressed concern that removing the requirement for electrical hookups may result in the use of generators. As noted above, generators are not allowed under the ordinance and their use may necessitate code enforcement action. Finance/Resource Impact: Little to none. Level of Public Interest Low Sample Motion: I move that the Town Board of Trustees approve Ordinance 09-25. I move that the Town Board of Trustees deny Ordinance 09-25. I move to continue Ordinance 09-25 to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that [state reasons for continuance]. Attachments 1. Ordinance 09-25 2.Ordinance 06-24 3.Ordinance 04-25 ORDINANCE NO. 09-25 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.3 OF THE ESTES PARK DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING VEHICLE BASED ACCOMMODATIONS FOR SEASONAL EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees approved Ordinance 06-24 on the 9th day of April, 2024 to amend the Estes Park Development Code to allow a one-year pilot program to permit Vehicle Based Accommodations for Seasonal Employees on private property in limited situations as defined in Section 5.3(D) of the Estes Park Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees approved Ordinance 04-25 on the 8th day of April, 2025 to amend the Estes Park Development Code to extend the pilot program to permit Vehicle Based Accommodations for Seasonal Employees on private property in limited situations as defined herein; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees desires to amend the access requirements for electric and water for qualified occupants of the Vehicle Based Accommodations for Seasonal Employees (VBASE) program on private property in limited situations as defined herein; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees desires to extend the pilot program to permit Vehicle Based Accommodations for Seasonal Employees on private property in limited situations as defined herein; and WHEREAS, the Estes Park Planning Commission forwarded to the Town Board of Trustees a recommendation for approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: In this ordinance, ellipses indicate material not reproduced as the Board intends to leave that material in effect as it now reads. Section 2: Section 5.3(D) of the Estes Park Development Code is hereby amended by the addition of underlined material and the deletion of the stricken material, to read as follows: § 5.3 – TEMPORARY USES AND STRUCTURES … D.Temporary Uses Allowed. … 7.Vehicle-Based Accommodations for Seasonal Employees (VBASE) … c.Eligibility for Temporary Permit. (7)Electric. The qualified occupant must have a supply of electricity from a source on the same parcel. access to electricity by either of the following: (a) Power storage from a battery source, solar panel source, or a combination of self-contained sources (e.g. 12-volt DC power). (b) From an electricity source on the same parcel (e.g. 120-volt AC power). ATTACHMENT 1 The use of a generator is not allowed at any time. No air-conditioning or any other mechanized unit to cool air in a VBASE unit may operate after the hours of 8:00 p.m. or before 8:00 a.m. (8) Water. The qualified occupant must have access to potable drinking water by either of the following: (a) A food grade storage tank for potable drinking water; or. (b) aA food grade hose or other means of delivery from a structure located on the same parcel with an approved Town water tap or permitted well. … e. Repeal. This paragraph (7) on vehicle-based accommodations for seasonal employees shall automatically be repealed effective April 30, 2026October 31, 2026. No temporary use permits for VBASE units shall be issued which would authorize any such use to occur after that date. The Board of Trustees may alter this repeal by ordinance. Section 3: 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 24th day of June, 2025. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2025 and published by title in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2025, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney       UTILITIES To: Honorable Mayor Hall Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Director Bergsten; Superintendent Lockhart; NewGen Strategies & Solutions, Meghan Helper Date: June 24, 2025 RE: Ordinance 07-25 Proposed Electric Rate Increase (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Our objective is to maintain high-quality and reliable electric service by requesting an increase in electric rates to keep up with the increasing costs of operations and capital improvements. Present Situation: The Town of Estes Park regularly reviews the costs of providing electric services and the revenues generated from customer rates. As a cost-based enterprise, the Town’s Power & Communications division relies on user fees to maintain financial stability. Costs and revenues must remain balanced to ensure continued service reliability. A 3.5% annual increase in revenue is proposed. The increase to each rate class varies with typical residential bills going up annually 2% to 3%, typical commercial bills going up annually 3% to 8% At the May 13th, 2025 and June 10th Town Board meetings, staff reviewed the rate study process. This second public hearing is proposed to be the last in our request to amend the electric rate schedule. Electric customers are encouraged to participate in the rate review process by attending the scheduled hearings, contacting staff with questions and concerns, or submitting testimony through counsel. The Town has engaged in outreach to inform the public, including the following past and planned activities: 2/17/2025 Road Show Library; CIP Customer Update 4/15/2025 6/10/2025 1st Public Hearing 6/24/2025 2nd Public Hearing Hard copies of the proposed rate sheet are located on our website, at the Municipal building, and library for the public to review. Proposal: Staff proposes increases to electric rates as reflected in Exhibit A to the Ordinance. Advantages: ● Maintains adequate financial strength required to operate the enterprise ● Meets our bond covenants obligations ● Funds projects required to improve reliability, quality and safety of our system Disadvantages: ● Higher cost of electricity; however, our customers deserve reliable and safe electricity. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the Ordinance. Finance/Resource Impact: Beginning January 2026, electric revenues would increase by 3.5%. Level of Public Interest High, increases to utility rates will touch every Power and Communications customer. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny Ordinance 07-25. Attachments: 1. Ordinance 07-25 2. Exhibit A 3. Presentation ORDINANCE NO. 07-25 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE POWER & COMMUNICATIONS RATE SCHEDULES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado has determined that it is necessary to amend the Electric Rate Schedules of the Town of Estes Park; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 12-11 regarding the Wholesale Power Cost Adjustment remains in effect and the Board intends it to be codified in the Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: That the Town of Estes Park, Colorado Electric Rate Schedules shall be amended to read as set forth on Exhibit A. Section 2: These rate schedules will take effect the first full billing period in January, 2026. Section 3: This Ordinance shall 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 _______________, 2025. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2025 and published by title in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2025, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney ATTACHMENT 1 TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO On-Peak Off-Peak Standard Customer Energy Energy Demand Rate for Customer Rate Class Charge Consumption Consumption Charge May thru Month Charge Charge $/kW August kWh $/kWh $/kWh RESIDENTIAL (1) Jan 2025 $26.25 $0.1337 $0.00196 --------- Jan 2026 $26.75 $0.1365 TBD --------- Jan 2027 $27.25 $0.1394 TBD --------- Jan 2028 $27.75 $0.1423 TBD --------- RESIDENTIAL DEMAND (1) Jan 2025 $29.93 $0.0769 $0.00196 $14.28 $0.1337 Jan 2026 $30.50 $0.0798 TBD ---$14.45 $0.1365 Jan 2027 $31.12 $0.0827 TBD ---$14.65 $0.1394 Jan 2028 $31.75 $0.0857 TBD ---$14.85 $0.1423 RESIDENTIAL ENERGY TIME-OF-DAY (1) Jan 2025 $29.93 $0.1851 $0.00196 $0.1053 ------ Jan 2026 $30.50 $0.1899 TBD $0.1080 ------ Jan 2027 $31.12 $0.1949 TBD $0.1108 ------ Jan 2028 $31.75 $0.1999 TBD $0.1136 ------ RESIDENTIAL ENERGY BASIC TIME-OF-DAY (1) Jan 2025 $29.93 $0.1915 $0.00196 $0.1117 ---$0.1337 Jan 2026 $30.50 $0.1921 TBD $0.1120 ---$0.1365 Jan 2027 $31.12 $0.1972 TBD $0.1150 ---$0.1394 Jan 2028 $31.75 $0.2024 TBD $0.1180 ---$0.1423 SMALL COMMERCIAL (1) (3) Jan 2025 $34.65 $0.1353 $0.00196 --------- Jan 2026 $36.00 $0.1390 TBD --------- Jan 2027 $36.00 $0.1443 TBD --------- Jan 2028 $36.00 $0.1497 TBD --------- SMALL COMMERCIAL ENERGY TIME-OF-DAY (1) Jan 2025 $37.80 $0.1527 $0.00196 $0.1026 ------ Jan 2026 $39.00 $0.1573 TBD $0.1057 ------ Jan 2027 $39.00 $0.1628 TBD $0.1094 ------ Jan 2028 $39.00 $0.1685 TBD $0.1132 ------ LARGE COMMERCIAL (1) Jan 2025 $48.30 $0.0791 $0.00196 ---$18.90 --- Jan 2026 $55.00 $0.0838 TBD ---$20.50 --- Jan 2027 $62.00 $0.0881 TBD ---$22.50 --- Jan 2028 $70.00 $0.0931 TBD ---$24.50 --- LARGE COMMERICIAL TIME-OF-DAY (1) Jan 2025 $57.75 $0.1060 $0.00196 $0.0630 $21.00 --- Jan 2026 $67.20 $0.1098 TBD $0.0653 $23.00 --- Jan 2027 $76.65 $0.1148 TBD $0.0682 $25.00 --- Jan 2028 $86.10 $0.1210 TBD $0.0719 $27.00 --- OUTDOOR AREA LIGHTING Jan 2025 $38.31 --------------- Jan 2026 $38.31 --------------- Jan 2027 $38.31 --------------- Jan 2028 $38.31 --------------- RENEWABLE ENERGY CHARGE Jan 2025 ---$0.0275 ------------ Jan 2026 ---$0.0275 ------------ Jan 2027 ---$0.0275 ------------ Jan 2028 ---$0.0275 ------------ MUNICIPAL RATE (1) Jan 2025 $28.35 $0.1161 $0.00196 --------- Jan 2026 $30.00 $0.1269 TBD --------- Jan 2027 $32.00 $0.1385 TBD --------- Jan 2028 $34.00 $0.1512 TBD --------- Available to all residential customers not using electric thermal storage heat. These rates apply September through April. Standard rates apply May through August. Year (2) Wholesale Power Cost Adjustment kWh(1) PROPOSED Electric Rate Summary 2026 - 28 until Superseded, Public Hearings 6/10 & 6/24/2025 Available to all residential customers and residential customers with electric heat up to 25,000 kWh annually. Available to existing customers on this rate, September through April. All other times the Residential energy charge would apply. Available to all residential customers who use electric thermal storage heat or who own an electric vehicle. Available to all commercial customers with demands of 35 kW or less. Available to all commercial customers using electric thermal storage heat with demands of 35 kW or less Available to all commercial customers with demands exceeding 35 kW Available to all commercial customers with demands exceeding 35 kW Available for lighting outdoor private areas Voluntary participation available to all classes; charge per 100 kWh block Available for electricity use on municipal property Exhibit A ATTACHMENT 2 RMNP ADMINISTRATIVE HOUSING Jan 2025 $23.84 $0.0725 N/A --------- Jan 2026 $25.00 $0.0762 N/A --------- Jan 2027 $26.50 $0.0796 N/A --------- Jan 2028 $28.00 $0.0833 N/A --------- RMNP SMALL ADMINISTRATIVE Jan 2025 $35.04 $0.0479 N/A --------- Jan 2026 $38.00 $0.0495 N/A --------- Jan 2027 $40.00 $0.0519 N/A --------- Jan 2028 $42.00 $0.0545 N/A --------- RMNP LARGE ADMINISTRATIVE Jan 2025 $47.49 $0.0194 N/A ---$13.13 --- Jan 2026 $48.00 $0.0196 N/A ---$13.25 --- Jan 2027 $48.00 $0.0197 N/A ---$13.45 --- Jan 2028 $48.00 $0.0197 N/A ---$13.65 --- NOTES: 2) The rates for the final dates listed in the table above shall remain in effect until new rates are adopted by the Town Board. These rates apply only September thru April usage (for May thru August, the standard Residential rate applies): ON-PEAK for Residential "Basic" Time-of-Day Customers: 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm weekdays Avoided Cost paid to Net Meter Customers = $0.0175, the wholesale cost of energy minus $0.01 for administrative costs Updated 05-21-2025 Residential Energy Time-of-Day available only for residential customers who use electric thermal storage heat or who own an electric vehicle: OFF-PEAK for Residential Time-of-Day Customers: 1:00 pm to 3 pm and 10:00 pm to 6:00 am weekdays and all day on weekends and holidays (New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Eve and Christmas Day) ON-PEAK for Residential Time-of-Day Customers: 6:00 am to 1:00 pm and 3:00 pm to 10:00 pm weekdays Residential Energy "Basic" Time-of-Day is available for every residential customer except as stated above. OFF-PEAK for Residential "Basic" Time-of-Day Customers: 7:00 pm to 4:00 pm the following day and all day weekends and the following holidays: Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and New Years Day Available to Rocky Mountain National Park residences having an alternate power source delivered to Estes Park's distribution system Available to RMNP administrative accounts having an alternate power source delivered to Estes Park's distribution system with demands of 35kW or less Available to RMNP administrative accounts having an alternate power source delivered to Estes Park's distribution system with demands exceeding 35kW Developers or customers must pay for any additional work done, such as service upgrades or line extensions. Payment is required before the work is scheduled. The fee includes the costs of labor, materials, equipment, and overhead. Smart Meter/Advanced Metering Infrastructure Opt-Out Fees - One Time Enrollment Fee of $75 and monthly fee of $20 3) Short-term rentals including vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns are classified as commercial for the purposes of this rate schedule. 1) The Wholesale Power Cost Adjustment (WPCA) is a pass-through of wholesale increases from PRPA. This adjustment is recalculated January 1st of each year and added to the previous years' adjustments. The WPCA was reset to zero in October 2024. The adjustment for 2026 will be $0.00196 plus the future wholesale power increase. (Ord. 12-11 remains in effect and applies to these adjustments.) 6/18/2025 1 © 2025 NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC ESTES  PARK  POWER  AND COMMUNICATIONS  RATE STUDY  PROPOSED  RATE PLAN June 24, 2025 2© 2025 NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC FINANCIAL  FORECAST  RESULTS  AGENDA 2 1 Rate Study Process 2 Rate Study Results 3 Historic Rate Increases and Rate Benchmarking 4 Proposed Rates and Bill Impacts 1 2 ATTACHMENT 3 6/18/2025 2 3© 2025 NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC RATE STUDY  PROCESS:  OVERVIEW 3 STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 4 STEP 3 STEP 5 Determine the revenue requirements of the utility during the study period Unbundle costs by functions and services (source of supply, distribution, customer) Classify costs (demand, energy, customer costs, etc.) Allocate costs among customer classes Design rates Financial Forecast Cost Allocation Rate Design © 2025 NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC RATE STUDY PROCESS  FINANCIAL FORECAST 4 3 4 6/18/2025 3 5© 2025 NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC RATE STUDY  PROCESS:  COST OF  SERVICE 5 © 2025 NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC RATE STUDY PROCESS  UNBUNDLE BY FUNCTION 6 Typical electric  utility system  configuration  5 6 6/18/2025 4 © 2025 NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC RATE STUDY PROCESS  UNBUNDLE BY FUNCTION 7 Platte River Power Authority  (PRPA): Generation and  Transmission Estes Park Power &  Communications (EPPC): Distribution and Customer  Service © 2025 NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC RATE STUDY PROCESS  GENERATION FUNCTION AND TRANSMISSION – PRPA 8 •Generation: ̶The generation function is responsible for  serving demand and producing energy. •The power plant portfolio is sized to meet the maximum  demand requirements of the system (PRPA). •PRPA’s goal is to transition to a predominately non‐carbon  energy mix by 2030. •Transmission: ̶The transmission function is responsible for  transmitting electricity from generation to the  distribution system. ̶The utility must size transmission substations,  transformers, and lines to serve the maximum  demand requirements of the system. 7 8 6/18/2025 5 © 2025 NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC RATE STUDY PROCESS  DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION AND CUSTOMER – EPPC 9 •Distribution: ̶The distribution function is responsible for distributing  electricity from the transmission line to customers. ̶The utility must size distribution substations, transformers,  lines, and services to serve the maximum local demand  requirements of their customers. •Customer: ̶The customer function is responsible for utility billing and  customer service. ̶EPPC future customer function: •DER (Distributed Energy Resources) programs development  and execution. •Communication and information. © 2025 NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC RATE STUDY PROCESS  FIXED VS. VARIABLE COSTS AND REVENUES 10 Typical Cost Classifications Typical Cost Functions Demand Related Energy Related Source of Power Demand Related  Customer Related Distribution Customer RelatedCustomer Graphs are for illustrative purposes only. 9 10 6/18/2025 6 © 2025 NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC RATE STUDY PROCESS  ALLOCATION TO CUSTOMER CLASSES 11 Typical Cost Allocation to Customer Classes Include: •Demand Costs ̶Vary with demand (kW) on the system ̶PRPA system peak demand  ̶EPPC system peak demand •Energy Costs ̶Vary with energy sold or purchased •Customer Costs ̶Related to number of customers © 2025 NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC RATE STUDY PROCESS  COST OF SERVICE TO RATE DESIGN 12 Cost of Service ‐Revenue requirement. ‐Functionalize. ‐Classify. ‐Guide for cost‐based       rates. Rate Making ‐Policy decisions. ‐Incentivize behavior to  create win‐win scenario  between the utility and  its customers. ‐Industry practice is to  move towards or align  with COS. Rates ‐Collect sufficient  revenue. ‐Support utility’s goals. ‐Use resources in cost‐ effective manner ‐Price signal to customer: •Convey information. •Change behavior. 11 12 6/18/2025 7 © 2025 NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC RATE STUDY PROCESS  POTENTIAL OBJECTIVES AND BEST PRACTICES FOR RATE DESIGN 13 •Revenue stability •Simplicity •Legislative and regulatory compliance •Modernization, Distributed Generation, Virtual Power Plant, Electric Vehicles etc. •Alignment with cost of service: ̶Align a utility’s revenue collection with its cost causation (e.g., demand, energy, customer) •Incorporate utility policy •If rates are not well designed or not aligned with COS: ̶Financial instability ̶Potential for cost recovery not matching incurred costs ̶Potential to over‐recover or under‐recover costs ̶Does not ensure revenue adequacy © 2025 NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC FINANCIAL FORECAST RESULTS 2025 REVENUE REQUIREMENT 14 •Source of Supply makes up a large portion  of total expenses. •Other Operating Expenses: ̶Distribution ̶Customer Accounts ̶Administrative & General •General Fund Transfer (GFT): ̶$1.35 M •Capital Improvement Plan •Debt Service 13 14 6/18/2025 8 © 2025 NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC FINANCIAL FORECAST RESULTS  RESERVE FUND 15 •If no action is taken, the reserve  fund levels will be drawn down  annually. •Reserve fund drops below 90‐ day target in 2027. •Rate increases need to maintain  financial stability. © 2025 NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC PROPOSED RATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 16 •If no rate increases are implemented: ̶Draw down of cash reserves and Days Cash on Hand. ̶Reduction to Debt Service Coverage. ̶Higher rate increases need in later years. ̶Potential for rate shock. •System revenue increase needed is 3.5%. 15 16 6/18/2025 9 © 2025 NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC HISTORICAL RATE INCREASES 17 © 2025 NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC RATE BENCHMARKING 18 17 18 6/18/2025 10 © 2025 NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC RATE BENCHMARKING – EPPC SYSTEM COMPARED TO OTHER PRPA MEMBERS 19 © 2025 NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC RESIDENTIAL 20 Phase 3  Rates Phase 2  Rates Phase 1  Rates Current  RatesClass Standard Residential $27.75$27.25$26.75$26.25Customer Charge $0.1423$0.1394$0.1365$0.1337Energy Charge Residential Demand $31.75$31.12$30.50$29.93Customer Charge $0.0857$0.0827$0.0798$0.0769Winter Energy $0.1423$0.1394$0.1365$0.1337Summer Energy $14.85$14.65$14.45$14.28Demand 19 20 6/18/2025 11 © 2025 NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC RESIDENTIAL 21 Phase 3  Rates Phase 2  Rates Phase 1  Rates Current  RatesClass Residential Time of Day $31.75$31.12$30.50$29.93Customer Charge $0.1999$0.1949$0.1899$0.1851On‐Peak Energy $0.1136$0.1108$0.1080$0.1053Off‐Peak Energy Residential Time of Day Basic $31.75$31.12$30.50$29.93Customer Charge $0.2024$0.1972$0.1921$0.1915Winter On‐Peak Energy $0.1180$0.1150$0.1120$0.1117Winter Off‐Peak Energy $0.1423$0.1394$0.1365$0.1337Summer Energy © 2025 NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC RESIDENTIAL BILL IMPACTS 22 Percent  Change Phase 1  Monthly Bill Current  Monthly Bill Demand  (kW)Usage (kWh)Class 2.0%$109.83$107.65N/A600Standard Residential 2.5%$277.87$271.097.51,700Residential Demand 2.5%$248.52$242.56N/A1,600Residential Time of Day 2.0%$182.81$179.16N/A1,100Residential Time of Day Basic(1) (1) Evaluated using summer rates 21 22 6/18/2025 12 © 2025 NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC SMALL COMMERCIAL 23 Phase 3  Rates Phase 2  Rates Phase 1  Rates Current  RatesClass Standard Small Commercial $36.00$36.00$36.00$34.65Customer Charge 0.1497$0.1443$0.1390$0.1353Energy Charge Small Commercial Time of Day $39.00$39.00$39.00$37.80Customer Charge $0.1685$0.1628$0.1573$0.1527On Peak Energy Charge $0.1132$0.1094$0.1057$0.1026Off Peak Energy Charge © 2025 NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC SMALL COMMERCIAL BILL IMPACTS 24 Percent  Change Phase 1  Monthly Bill Current  Monthly BillUsage (kWh)Class 2.9%$176.96$171.911,000Standard Small Commercial 3.0%$288.91$280.522,000Small Commercial Time of Day 23 24 6/18/2025 13 QUESTIONS?  NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC 225 UNION BOULEVARD, SUITE 450 LAKEWOOD, CO 80228 MEGHAN HELPER SENIOR CONSULTANT (720) 808‐1589 MHELPER@NEWGENSTRATEGIES.NET 25 PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 6/14/2025  Board of Trustees Public Comment Name: Grace Page Stance on Item: Against Agenda Item Title: Public Comment: We are just one house- a family home. Here is what we have paid per year (only going back to 2019- not since we moved here): 2019: $2,972.06 2020: $3,099.06 2021: $3,776.57 2022: $3,730.08 2023: $4,432.99 2024:$4,579.32 So far in 2025 $2,816.91 for 5 months one month was $20.00 shy of $600 dollars. When I tell others who live in the valley Longmont and Denver area they are in pure shock! Both my husband and I are retired living off SSI. We are not rich. The electric bill is outrageous! It is absolutely bleeding us dry. When I have to decrease medical care, prescriptions, and food to pay electric bills there is something wrong. We are one house times all the houses you serve not to mention businesses- how dare you talk about more increases. You are going to make it impossible for regular people to afford basic electric. You need to be investigated because this money is not being used for electric alone and when pressed for transparency you go dark. Against robbery you commit File Upload Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Files are limited to PDF or JPG. 25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting. PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 6/20/2025  Board of Trustees Public Comment Name: Bill Urquhart Stance on Item: Neutral Agenda Item Title: Ordinance 07-25. Public Comment: Please see attached statement on the electric rate study File Upload Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Files are limited to PDF or JPG. EPPC statement 2025.pdf 76.66KB 25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting. My name is Bill Urquhart. My wife, Rebecca, & I live at 1955 Homestead Lane here in Estes Park. I have experience in electricity and in defending prices in other industries. I’ve read your consultant’s report in support of your electric rate increase request. It is very similar to their prior study--a thorough buildup of costs and revenue needs including honoring your debt covenants, I expect you to approve the proposed rate increases on that basis. However, the study doesn’t address some issues that I’ve heard from your customers. Obviously, those issues were outside your consultant’s scope of work. A year ago, I spent about 2 weeks on your electric rates issue. I ran some calculations based on Ms. Phipps’s research, looked at CAMU (Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities) data, asked questions of about 20 of your customers, and met with your Town Manager on Friday before your Tuesday vote. Customers’ opinions were—(1) EPPC’s rapid response to outages is universally impressive; (2) the Town charges too much for its monopoly electric service; and (3) the Town makes way too much money off its electricity service. The first opinion suggests that any reduction in outage response time will not be well received by your customers. They would need to believe that step would be a last resort—not a first option under any EPPC cost/price pressure. The last two opinions deal with fairness, which is important to demonstrate for your monopoly electric service. Both opinions have some merit on their face for Estes Park—both prices and total revenues are relatively high. Customer confidence in your fairness really boils down to two elements—reasonableness and consistency with good industry practice. Of those two elements, the most powerful is consistency with industry. The more consistent you are with the industry you’re in, the less you have to prove that your rates are reasonable. The more you stick out on the high side, the harder it will be to prove reasonableness as an exception. This suggests a benchmarking study on a gross basis using major components within your rate study be performed either by your own staff or an outside consultant. This would compare $/kWh of major cost elements and of total net revenues. Managements of private companies routinely do this. No doubt, the state commission regulating the public electric utility I once worked for did it, too, when considering our rate increase requests. Although you are not in a competitive industry locally, you are in a common one —21 municipal electric utilities in the state. All deal with some common issues: All serve more remote customers more expensively. All deal with increasing prices for equipment, fire risk, weather issues (winds up here, large hail down there), etc. There are differences, the most important of which, I suspect, is often service density. Service density alone is not dispositive, however. If the $/kWh price curve of Colorado municipal utilities were flat, there wouldn’t be a consistency issue. However, it is steep. $/kWh prices more than double from the cheapest to the highest priced municipal provider. Based on the 2019 CAMU survey, Estes Park used to have the highest price of all. I understand that now Estes Park’s price position has slipped a bit, but it is still in top quartile of electricity prices of all state municipal utilities. Now, let ’s turn to the too-high revenue opinion. In net income in your budget, i.e., “transfer ”,your percentage basis of costs is consistent with the others. However, your higher costs lift you higher on a unit basis, or the $/kWh. You also have an additional electricity business revenue stream outside of EPPC ’s budget: local taxes on electricity sales. A fair benchmark comparison with other municipal electric providers needs to include both income or revenue streams on a total $/kWh basis. I suspect that your relatively higher electricity prices and your relatively higher local tax rate both elevate your total $/kWh net revenues from this service above others in your industry. Plus, sales tax compounds the transfer portion of your price. This point was raised to me by one of your customers in Allenspark who also questioned local sales tax on her electricity purchases. I expect that comparing total net revenues from electricity sales could be your toughest issue, if you choose to look more closely at it. Certainly, it lends support to potential reductions in transfers from EPPC. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Honorable Mayor Hall Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner Date: June 24, 2025 RE: Resolution 66-25 Making Certain Findings of Fact Regarding the Proposed Annexation of Elkhorn Lodge Phase II to the Town of Estes Park PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: The purpose of this item is to determine if the Elkhorn Lodge Phase II is eligible for annexation and make certain findings of fact related thereto in accordance with the Municipal Annexation Act and Colorado Constitution. Present Situation: The annexation process is governed by the Municipal Annexation Act (“Act”), which is codified at C.R.S. 31-12-101, et seq. and the Colorado Constitution which require the following steps in the annexation process: 1. Referral to Town Board – March 25, 2025. The annexation request was referred to Town Board for informational purposes only. No formal action was taken or required. However, Town Board did express interest in continuing with formal annexation proceedings. 2. Substantial Compliance Resolution – May 13, 2025. Town Board determined the annexation petition was in the prescribed form and contained the necessary statutory criteria. 3. Eligibility Resolution – June 24, 2025. After four consecutive weeks of public notice in a newspaper of general circulation, Town Board will determine if the annexation is eligible for annexation under the Act and Colorado Constitution. 4. Annexation and Zoning – Date TBD. Once an annexation petition has been found to be both substantially compliant and eligible for annexation, Town Board may proceed with the Annexation and Zoning Hearings. Substantial Compliance and Eligibility determine whether the parcel can be annexed; this final step determines whether a parcel will be annexed. Staff intends to draft an annexation agreement taking into account any Board direction, for consideration along with an ordinance to annex the property. Proposal: The applicant, HS Estes Park, LLC requests annexation of one 40-acre parcel to the Town of Estes Park. The Municipal Annexation Act requires the Town Board to determine if the annexation is eligible for annexation. Town Board’s action and authority at this stage of the annexation review is to determine if the territory is eligible for annexation. Staff has completed a review of the annexation application and finds that the annexation application meets the criteria of the Municipal Annexation Act, including the following: • That at least one-sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the annexing municipality. Approximately one- fourth of the perimeter is contiguous with the Town. • That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the annexing municipality; that said area is urban or will be urbanized in the near future; and that said area is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the annexing municipality. As directly established by the Act, the fact that the area proposed to be annexed has the required contiguity with the annexing municipality shall be a basis for a finding of compliance with these requirements except for unique circumstances that are not applicable in this case. Advantages: • Finding the application eligible for annexation would be consistent with the requirements of Section 30 of Article II of the Colorado Constitution and with the Colorado Revised Statutes § 31-12-101, et seq. Disadvantages: • Staff has not identified any disadvantages in determining the property eligible for annexation. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the resolution making certain findings of fact regarding eligibility of the Elkhorn Lodge Phase II Annexation. Finance/Resource Impact: The process of finding the property eligible for annexation has no impact to the Town budget. Level of Public Interest Public interest in this annexation is anticipated to be high. Public comments are posted to estes.org/currentapplications. Sample Motion: 1.I move to approve Resolution 66-25. 2.I move to continue Resolution 66-25 to the next regularly scheduled meeting, finding that … [state reasons for continuing]. 3.I move to not approve Resolution 66-25, finding the territory is not eligible for annexation. Attachments: 1. Resolution 66-25 2.Annexation Petition 3.Annexation Map RESOLUTION 66-25 FINDING A PARCEL OF LAND KNOWN AS ELKHORN LODGE PHASE II ELIGIBLE FOR ANNEXATION WHEREAS, the Town Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, has found a petition for the annexation of the hereinafter described parcel of land to be in substantial compliance with the requirements of section 31-12-107(1), Colorado Revised Statutes; and WHEREAS, the Town has provided notice of public hearing on the proposed annexation by publication once per week for four successive weeks and by registered mail to Board of County Commissioners, the County Attorney, the school district, and to any special district having territory in the area proposed to be annexed; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has completed a public hearing to determine if the proposed annexation complies with article II, section 30 of the Colorado Constitution and sections 31-12-104 and -105 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, to establish eligibility for annexation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. The Town Board of Trustees hereby finds and concludes with regard to the annexation of the territory described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein, that not less than one-sixth of the perimeter of the area to be annexed is contiguous with the existing boundaries of the Town; and therefore, because of such contiguity, a community of interest exists between the territory proposed to be annexed and the Town; the territory proposed to be annexed is urban or will be urbanized in the near future, and the territory proposed to be annexed is integrated or is capable of being integrated within the Town. Section 2. The Town Board of Trustees hereby finds and determines that no land held in identical ownership has been divided or included as part of the territory proposed for annexation without written consent of the owner thereof; that no annexation proceedings have been commenced by another municipality; that the annexation will not result in the detachment of area from a school district; that the annexation will not result in the extension of a municipal boundary more than three miles; that the Town has in place a plan for said three mile area; and that in establishing boundaries of the area to be annexed the entire width of any street or alley is included within the area to be annexed. Section 3. An election is not required. Section 4. Additional terms or conditions will not be imposed under section 31-12- 112, C.R.S., upon the area to be annexed. Section 5: The proposed annexation meets the applicable parts of sections 31-12- 104 and -105, C.R.S., and is therefore eligible for annexation. ATTACHMENT 1 Section 6: The petitioner and the Town will set forth mutually understood obligations of the owner of the land proposed to be annexed via an annexation agreement to be prepared for the Board’s consideration prior to the adoption of any ordinance to annex the property. DATED this day of , 2025. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney Exhibit A THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. SAID PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINS 40.113 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. ATTACHMENT 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - STAMP H: \ E \ E a s t A v e n u e D e v e l o p m e n t , L L C \ C O , E s t e s P a r k - E A D 0 0 0 0 0 1 - E l k h o r n L o d g e P h a s e 2 \ 0 S V Y \ 1 - C A D \ A n n e x a t i o n \ E A D 0 1 - A n n e x a t i o n . d w g - Re a d e R o s e l l e s - 11 / 2 6 / 2 0 2 4 Init.#Issue / DescriptionDate ------ THESE PLANS ARE AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND ARE THE PROPERTY OF GALLOWAY, AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, DISCLOSED, OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF GALLOWAY. COPYRIGHTS AND INFRINGEMENTS WILL BE ENFORCED AND PROSECUTED. COPYRIGHT 5235 Ronald Reagan Blvd., Suite 200 Johnstown, CO 80534 970.800.3300 GallowayUS.com Date: Drawn By: Project No: Checked By: ELKHORN LODGE PHASE 2 ANNEXATION BEING THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO EL K H O R N L O D G E P H A S E 2 AN N E X A T I O N BE I N G T H E S O U T H W E S T Q U A R T E R O F T H E N O R T H E A S T QU A R T E R O F S E C T I O N 2 6 , T O W N S H I P 5 N O R T H , R A N G E 7 3 WE S T O F T H E 6 T H P . M . , C O U N T Y O F L A R I M E R , S T A T E O F C O L O R A D O ” SHEET 1 OF 1 1 11/20/2024 RCR JSP EAD000001.10 SCALE: 1"=100' 0 50 10020 PUBLIC WORKS To: Honorable Mayor Hall Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Dana Klein, CPP, CCTM, Parking and Transit Manager Trevor Wittwer, PE, Town Engineer David Greear, PE, Public Works Director Date: June 24, 2025 RE: Resolution 67-25 2045 Transportation Plan (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Consider adoption of the Plan consisting of the Multimodal T ransportation Plan (MTP) and the Transit Development Plan (TDP). Present Situation: On July 25, 2023, the Town Board approved the contract with Kimley-Horn to prepare two distinct yet complementary plans, an MTP and a TDP, for the Town of Estes Park. The MTP guides the implementation of projects to create a transportation network that integrates all modes of t ravel in a manner that is safe, equitable, and easy to navigate; and provides a list of prioritized projects addressing Vehicular, Active Transportation, and Transit mobility. The TDP performed a comprehensive needs-based evaluation of The Peak (formerly Estes Transit) system and provides recommendations for transit service enhancement. The MTP is intended to guide the Town of Estes Park’s mobility and circulation for the next 20 years (2024-2044), while the TDP focusses on the next 5 years (2025-2030). The MTP and TDP have been under development since August 2023, using a rigorous schedule of public outreach efforts. These efforts included an initial stakeholder steering committee, public meetings, online surveys, online public review, and numerous discussions with the Town’s citizen Transportation Advisory Board (TAB). These efforts culminated in a recommendation of adoption by the TAB at their meeting on June 18, 2025. Proposal: Public Works staff propose adoption of the Plan as presented to serve as a guiding document for future transportation improvements in the Town of Estes Park. This project was included in the 2023 Town Board Strategic Plan (Transportation, 6, 2.H.1 and 2.H.2). Advantages: •The preparation of the Plan included a much-needed analysis and evaluation of the Town’s existing transportation network and opportunities for improvement and/or growth. As presented, the Plan includes identification and prioritization of transportation projects, policies and programs that will support the transportation vision outlined in the Town’s December 2022 Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan. •The Plan includes the first-ever comprehensive, needs-based evaluation of the Town’s free transit system, including recommendations for system expansion/enhancement for both our visitors and those with higher-than-average need for transit, including seniors, persons with disabilities, and lower-income residents and seasonal workers. Disadvantages: •The totality of the list of projects contained within the Plan incur costs that are far beyond the Town’s current ability to fund. However, the Plan does define areas of future investment in transportation planning, programming, and infrastructure; and individual projects can be pursued as grant funding opportunities arise. Action Recommended: Public Works staff recommend adoption of the Town of Estes Park 2045 Transportation Plan as a guiding document for future transportation improvements in the Town of Estes Park. Finance/Resource Impact: Finance Impacts for plan adoption are None. Implementing recommendations within the plans may result in significant financial impacts. Level of Public Interest Public interest has been strong, with higher than anticipated participation in the online surveys and public review process. The TAB has also been actively involved with development of the Plan. Sample Motion: I move for approval/denial of Resolution 67-25. Attachments: 1. Resolution 67-25 2.Estes Park Multimodal Transportation Plan 3.Estes Park Multimodal Transportation Plan – Executive Summary 4.Estes Park Transit Development Plan 5.Estes Park Transit Development Plan – Executive Summary 6.Estes Park_TownBoard_FinalPlan_PRESENTATION RESOLUTION 67-25 ADOPTING THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK 2045 TRANSPORTATION PLAN AS A GUIDING DOCUMENT FOR FUTURE TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WHEREAS, The Town Board, on July 25 of 2023, approved the contract for the development of a Multimodal Transportation Plan and a Transit Development Plan, which combined constitute the Town of Estes Park 2045 Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, through a rigorous public outreach process, the draft plans have been revised and refined accordingly; and WHEREAS, the Town’s Transportation Advisory Board, on June 18, 2025, voted to recommend that the Town Board adopt the combined final plans as the Town of Estes Park 2045 Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to Adopt the Town of Estes Park 2045 Transportation Plan as a guiding document for future Multimodal Transportation and Transit Development projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The Board adopts the 2045 Transportation Plan in substantially the form now before the Board. DATED this day of _____________, 2025. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney ATTACHMENT 1 Introduction Estes Park is a rural mountain town of just under 6,000 residents in the Rocky Mountains in northern Colorado. While the town has a relatively small population, it welcomes millions of tourists each year, creating unique transportation challenges for a town its size. The Town of Estes Park (TOEP) 2045 Transportation Plan is made up of two distinct plans: The Multimodal Transportation Plan (MTP) is the long-range vision for the cohesive transportation system for Estes Park and the surrounding area to guide the Town’s investments in the transportation system that will best serve the needs of the community. The Transit Development Plan (TDP) is a targeted short- to mid-term study focused on improving public transportation accessibility from short-distance, local circulation needs to long-distance, regional connectivity. Estes Park’s picturesque mountain setting is one of the Towns biggest strengths, attracting visitors year- round to come see the town and nearby Rocky Mountain National Park. However, the scenic topography also imposes spatial challenges when considering traditional roadway improvement strategies. The topography of the surrounding mountains limits the Towns ability to increase roadway capacity through added lanes. Most major roadways and arterial streets are limited to their current footprint due to topographic features like steep slopes and rock formations which prevent expansion. Because of these geographic limitations multimodal and transit solutions offer particularly useful benefits to Estes Park. To guide the planning process the planning team, in conjunction with Town Staff and Steering Committee members, developed project goals: Multimodal Transportation Plan Transit Development Plan Town of Estes Park 2045 Transportation Plan 2045 Town of Estes Park Multimodal Transportation Plan and Transit Development Plan 1 ATTACHMENT 3 Figure 1. Study Area 2045 Town of Estes Park Multimodal Transportation Plan and Transit Development Plan 2 Existing Conditions Estes Park Functional Classification In addition to federal functional classification, the TOEP has proposed its own functional classification system to provide further differentiation between a roadway’s purpose in the roadway network. The proposed functional classification provides further insight on intent of roadways, classifying roads by: Figure 2. Local Road Classifications, shows the Town’s functional classifications. Compared to federal functional classifications, fewer roadways are classified in the Town’s functional classification. Town roadways classification is focused on local roadways, as the Town does not classify any roadway higher than a collector. The Town’s functional classification provides a classification for local roadways that are not federally classified, by local, lane, local commercial, local residential, and local industrial. This provides insight into how the Town plans each roadway to operate and serve the community. Figure 2. Local Road Classifications Lane Local Local Commercial Local Industrial Local Residential Collector 2045 Town of Estes Park Multimodal Transportation Plan and Transit Development Plan 3 Active Transportation Comfort To determine existing safety conditions, pedestrian and bicyclist level of comfort was identified for each classified roadway segment. These comfort levels are determined by three factors: the pedestrian or bicycle facility type on the roadway, the speed of vehicular traffic on the roadway, and the ADT of the roadway. Pedestrian Comfort Pedestrian comfort was classified into four levels: • Comfortable for all. Roadways with low traffic speeds and low ADTs or roadways with high pedestrian separation from traffic, such as a shared-use path. • Comfortable for adults. Roadways with higher speeds or volumes than ‘comfortable for all’, but still have enough pedestrian protection to allow everyone except children to be comfortable and safe. • Uncomfortable for most. Roadways with limited pedestrian protection from traffic or high traffic speeds and ADTs. • Uncomfortable for all. Roadways with high traffic speeds or ADTs, or no dedicated pedestrian facilities. A map of pedestrian comfort has been provided in Figure 3. Sidewalk Comfort on Classified Roads. Pedestrian comfort is typically poor on the major arterials and is better along collector and local roads where the speed and traffic volumes are lower. Notable areas where comfort is higher are in the downtown area as well as the fairgrounds and high school. Bicycle Comfort Bicycle comfort was classified into a similar four levels as pedestrian comfort and are as follows: • Comfortable for all. Roadways with either low traffic volumes and speeds, or with high separation from roadway traffic, such as a shared-use path. • Comfortable for adults. Roadways with higher speeds or volume than ‘comfortable for all’ but have dedicated bicycle facilities or moderately low speeds and ADT. • Comfortable for avid cyclists. Roadways with limited protection from traffic and/or higher speeds and volumes, but experienced cyclists are comfortable mixing with vehicular traffic. • Uncomfortable for all. Roadways with particularly high speeds or ADT and no dedicated space for cyclists on the roadway. A map of Bicycle comfort has been provided in Figure 4. Bike Comfort on Classified Roads. Due to the insufficient supply of bike facilities located in Estes Park, many bicyclists must ride on the sidewalk and/or surface streets, limiting the overall comfort that bicyclist experience on Estes Park roadways. Figure 3. Sidewalk Comfort on Classified Roads Figure 4. Bike Comfort on Classified Roads 2045 Town of Estes Park Multimodal Transportation Plan and Transit Development Plan 4 Public Engagement To create a successful Transportation Plan for the TOEP it is vital that the planning team listen to and learn from the community. Estes Park residents and visitors navigate the town each day utilizing multiple modes of transportation to provide key information on where and how improvements can be made. To ensure the public’s voice was heard, feedback was collected at two key junctions in the project. 1. Existing Conditions. 2. Recommendations Existing Conditions To understand the transportation system and how residents and visitors navigate it, the planning team asked for community feedback to learn more about how people travel in Estes Park. This allowed for the community’s experience to guide this process. Recommendations The community provided important input on recommendations. The community reviewed all recommendations and had an opportunity to rate them, community members were asked to rate their five most important recommendations and five recommendations that where less vital for them. This data was then used to inform project prioritization as part of a system of weighted calculations. The following themes began to emerge. Bike: • A need for low-stress bike infrastructure. Pedestrian: • Inadequate pedestrian infrastructure. Transit: • Increased transit accessibility. Vehicular: • Reducing speed, congestion, and confusion. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Bottom Recommendations by Recommendation Type 0 5 10 15 20 TrailActive TransitVehicular Total Responses by Top Recommendation Type Figure 5. Top Recommendation Categories Figure 6. Bottom Recommendation Categories 2045 Town of Estes Park Multimodal Transportation Plan and Transit Development Plan 5 Recommendations Vehicle Projects Vehicle projects include improvements that address travel time, congestion, road condition, or safety on roadways. While these improvements typically are vehicle-focused, they may also present opportunities to improve multimodal conditions at the same time. Potential Vehicle Projects Following the identification of issues and deficiencies within the study area, 25 vehicle-specific potential projects were identified. Vehicle projects are categorized into intersection improvements, new roadways or extensions, and roadway and parking improvements. Potential vehicle projects ranged in size, spanning from a minimum of 0.1 miles to a maximum of 2.36 miles in length. Active Transportation Projects Walking, cycling, and other active modes of transportation have their own set of needs and conditions to address when considering transportation improvements. Connectivity, safety, comfort, and accessibility are all high importance considerations when developing transportation enhancements for all modes. Potential Active Transportation Projects The potential active transportation projects identified following the assessment of issues and deficiencies within the study area. Active Transportation projects are categorized as crossing improvements, on-street facilities, and trail network. 37 of the potential projects are categorized as ‘Active Transportation’. Transit Projects Transit operations in Estes Park are typically seasonal and is funded through the Colorado Association of Transit Agency’s (CASTA) Zero Fare Transit fund. Because of this, potential transit projects were excluded from prioritization process to avoid these factors negatively impacting other potential projects. Potential Transit Projects The potential transit projects identified following the assessment of issues and deficiencies within the study area. There are 16 potential transit projects within the study area. 2045 Town of Estes Park Multimodal Transportation Plan and Transit Development Plan 6 Figure 7. Project Prioritization Results 2045 Town of Estes Park Multimodal Transportation Plan and Transit Development Plan 7 Project Prioritization After identifying potential projects, a determination of which projects are good investments for the TOEP had to be made. Prioritizing projects is important because funding for capital transportation improvements is very limited for Estes Park. Ranking projects by priority helps determine where the Town should focus its resources to make the most effective investments into the multimodal transportation system. To prioritize projects and identify sound transportation investments, the vehicle, active transportation, and transit projects were compared to the MTP goals that were established at the start of the planning process and ranked in the first round of public engagement. Prioritization Results A spreadsheet tool was developed to perform the calculations for the goal alignment and cost prioritization scores. This tool provides the Town the opportunity to continue to prioritize future projects as they arise or update the input data to see the impacts on the prioritization. The goal alignment prioritization score and cost prioritization score were added together in the spreadsheet tool to create a single composite score. The projects were organized into five equally-sized priority levels based on their priority score: High, Mid-High, Mid, Mid-Low, and Low. High-priority projects should be completed first based on funding opportunities, otherwise considered short-term projects. As follows, mid-high and mid-priority projects should have a moderate-term outlook while mid-low and low-priority projects should be considered on a long-term implementation phase. 2045 Town of Estes Park Multimodal Transportation Plan and Transit Development Plan 8 Implementation Roadmap The Town of Estes Park should focus on implementing High-Priority projects as they best address the multimodal transportation deficiencies identified during the MTP process. The Town would be the lead agency for half of the high-priority projects, including six of the top seven high- priority projects. After MTP completion, there are several steps in the project development process to bring recommended projects to fruition. Figure 14. Project Development Process MTP RECOMMENDATION The project is classified as a high-priority project in the Estes Park MTP. DETAILED STUDY If necessary, a project-specific follow-up study should be conducted to further the scope of the project. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN High-level design of the project should be conducted to get a more accurate cost estimate and identify any previously unforseen constraints. FUNDING Develop a program of the project funding through sources such as the Town’s CIP or CDOT’s Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. APPROVALS Obtain any required planning, environmental, state, or federal approvals necessary for project design and construction. FINAL DESIGN Perform all required engineering to design the project. CONSTRUCTION Construct the project. 2045 Town of Estes Park Multimodal Transportation Plan and Transit Development Plan 9 Recommended High-Priority Project Implementation Table 1. High-Priority Project Implementation - Potential Funding Sources shows the recommended high-priority transportation projects for the Estes Park area and which of the potential funding sources may be applicable to implement the project development and construction phases. The total cost of the high-priority projects is approximately $42.5 million. Leveraging available funding sources will be critical to implementing the high-priority projects in a timely manner. Table 1. High-Priority Project Implementation - Potential Funding Sources ID Project Name Cost ($ mil)Potential Funding Opportunity CAR-16 Moccasin Cir/Prospect St/Stanley Ave Connection 2.97 RAISE ACT-11 Manford Avenue Active Transportation Facilities 0.66 TAP, MMOF CAR-22 US 34/US 36 Intersection Reconstruction 12.65 RAISE, MPDG ACT-20 Multi-Use Trail 10.99 TAP, MMOF CAR-25 Spruce Dr Reconstruction 0.39 TAP ACT-9 Moraine Ave Active Transportation Facilities 2.25 TAP, MMOF CAR-2 Moraine/Marys Lake Roundabout 1.00 Local Funding Sources CAR-7 Elkhorn Ave Access Management 0.59 MPDG ACT-14 Big Horn Dr Sidewalks 1.15 TAP, MMOF ACT-25 Elkhorn Ave Trail Connection 0.15 Revitalizing Main Streets, TAP ACT-10 Big Thompson Ave Sidewalk Improvements 2.65 TAP, MMOF ACT-15 Virginia Dr Sidewalks 0.91 TAP, MMOF ACT-29 Riverside Dr Trail Connection 2.76 TAP, MMOF 2045 Town of Estes Park Multimodal Transportation Plan and Transit Development Plan 10 Estes Park Transit Development Plan Executive Summary ATTACHMENT 5 2 About the Transit Development Plan Convenient and user-friendly public transit options are a vital resource for residents, employees, and visitors to Estes Park. This Transit Development Plan (TDP) recommends service planning, funding, and implementation strategies for transit in the town and the surrounding region to ensure that these services are well integrated and equipped to serve the community. The transit services discussed in this plan are an important part of the local transportation network and, with strategic implementation of recommendations, will continue to provide reliable options to the Town. While the TDP focused on recommendations for the next five years these changes will support the Town of Estes Park in working towards the overall 2045 Transportation Plan Goals. Transit Development Plan Process Transit Riders in Estes Park Transit in Estes Park serves a variety of users, each with distinct needs. This plan addresses those needs in a comprehensive way to ensure everyone can benefit from improved transit options. 3 Transit in Estes Park The main transit system that serves Estes Park is called The Peak (formerly Estes Transit): a free shuttle service within the town that operates daily during the summer months and limited days during fall and early winter. Typically, there are five shuttle routes that run from early summer to early fall, and the Red Route or Trolley service starts as early as Memorial Day through late October weather permitting. 4 Existing Transit Overview Map 5 Existing Conditions Overall, Estes Park is well served by The Peak shuttles during peak operations in the summer, and productivity on all routes, especially the Trolley, rallied post-pandemic. Similarly, there are a variety of services that connect Estes Park to surrounding communities that cater to both commuters and visitors, both of which represent important travel markets for a tourism-focused community like Estes Park. Still, there are important lessons learned and opportunities for improvement: • Transit service reaches most of the areas in Estes Park where people and jobs are concentrated. Some areas lack coverage today, like the southern extents of town along SH 7 towards Mary’s Lake Road, which has pockets of potentially unserved transit demand. • Focus on providing more transit frequency to key locations. Some areas within town feature enough housing or jobs to warrant more frequency of transit service than currently provided, such as the area near the Beaver Meadows Visitor Center and the area near the fairgrounds. • The Town makes the most of its existing shuttle fleet. A major limitation to increasing frequency is the length of the existing routes. For example, doubling the frequency on the Brown Route from hourly to every 30 minutes would likely require a purchase of more shuttle vehicles since the existing route takes longer than 30 minutes to run end-to-end. • Transit service is closely aligned to the peak tourism season. Regular fixed-route transit service is not available to residents outside of that season, and visitor data trends suggest that there may also be untapped visitor demand for transit present in the “shoulder” months before and after the current schedule. • Infrastructure investments are difficult to justify due to the seasonal nature of the service. Service not operating year-round limits the cost effectiveness of investing in more permanent stop infrastructure. As such, many stops feature barriers to riders with mobility impairments, and few stops outside of the Estes Park Visitor Center feature basic bus stop amenities like benches or a shelter. • Estes Park is a regional destination, and although served by regional transit options like Bustang, there are significant daily flows of both commuters and visitors that travel to Estes Park by personal vehicle that could be served by expanding regional transit options. Engagement Throughout the TDP, the project team surveyed and talked with residents of the town, visitors to the town, and workers who commute from outside of Estes Park through a steering committee, stakeholder interviews, community surveys, field work, and an open house. • Over 285 people were surveyed on their preferences for transit and use of transit in Estes Park • Most people surveyed said that they either never use transit or only use transit during special events • Among respondents that ride transit, the Red Route is used most, followed by the Brown Route • Most visitors reported driving their own cars and walking as their main way of getting around the town, and only 17% of visitors reported using the transit system • Respondents cited avoiding traffic and parking availability as the most popular reason for riding transit • More route options and higher frequencies were the most popular responses to questions about what would make people more likely to use transit in Estes Park 6 Plan Recommendations For the Town of Estes Park, transit recommendations include: • More frequent service, longer span, and more days of service • Route changes to serve more areas in or near Estes Park • Creating better connections to the region • Improving infrastructure and technology After implementing many of these changes as a pilot in 2025, further analysis can be done to prioritize which of these changes are the most important to residents, visitors, and workers of Estes Park to make decisions based on the availability of funding year-over-year. Estes Park Transit in 2025 and Beyond The Town applied for and was awarded a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant for the 2025 service year. The CMAQ grant will provide around $1,200,000 in funding to the Town for funding transit service improvements with a local match of around $250,000 from the Town’s general fund. Transit Service Improvements ($800,500) • Expand Town shuttles (Gold, Silver, Brown, and Blue) to 150 service days up from 75 days today to match the Red Trolley in the 2024 season • Later daily service on Town shuttles • Later daily service on Red Route • Add a limited-days winter/holiday service on the Red Route • Add an additional vehicle to the Red Route for more frequency and reliability • Add an additional vehicle to the Brown Route for more frequency Transportation Demand Management through Transit Development Plan Recommendations ($363,542) • New Microtransit Service and Modified Silver Route (~$180,000) • Red and Gold Route Alignment “Swap” (unfunded ~$180,000) • Pilot two regional services at 4 trips a day to/from Longmont and Loveland ($163,000) Multimodal Traveler Information with a new Transit Mobile App ($50,000) • Real time tracking transit app • Includes On-demand scheduling for the regional service pilot through Via Depending on funding availability, additional priorities identified for the Town to explore in the long term are: • Exploring year-round transit service on some or all routes • Replacing the microtransit zone with a fixed-route as ridership warrants • Transitioning the shuttle fleet to a zero-emission fleet (pending outcomes of the ZEV transition plan) • Building permanent bus stop infrastructure that is accessible and comfortable • Continuing to explore ways to improve transit access to RMNP in coordination with the NPS 7 8 Future Transit Map Overview 9 Implementation Strategies Transit Improvement Strategies Type Cost Implementation Champion Implementation Partner(s) Mu l t i m o d a l S a f e t y Year One Strategies (Funded) the Red Trolley in the 2024 season x x Later daily service on Town shuttles Operating $ ToEP Later daily service on Red Route Operating $ ToEP Add a limited days winter/holiday service on the Red Route Operating $ ToEP Add an additional vehicle to the Red Route for more frequency and reliability Capital $$ ToEP RATPDev Add an additional vehicle to the Brown Route for more frequency Capital $$ ToEP RATPDev Introduce microtransit service and modify Silver Route (pilot) Operating $$ ToEP App developer, Via x x Pilot two regional services at 4 trips a day to/from Longmont and Loveland Operating $$ Via ToEP Develop a new Transit Mobile App (including real-tim tracking and on-demand scheduling) Capital $ ToEP App developer, Via x Install automatic passenger counters (APCs) on all vehicles Capital $ ToEP APC provider More days of service (June to October) Operating $$$ ToEP Longer span of service Operating $ ToEP More frequent service Operating $$ ToEP Implement microtransit service and modify Silver Route Operating $$ ToEP App developer, Via x x Re-route Red and Gold Route alignments Operating $ ToEP Implement two regional services at 4 trips a day to/from Longmont and Loveland Operating $$ Via ToEP Introduce Bustang route to/from Denver International Airport Operating $$ CDOT ToEP Transition to Zero Emission Fleet (Ph1) Capital $$$ ToEP RATPDev Transition to Zero Emission Fleet (Ph2) Capital $$$ ToEP RATPDev Year-round service on Red Route Operating $$ ToEP Year-round service on all Town shuttles Operating $$$ ToEP Replace microtransit service with Orange/Silver Route(s) to Cheley Camp Operating $$ ToEP Implement permanent bus stop infrastructure (signage and accessible landing pad at minimum) Capital $$$$ ToEP Improve RMNP transit access (TBD) Operating $-$$$ NPS ToEP 10 2045 Transportation Plan – Draft Plan – Town Board June 24, 2024 2045 Transportation Plan ATTACHMENT 6 2045 Transportation Plan •High-Level Plan •Flexible to accommodate changing climate (Funding, Political, Physical, etc.) •Proactive, not reactive •Roadmap from to community to staff on future priorities •Can be amended before 2045 to adapt 2045 Transportation Plan Goals Goals 1. MULTIMODAL SAFETY 2. CHOICES AND CONNECTIVITY 3. USER EXPERIENCE 4. REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP 5. RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY 6. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY 7. ACCESSIBILITY 8. FUNDING/IMPLEMENTATION Engagement Recap 1st Round Engagement Recap 280 Transit Survey Responses Engagement Themes • Visitors tend to drive their own car or walk to get around Estes Park. Only 17% reported using transit. • Parking availability and avoiding traffic were the most common reasons for riding transit. • Most people got their information about transit services from the Estes Park website, the annual service brochure, or the Estes Park Visitor Center. 8 Issues and Opportunities ƒThe most popular answers for improving transit experience in Estes Park were more routes or destinations served and more frequency. ƒPopular destinations that respondents said they’d like to get to included the Safeway, the YMCA, and the hospital, all areas currently served by at least one route. ƒMost respondents never use transit or only use it during special events. ƒAmong those who use transit, the Red route was the most popular by a significant margin, followed by the Brown route. ƒThe RMNP Shuttle was the most popular alternative service. ƒMost respondents said that figuring out how to use the transit system was either very easy or somewhat easy. Transit Services Getting Around 2nd Round Engagement •TAB Meetings •Goals •Recommendations •Open House and Virtual Engagement •Surveys •Recommendations •Themes •Supportive of recommendations •Wanted more destinations served by transit 8 Attendees Open House (Snowing in Late May) 58 Responses Virtually 3rd Round Engagement •Multiple TAB Meetings •Draft Plan Review •Virtual Engagement •Draft Plan Review •Town Council •Draft Plan Presentation •Themes •Seasonal work and tourism impacts •Strong policy foundation – builds upon existing plans and policies 224 Comments Virtually (Public and TAB) To: Honorable Mayor Hall Board of Trustees Town Administrator From: Transportation Advisory Board Date: June 13, 2025 RE: Recommendation to approve 2045 Multi-Modal Transportation Plan and Transit Development Plan Dear Honorable Mayor Hall and Trustees, The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) actively participated in the process of creating the proposed 2045 Multi-Modal Transportation Plan (MTP) and the Transit Development Plan (TDP). The TAB participated in robust discussions throughout the development o f the plans and recommends their adoption with the understanding that there would be reasonable flexibility during implementation. At the inception of the process, TAB submitted a letter of support to the Colorado Department of Transportation 2022 Local Multimodal Transportation and Mitigation Options Fund Program, which provided the funding to develop the MTP. 2022 Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan The MTP will build on the transportation vision from the 2022 Comprehensive Plan, which is to create a connected community, both locally and regionally, as a guiding principle. Comprehensive Plan goals include providing integrated multimodal transportation options to safely connect people and destinations throughout the Estes Valley; provide, maintain, and expand a safe and comprehensive network to support walking and bicycling as viable modes of transportation for all ages and abilities, and to promote community health. The Comprehensive Plan recommended developing a MTP to assess needs and plan improvements, prioritize key streets and connections by mode, identify and prioritize studies of key transportation corridors with specialized needs, and expand pla nning beyond the Downtown area. The Downtown Plan prioritizes bicycle and pedestrian circulation, and the Town encourages a shift to active transportation modes by expanding and enhancing pedestrian and bicycle facilities to accommodate users of all ages, abilities, races, and income lev els. The proposed 2045 MTP identifies and prioritizes projects that enhance bike and pedestrian safety elements and seeks opportunities to implement and assess traffic calming strategies that reduce vehicle speeds where appropriate. The plan helps mitigate concerns such as congestion downtown, insufficient downtown parking and/or access by disabled or limited mobility visitors and coordinating transit with outlying parking. Complete Streets Policy 851 In 2015 the Town Board unanimously approved the Estes Park Complete Streets Policy 851. The Policy encourages Public Works staff to consider all users (8 years old to 80 years old) in the transportation network and provide safe, convenient, connected, and accessible designs when planning roads and pathways. In addition to building upon the Comprehensive Plan, the MTP can support the implementation of the Complete Streets Policy checklist. The MTP will guide the Public Works Department in the implementation of multimodal projects and programs to improve multimodal connectivity that consider all users in the network. TAB supports this inclusive effort. Process In addition to the substantial time that TAB devoted to reviewing and commenting on the MTP and TDP, the planning process included community engagement to assure that the plans reflect the short-term and long-term goals and objectives of the community-at-large regarding our transportation network (i.e., streets, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transit system). Existing conditions were identified and evaluated; future conditions were forecasted. An implementation plan identified recommended projects and programs for the future, along with estimated costs, priorities, and strategies. The MTP includes an appendix documenting the community's input and expectations, as well as the recommendations for the future. Considerations for the MTP and TDP: During TAB review of and comment on the MTP and TDP the following key points were identified: 1. The ranked list of MTP priority projects is unreasonably long 2. The plans should explain that recommended projects are subject to change due to funding and periodic review and analysis 3. Staff-led initiatives will influence the timing and implementation of project recommendations 4. The Town’s Development Code and the plans should align 5. The 5-year plan recommendations to improve and/or build the transit system in Estes Park is reasonable and should be implemented 6. Microtransit zones are well supported as a means to provide efficient and reliable service to expanded route areas 7. Some members of TAB expressed the opinion that the extensive promotion of bike infrastructure is excessive and not reflective of the actual community need. Providing a connected and safe pedestrian network is preferred. Since the members of TAB have so many different perspectives on living and working here in Estes Park, each one has given a quick insight into what stood out to them, positive and negative, in the MTP and TDP. They are attached at the end of this letter. Overall, the proposed 2045 MTP and TDP are thorough and informative and will guide the town into the next steps for effective project implementation. TAB appreciates the extensive stakeholder engagement and community outreach accomplished by Town staff and consultants at Kimley-Horn. Community engagement included an informative website, an interactive mapping tool, a community survey, social media postings, and a meeting with the community. These efforts resulted in a dynamic and thorough engagement with the public. The TAB thanks the Honorable Mayor, Gary Hall, and Town Trustees for allowing us the opportunity to provide our recommendation. We strive to provide a collaborative recommendation after robust review of an issue. Sincerely, Estes Park Transportation Advisory Board Comments from TAB Joan Hooper: The MTP includes extensive analysis of current demographics and transportation needs in the Estes Valley. That analysis is mainly based on year-round residents or low-season conditions. Therefore, it underestimates the high-season congestion from up to 50,000 daily visitors, as well as the needs of our (primarily low -income) seasonal workers, our summer residents and our visitors. Despite this shortcoming, the Plan identifies clear needs for multimodal and transit solutions to facilitate transportation within the Estes Valley. The Plan ends with recommendations for 16 high-priority multimodal transportation projects, along with potential funding sources and an implementation roadmap. I support this MTP because these high-priority projects would widen transportation options beyond private vehicles to embrace pedestrians, cyclists, transit, etc. The net result should be a safer, more connected and less congested community where we can continue to grow, where those who cannot drive can still thrive. Brian Denning: "My opinion and observations: Table 31 page 139, in the MTP plan lists “The Recommended High Priority Project Implementation” and their potential funding sources. CAR-16 Moccasin Cir/Prospect St/Stanley Ave Connection 2.97 RAISE ACT-11 Manford Drive Active Transportation Facilities 0.66 TAP, MMOF CAR-22 US 34/US 36 Intersection Reconstruction 12.65 RAISE, MPDG ACT-20 Multi-Use Trail 10.99 TAP, MMOF CAR-25 Spruce Dr Reconstruction 0.39 TAP ACT-9 Moraine Ave Active Transportation Facilities 2.25 TAP, MMOF CAR-2 Moraine/Mary’s Lake Roundabout 1.00 Local Funding Sources CAR -7 Elkhorn Ave Access Management 0.59 MPDG ACT-14 Big Horn Dr Sidewalks 1.15 TAP, MMOF ACT-25 Elkhorn Ave Trail Connection 0.15 Revitalizing Main Streets, TAP ACT-10 Big Thompson Ave Sidewalk Improvements 2.65 TAP, MMOF ACT-15 Virginia Dr Sidewalks 0.91 TAP, MMOF ACT-29 Riverside Dr Trail Connection 2.76 TAP, MMOF A lot of these projects are very ambitious, and will cause massive amounts of disruption and economic impact to downtown businesses. The Loop projects put some people out of business. These projects could potentially do the same. As a business owner myself, I am keenly aware of the already difficult economic challenges and hardships of making it last and work in Estes Park. This is how I make my living. The Citizens of Estes Park should be engaged on these specific “High Priority Projects" to see what the interest is for Citizens BEFORE the Town to EVEN BEGINS TO APPLY for funding grants. Citizens of Estes need more opportunity to be made aware of this it is our duty to give it to them. Grants are not free money. Also citizens should be able to weigh in on the Town having to “Pick up the rest of the Tab” If grants/funding does not cover the entirety of projects, as has happened in the last Loop project. The potential of leaving the Taxpayers on the hook again for these High Priority Projects possibly and most likely going over budget, needs to be presented specifically to the Public again and not as a 100 Page long range plan. In Summary, This is a 25 year plan and the Town should take MORE TIME to inform and specifically engage the Public again on the High Priority Projects, and the potential economic impacts to residents and business alike. Ask the Citizens if they even want the Town to apply for Grant/Funding, with the knowledge that they the tax-payers would likely be asked to pay for completion of said projects. And possibly projects they do not want. Maybe focusing on safety upgrades to sidewalks, roads, and bike paths near or around the Schools, Fairgrounds, and Recreation Center should be High Priority Projects, and the Town should focus keeping the Community safer and kids going to school etc... in those areas first before taking on these other projects." Misti Marcantonio: I would like to express my concern on the focus of bicycles. I strongly believe that the allocation of funds in this document disproportionately favors bicycles over vehicles and does not reflect the actual usage of these modes of transportation on our roads. In reality, vehicles vastly outnumber bicycles. While I firmly support efforts to improve bicycle safety, I do not agree with dedicating such a significant portion of resources to a single mode of transportation. Tourists rarely bring bicycles on vacation with them, especially if they are traveling by airplane. And our town is not easily and safely accessible by bicycle from other communities. Our local bicycle community is not a majority of local residents, althou gh it has historically been represented as a majority on TAB. The ability to rent a bicycle in our town is available, but not to the quantity or level to justify this document to be so heavily skewed towards bicycles. I don't believe that bicycles should have such a large impact on the Multi -Modal Transportation Plan, if the corresponding amount of bicycles versus vehicle usage is not the same amount of parameters. The correlation of dollars spent in this document heavi ly favors bicycles versus vehicles, which does not match the ratio reflected in real life. Kristen Ekeren: Overall, I support the adoption of both the Transit Development Plan (TDP) and the Multimodal Transportation Plan (MTP). Throughout the process of drafting each plan, discussions among TAB members during TAB meetings were robust, with engaged dialogue on various viewpoints. Overall, I believe the TDP was well done and should be adopted. However, I personally felt the TDP could have better addressed the clear public desire for more public transportation connection with Rocky Mountain National Park. I also generally support the MTP. I do want trustees, staff and the public to be aware that the lists of transportation improvements occasionally list specific improvements such as “H AWK” crossings or roundabouts. I would have preferred the report list these projects as simply “intersection improvements” to avoid the impression that these specific traffic remedies have been vetted and studied for a given intersection and are planned to be implemented. In conclusion, I support both plans and encourage the Board and Town staff to remain responsive to public input while using the plans as guiding documents Larry Gamble: Over the course of the past few months I devoted many hours to reviewing and commenting on the MTP and TDP. My comments have been resolved to my satisfaction in the final versions of the plans. The heart of the MTP is the list of proposed projects, which is in priority order. The priorities were established using a weighting algorithm that I did not fully agree with. As a result, I do not fully agree with the priority order. However, Public Works staff has assured TAB that there is flexibility in implementing the proposed projects. Implementation will in large measure be dependent on funding opportunities, future strategic plans, and last but not least - reality checks. I do believe that the plans will guide Estes Park well for the foreseeable future. Carissa Streib: Over the last few months of going over the MTP and TDP a few things stood out to me. First, there was the amount of projects in these documents. There are over 60 proposed projects and I don’t know if the impact on the community has really been discussed. We have really felt a negative impact of doing too many projects at once the last few years, making it hard to work, live and play here as a citizen or guest. I am also concerned that there is no discussion of motorized scooters, bikes, etc. We are already seeing an influ x of these modes of transportation in the summer months and this plan lacks how to handle them moving forward. I generally support this plan if the town is diligent with how they pick from these projects and does and adequate job of getting public input on the larger items before they hit the 30% completion rate. PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 6/23/2025  Board of Trustees Public Comment Name: Vanessa Solesbee Stance on Item: For Agenda Item Title: Resolution 67-25. Public Comment: Honorable Mayor Hall & Town Board of Trustees ~ please accept the attached Letter of Support for the 2045 Transportation Plan. Warmest Regards, Vanessa Solesbee File Upload Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Files are limited to PDF or JPG. LOS 2045 Transportation Plan_06242025.pdf 3.71MB 25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting. Mayor Gary Hall Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 June 23, 2025 Dear Honorable Mayor Hall & Town Board of Trustees, I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the Town of Estes Park’s 2045 Transportation Plan (Resolution 67-25). Public Works staff – especially Parking & Transit Manager Dana Klein – and the consultant team led by Kimley-Horn and Associates, have worked tirelessly to deliver a forward-thinking plan that offers a comprehensive vision for a safer, more connected, and sustainable transportation future for the Estes Park community. Completing a project of this magnitude, with such varied opinions about transportation planning and access, is no small feat and I commend everyone involved for delivering such a strong Plan. I am particularly encouraged by the Plan’s commitment to enhancing multimodal connectivity, ensuring that our roads, sidewalks, and pathways are accessible and safe for everyone—whether they are driving, walking, biking, or using our seasonal shuttle system. I also think that the focus on sidewalk / pedestrian infrastructure connectivity and improving ADA-compliant facilities will greatly benefit both Estes Valley residents and our beloved guests. The Plan’s emphasis on continued strategies to reduce/mitigate congestion and improving mobility, especially during the busy tourist season, is vital for both quality of life and economic vitality. By expanding local and regional transit options and investing in sustainable infrastructure, Estes Park is setting an example for strategic, environmentally responsible growth . Thank you all for your leadership and vision, and I strongly encourage adoption of the 2045 Transportation Plan as presented. Warmest regards to you all, Vanessa Solesbee, PTMP, CCTM (aka, the former parking lady ) 3333 Rockwood Lane S Estes Park, CO 80517       UTILITIES To: Honorable Mayor Hall Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Director Bergsten; Special Council Greg White Date: June 24, 2025 RE: Resolution 68-25 Amendment to the 2005 Continental Water Bank Inc., Water Lease Agreement (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Our objective is to equitably support the Water Division and the community’s economy by continuing to provide the Continental Water Bank Inc. with Town-Owned replacement water. Present Situation: In Colorado, generally the consumptive water use —the amount of water that is not returned to a water source after being used —must be replaced. The Town's Windy Gap water is the only suitable replacement water for our surrounding area. Over the years, the Town has entered into several water lease agreements to supply replacement water, including Glacier View, Saddle Notch Ranch, Marys Lake Campground, Cheley Camp, and the Idlewild Water Users Association. There are smaller properties in the Estes Valley that rely on wells. They are not connected to the municipal water system due to the prohibitive cost of extending water mains. To comply with state water law, these individual well owners would each need to secure replacement water and acquire a water court-approved augmentation plan—a financially unfeasible burden for smaller properties. The Continental Water Bank (CWB) provides a means for these smaller properties to meet their replacement water obligations. The 2005 Water Lease Agreement provides CWB with a supply of replacement water. The agreement included an annual fee to cover administrative costs and the temporary transfer of six Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT) units from the company to the Town. Successfully monetizing or using the six (6) units of C-BT water has proven to be difficult. Proposal: The proposed amendment will return the six (6) C-BT units to the company and in exchange, the annual lease payment to the Town will be equitably increased. This change establishes a more direct and reliable revenue stream for the Town’s water customers, offering improved compensation for the utilization of the Town's valuable water rights portfolio. The Amendment also clarifies that if a CWB customer’s property is eligible for annexation, upon request by the Town, the property owner will be required to execute a petition for annexation. If the property is subsequently provided water service by the Town, CWB will terminate its obligation to provide that property with replacement water. Advantages: ●Replacement water keeps the river whole which supports the Town's mission be good stewards of our natural setting ●Providing replacement water for augmentation plans supports property values and small business operations ●The increased annual payment is a more equitable compensation method Disadvantages: ●There will be associated administrative efforts; however, the agreement compensates for those ●This ties up a portion of the Town’s water rights; however, 4.2 acre-feet is relatively small compared the Town’s 300 acre-feet Windy Gap Water Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the Resolution. Finance/Resource Impact: Increase of $5,550 in miscellaneous water revenue. Level of Public Interest Low, Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny Resolution 68-25. Attachments: 1.Resolution 68-25 2.Amendment to the agreement RESOLUTION 68-25 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO WATER LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK AND CONTINENTAL WATER BANK, INC. WHEREAS, the Town amends the 2005 Water Lease Agreement with returning the six units of Colorado-Big Thompson water and increasing the annual lease payment to the Town. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The Board approves, and authorizes the Mayor to sign, the amendment to the water lease agreement referenced in the title of this resolution in substantially the form now before the Board. DATED this day of , 2025. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk ATTACHMENT 1 Page 1 of 4 FIRST AMENDMENT TO WATER LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK AND CONTINENTAL WATER BANK, INC. This First Amendment to the Agreement Between the Town of Estes Park and Continental Water Bank, Inc. (“Amended Agreement”) is entered into this ___ day of June, 2025, by and between the Town of Estes Park (the “Town”) and Continental Water Bank, Inc. (the “Company”). The Town and the Company may collectively be referred to herein as the “Parties” or individually as a “Party.” RECITALS WHEREAS, the Parties previously entered into the Water Lease Agreement, which agreement is dated September 27, 2005, a copy of the Original Agreement is attached hereto and incorporated here in as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Original Agreement, the Company has transferred six (6) Colorado-Big Thompson Units (“CBT Units”) to the Town in exchange for the delivery to the river of up to 4.2 acre feet Town’s Windy Gap Project Water (“Windy Gap Water”) for use in the Company’s plan for augmentation decreed in Case No. 06CW63, District Court, Water Division No. 1; and WHEREAS, paragraph 5 of the Original Agreement also required the Company to pay the Town an annual fee in recognition of the administrative costs associated with this exchange of water; and WHEREAS, the term of the Original Agreement was for twenty (20) years, with the Company having the option to renew the Original Agreement for successive twenty (20) year terms; and WHEREAS, the original twenty (20) year term is set to expire on September 27, 2025, and in connection with the Company’s exercise of its option to extend the term for an additional twenty (20) year term, the Parties have agreed to amend certain aspects of the Original Agreement as set forth below. AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, mutual obligations and covenants contained herein, the sufficiency of which as consideration is acknowledged by all Parties, the Town and the Company agree as follows: 1.The foregoing recitals are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 2.Paragraph 5 of the Original Agreement is amended to increase the Annual Fee of Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000.00) per year. ATTACHMENT 2 3. In recognition of the increased Annual Fee, and in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Original Agreement, the Town shall return to the Company the six (6) CBT Units that were transferred to the Town. The Town shall initiate said transfer immediately upon execution of this Amended Agreement and shall diligently pursue said transfer and execute all reasonably necessary documents to complete such transfer, in coordination with the Company, and with the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District until the transfer is completed. 4. The term of the Original Agreement shall be extended for an additional twenty (20) year term to conclude on September 27, 2045. The Parties agree at least one-year prior to the end of the term to negotiate in good faith any amendments that are necessary for any additional term(s). 5. Paragraph 6 of the Original Agreement is replaced with the following: 6. Annexation. If any of the Company’s customer’s property is or becomes eligible for annexation to the Town, in the Town’s reasonable determination, that customer and the record owner(s) of that property may be required by the Town to promptly petition for the annexation of the property to the Town if the Town so requests. Upon notification by the Town of the annexation and that the Customer is now being provided water service by the Town, the Company will notify the record owner(s) of the property of the termination of services provided by CWB and the date of termination. The Company will also notify the River Commissioner of the termination and subsequent decrease in the amount of augmentation water needed by CWB in the annual required accounting to the State. 6. The Town understands that the Original Agreement, as amended by this Amended Agreement, is intended to be assigned and transferred to Black Canyon Catering, Inc. shortly after it has been executed, and Black Canyon Catering, Inc. will thereafter be the owner and operator of the Continental Water Bank plan for augmentation decreed in Case No 06CW63, and the party in interest to the Original Agreement, as amended. The Town hereby specifically acknowledges and consents to the assignment and transfer of the Original Agreement, as amended, to Black Canyon Catering, Inc. 7. Except as amended herein, the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and is hereby ratified by the Parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this document on the day and year first above written. [remainder of page left blank intentionally] CONTINENTAL WATER BANK, INC. _______________________________________ Gale Bernhardt STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ___________,2025 by Gale Bernhardt, as shareholder of the Continental Water Bank, Inc. Witness my hand and official seal. My Commission Expires:___________ ________________________________ Notary Public _______________________________________ Kay Broughton STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ___________, 2025 by Kay Broughton, as shareholder of the Continental Water Bank, Inc. Witness my hand and official seal. My Commission Expires:___________ ________________________________ Notary Public TOWN OF ESTES PARK By_____________________________________ _______________________________________ Printed Name & Title of Signer STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ________,2025 by _______________, as ________________ of the Town of Estes Park. Witness my hand and official seal. My Commission Expires:___________ ________________________________ Notary Public       UTILITIES Memo To: Honorable Mayor Hall Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Joe Lockhart, Line Superintendent Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director Date: June 24, 2025 RE: Ordinance 10-25 Land Lease with Platte River Power Authority for Lot 4 of the Elm Road 2nd Addition (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: The objective is to support the 2025 Town Board policy statement: “3. We encourage and support renewable energy sources and storage.”, and strategic goal, “3.A. Increase/enhance renewable energy sources and storage by collaborating with PRPA and the other Owner Communities to support PRPA's transition plan to minimize carbon‐producing energy.” Specifically, staff requests approval to lease Town-owned land to Platte River Power Authority (PRPA), which will be subleased for the installation of a utility-scale 5 MW battery energy storage system. Present Situation: Platte River Power Authority (PRPA), the Town’s municipally owned wholesale power and transmission provider, requires a utility-scale battery site in Estes Park. This project supports PRPA’s Resource Diversification Policy, which aims to decarbonize electric generation while maintaining or improving reliability. The Town owns Lot 4 in the Elm Road Second Addition, a 3.49-acre undeveloped site located just south of the Larimer County Waste Transfer Station. This lot connects to both of the Town’s electric supply substations, making it ideal for battery infrastructure. Due to the location’s geography and geology, engineering and design work must be completed to define the precise site footprint (referenced as Exhibit B in the lease). Proposal: Staff recommends approval of the attached draft lease agreement, which locates battery storage infrastructure on Lot 4. Under this agreement, PRPA will lease the land and then sublease it to a private partner able to leverage the federal tax credits which are useless to citizen-owned, tax-exempt entities. This partnership structure reduces the project’s total cost. We have secured $888,262 in federal project funding support: • PRPA received a $350,000 Microgrids for Community Resilience (MCR) Grant Program, the subject of this linked video. • Power and Communications received a $538,262 grid hardening grant to upgrade power line serving the project site, Resolution 23-25. Advantages: • Enhances local energy resilience and grid reliability. • Supports the Town Board's Strategic Plan Goal: Encourage and support renewable energy and storage. • Maximizes public and private funding sources to support infrastructure investment. • Utilizes Town property for a beneficial public use. Disadvantages: •The project ties up a portion of Town-owned land; however, the site has limited use potential. •The facility could be visible from Moraine Ave; however, this lease is the first step in initiating the project. There will be additional opportunities to review and comment on the project’s design as the project goes through the Town’s Development review process. •Utility scale batteries are costly; however, the private company will leverage tax- incentives and these batteries are a key element in providing reliability while also supporting our transition away from carbon fueled resources. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. Finance/Resource Impact: None Level of Public Interest Low Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of Ordinance 10-25 Attachments: 1. Ordinance 10-25 2.Site Lease Agreement ORDINANCE NO. 10-25 AN ORDINANCE TO LEASE LOT 4, ELM ROAD 2ND ADDITION, TO THE PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the Platte River Power Authority desires to lease land to site utility scale batteries; and WHEREAS, the Town has land appropriate for this use, namely a portion of Lot 4, Elm Road 2nd Addition (Property); and WHEREAS, section 31-15-713, C.R.S., requires that all leases of municipal property for longer than one year be in the public interest and approved by ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees determines that leasing the Property for the stated purposes is in the public interest. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Board approves, and authorizes the Mayor to sign, a lease of the Property to the Platte River Power Authority in substantially the form now before the Board. Section 2: To the extent only that they conflict with this Ordinance, the Board repeals any conflicting ordinances or parts of ordinances. The provisions of this Ordinance are severable, and invalidity of any part shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the rest of this Ordinance. Section 3: 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 _______________, 2025. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of ______, 2025 and published by title in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the _____ day of ________, 2025, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney ATTACHMENT 1 1 SITE LEASE AGREEMENT This Site Lease Agreement (“Lease Agreement”) dated as of _________, 2025 (“Effective Date”) is made by and between Platte River Power Authority, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado (“Primary Tenant”) with an address of 2000 E. Horsetooth Road, Fort Collins, CO 80525, and the Town of Estes Park with an address of 170 MacGregor Ave, Estes Park, Colorado (“Landlord”). Each of Primary Tenant and Landlord are sometimes referred to individually as a “Party” and together as the “Parties.” Background A. Landlord is a municipality and the owner of certain real property described in Exhibit A (the “Property”). B. Primary Tenant is an electric generation and transmission utility formed under Colorado statute to supply the wholesale electric power and energy requirements of its four owner communities: the City of Fort Collins, the City of Longmont, the City of Loveland and the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. C. Primary Tenant wishes to lease a portion of the Property, as more particularly depicted as Exhibit B (the “Premises”), on the terms and subject to the conditions described herein for the express purpose of subleasing the Premises to Authorized Sublessee (described below) for the purpose of designing, developing, constructing, owning, operating, and maintaining a battery energy storage facility at the Premises (the “Project”). D. Landlord is willing to lease the Premises to Primary Tenant for the Project on the terms and subject to the conditions described herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants contained herein, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged by both Parties, the Parties agree: 1. Lease. Landlord hereby leases the Premises to Primary Tenant, and Primary Tenant hereby leases the Premises from Landlord, under the terms and conditions of this Lease Agreement. 2. Permitted Use. Primary Tenant may use the Premises for the Project and, more specifically, in accordance with Section 3 below, may sublease the Premises to an Authorized Sublessee to construct, install, operate, maintain, improve, repair, and replace the Project for purposes of charging, storing, and discharging electricity. Primary Tenant is permitted to license subcontractors or agents to perform its obligations or exercise its rights under this Lease Agreement. Primary Tenant may not use the Premises for any purpose other than the Project. 3. Authorized Sublessee. Primary Tenant may sublease this Lease Agreement to Estes Park Storage, LLC (the “Authorized Sublessee”), under the terms and conditions of the Site 2 Sublease Agreement, attached as Exhibit C (the “Sublease”). In the event of such sublease to Authorized Sublessee, Sublessee shall have the rights, easements, and benefits assigned to Authorized Sublessee by Primary Tenant as set forth in the Sublease. 4. Access to the Premises. Landlord agrees to allow Primary Tenant access over and across the Property to construct, install, operate, maintain, improve, repair and replace the Project on the Premises and to otherwise access the Premises for the purposes described herein. Landlord will provide Primary Tenant with adequate space on the Property during the construction of the Project for the construction of the Project, including reasonable staging and laydown areas. Primary Tenant must comply (and in its Site Sublease Agreement with Authorized Sublessee, must require Authorized Sublessee to comply) with all laws, rules and regulations regarding use of the Property and the Premises in connection with the construction and operation of the Project, including any reasonable access protocols developed by Landlord governing access and entry into substations. For the duration of this Lease, Landlord further hereby grants to Primary Tenant, and will execute such additional instruments as may be necessary or appropriate to fully vest in Primary Tenant, the following easements and related rights: (a) An easement over the Property for ingress and egress for the purpose of siting, development, enhancement, relocation, installation, construction, operation, inspection, maintenance, replacement, repair, improvements and removal of the Project, including the right to construct such access roads as may be necessary or appropriate for such purposes. (b) An easement over the Property to allow the Project to interconnect to the electrical grid. (c) A landscaping easement on the Property for purposes of implementing such landscaping and screening requirements as may be required under the Project’s applicable permits. 5. Construction of the Project. The installation and construction of the Project must be performed in a good and workmanlike manner and in compliance with all applicable agreements. 6. Interconnection. Primary Tenant, Authorized Sublessee, and Landlord will separately document any applicable interconnection agreements for the Project. Landlord will cooperate with Primary Tenant, the Authorized Sublessee if applicable, and any applicable utility and municipal and regulatory authorities in Primary Tenant’s (or Authorized Sublessee’s) pursuit of all permits, approvals and other authorizations that may be required for the development, construction, interconnection and operation of the Project. The date at which the Project is energized and permitted to operate by the applicable utility will be the date of commissioning (the “Commercial Operations Date”). 7. Approvals and Permits. Primary Tenant, and if the Sublease is executed, the Authorized Sublessee, must obtain all necessary approvals and permits required for the installation, construction and operation of the Project, and pay all permit fees required in connection with its 3 activities under this Lease Agreement. Landlord will cooperate with Primary Tenant and if applicable the Authorized Sublessee to obtain all such approvals and permits; provided, however, that Landlord does not commit to grant any specific municipal permit as part of this Lease Agreement. 8. Vegetation and Structures. Landlord covenants that it will use its best efforts to not allow vegetation on the Property to grow in a manner or initiate or conduct any activities that could adversely affect the Project while this Lease Agreement remains in effect. Without limiting the foregoing, Landlord may not: (a) construct or permit to be constructed any structure; or (b) plant or allow to be planted any trees or other vegetation in each case, on the Premises or the Property that is owned by Landlord, that can reasonably be expected to decrease the output or efficiency of the Project. 9. Non-Interference by Landlord. Landlord and its representatives may not tamper with or undertake any maintenance or alterations to the Premises or the Project without the prior written permission of Primary Tenant, which may be withheld in Primary Tenant’s sole discretion. Landlord will take reasonable measures so that its activities at the Property do not impede, interrupt or prevent the charging, storage, and discharging of electricity by the Project or damage or otherwise adversely impact the installation, operation and maintenance of the Project or Primary Tenant’s performance under this Lease Agreement (or, if applicable, Authorized Sublessee’s performance under the Site Sublease Agreement). 10. Non-Interference by Primary Tenant. Primary Tenant recognizes (and, in its Site Sublease Agreement with Authorized Sublessee, will require Authorized Sublessee to recognize) that the Premises is near or within a highly hazardous and tightly controlled electrical substation. Primary Tenant must cooperate (and in its Site Sublease Agreement with Authorized Sublessee, must require Authorized Sublessee to cooperate) in all respects with Landlord’s activities near the Premises, and must immediately follow all directives, policies, or protocols issued by the Landlord for use of the Property and the Premises to allow the substation and Landlord’s employees, agents, and contractors to operate safely and efficiently. 11. Taxes. Primary Tenant and Landlord are government entities. Both are therefore exempt from taxes and no taxes may be lawfully assessed against Primary Tenant or Landlord in connection with this Lease Agreement. Should any taxing authority seek to assess taxes against the Project, the Project owner (whether Authorized Sublessee or another party) will be wholly responsible for payment of any taxes. 12. Term. The initial term of this Lease Agreement begins on the Effective Date and terminates on the date that is twenty-two (22) years after the Effective Date, unless terminated earlier in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Lease Agreement (the “Initial Term”). At the option of Primary Tenant, the Term may be extended by one additional term of five (5) years (the “Extension Term”). Primary Tenant may exercise the renewal option for an Extension Term by providing Landlord with a written notice of renewal prior to the expiration of the then- current Term. The Initial Term together with any properly exercised Extension Term are referred 4 to collectively herein as the “Term”. In no case shall the Term, in addition to the Decommissioning period of Section 16, exceed 30 years. 13. Rent. Primary Tenant will pay the Landlord a base annual lease payment in the amount of $10.00 (“Rent”), provided that, if any of the owner communities of City of Fort Collins, the City of Longmont, the City of Loveland and the Town of Estes Park, Colorado charge Primary Tenant a greater amount of Rent in their respective Lease Agreements for this or similar Projects, Landlord may choose to charge Primary Tenant a Rent no greater than the highest Rent charged by any other owner community, retroactive to the beginning of this Lease Agreement. Rent shall be due and payable within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Lease Agreement and every anniversary of the Effective Date thereafter for the duration of this Lease Agreement; except that retroactive Rent arising under the preceding sentence shall be due and payable within 30 days of the effective date of the lease agreement for such other owner communities. 14. Premises Leased. The Premises consists of the lease area depicted in Exhibit B hereto. Before the Commercial Operations Date, Primary Tenant shall replace Exhibit B with the approval of Landlord, which approval will not be unreasonably conditioned or withheld provided that the location and configuration of the Premises is consistent with applicable law. Following construction of the Project and completion of an as-built survey of the Premises (the “As-Built Survey"), Primary Tenant and Landlord agree to promptly (within not more than ten business days after receipt of a final version) amend this Lease and any of the easements granted by Landlord in connection with the Project as necessary, attaching the As-Built Survey as the final Exhibit B to this Lease Agreement, setting forth the conclusive and definitive depiction of the Premises for the remainder of the Term. The Landlord authorizes its Town Administrator to execute such clarifying, non-substantive amendments. 15. Ownership of the Project. The Project is the personal property of Authorized Sublessee or Primary Tenant, as applicable, and does not and will not consist of fixtures, notwithstanding how the Project is, or may be, affixed to the Premises. Landlord may not permit the Project to become subject to any lien, security interest or encumbrance of any kind, and Landlord expressly disclaims and waives any rights it may have in the Project, at law or in equity. Authorized Sublessee must maintain the Project in a good state of repair and in compliance with this Lease, the Sublease, and any other agreements regarding the Project to which the Primary Tenant or Authorized Sublessee are parties. The Primary Tenant or Authorized Sublessee, as applicable, may grant a security interest and collateral assignment in the Project for purposes of security to its lenders or investors in accordance with Attachment 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference and Landlord shall provide any consent reasonably requested by any such lender or investor, consenting to such lender’s and/or investor’s security interest in the Project. 16. Decommissioning. Within six months after the expiration or earlier termination of the Term, Primary Tenant must ensure that Authorized Sublessee, or its successors and assigns, sever, disconnect, and remove the Project and all other Project-related equipment from the Premises and restoration of the Premises to as close to original condition as reasonably practicable 5 (“Decommissioning”). Authorized Sublessee shall have the right to access the Premises during this sixth-month period for the purposes of Decommissioning. 17. Title. Landlord represents and covenants that Landlord owns the Premises and the Property in fee simple, free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, and restrictions of every kind and nature, except for those that currently appear in the recorded chain of title and are reported as exceptions on the commitment for title insurance. Landlord further represents and warrants that Landlord (a) has the right and authority to enter into this Lease, (b) has and will maintain good and marketable title to the Property, free and clear of any encumbrances that could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on development of the Property for a battery energy storage facility, (c) will not enter into any lease, option to lease, purchase and sale agreement, option to purchase, or any other similar agreement at the Premises without the prior written consent of Primary Tenant, with such consent not to be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned, during the Term, (d) is not a party to any, and to Landlord’s best knowledge, there are no pending or threatened, legal, administrative, arbitral or other proceedings, claims, actions or governmental or regulatory investigations of any kind or nature whatsoever against Landlord (i) challenging the validity or propriety of this Lease Agreement, or transactions contemplated in this Lease Agreement or (ii) which could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on the ownership or operation of the Property. 18. Quiet Enjoyment. Landlord covenants and agrees that Primary Tenant has the right to hold, occupy and enjoy the Premises for the Term of this Lease free from any claim of any entity or person of superior title thereto without hinderance to or interference with the Tenant’s use and enjoyment thereof, provided it remains in compliance with obligations under this Lease Agreement. 19. Environmental Matters. Primary Tenant is not liable for any past or present contamination or pollution or breach of environmental laws, if any, relating to the Premises or the Property, unless attributable to Primary Tenant’s activities, its employees, contractors or agents. If Primary Tenant encounters or becomes aware of any unknown hazardous material at the Premises, it must promptly cease any work in progress in an orderly, safe and efficient manner and inform Landlord of the nature and location of the hazardous material and make any reports required under applicable law. If the Landlord does not elect to eliminate or contain such Hazardous Materials in a commercially reasonable manner in compliance with law to allow Primary Tenant, or if applicable the Authorized Sublessee, to continue or finalize any work in progress then Primary Tenant, or Authorized Sublessee as applicable, shall have the right, at its option, to terminate this Lease Agreement. If Primary Tenant or Authorized Sublessee terminates this Lease Agreement under this provision, Primary Tenant and Authorized Sublessee will be relieved of all further liability hereunder except for the Decommissioning obligations provided herein. Should any contamination be caused by the activities of Primary Tenant, Primary Tenant agrees to assume responsibility for any liability for response costs for any contamination or pollution or breach of environmental laws related to the Premises and the Property affected by the contamination, except that Landlord shall bear is proportionate share to the extent that such contamination is jointly caused, or exacerbated, by Landlord. Should any contamination be caused by Authorized 6 Sublessee’s activities, or those of its employees, contractors or agents, Primary Tenant shall hold Authorized Sublessee responsible for and require it to protect, indemnify and defend the Landlord and Primary Tenant against any liability for response costs for any contamination or pollution or breach of environmental laws, except that to the extent caused or exacerbated, by Landlord or Primary Tenant. 20. Government Approvals. Landlord acknowledges that Primary Tenant’s, and if applicable the Authorized Sublessee’s, ability to use the Property for the development of a Project is contingent upon obtaining all government and utility approvals. Landlord will cooperate with Primary Tenant or if applicable Authorized Sublessee in its effort to obtain such approvals, provided, however, that Landlord, as a governmental authority, does not commit to approve any application made to Landlord itself, but those applications will be resolved under their respective processes. Should Primary Tenant or Authorized Sublessee, as applicable, be unable to obtain all necessary approvals, or be unable to maintain such approvals due to changes in law, Landlord or Primary Tenant may terminate this Lease Agreement as outlined further in Section 21 below. 21. Primary Tenant’s Right to Terminate. In addition to the termination provisions described in Section 25 (Revocation) and subject to Attachment 1, before the Commercial Operations Date, Primary Tenant may terminate this Lease Agreement by providing prior written notice to Landlord. On or after the Commercial Operations Date, Primary Tenant may terminate this Lease Agreement by providing at least six months’ prior written notice to Landlord. In addition, after the Commercial Operations Date, Primary Tenant may terminate this Lease Agreement after giving not less than 30 days’ prior written notice to Landlord, if: (a) Any governmental agency denies a request by Primary Tenant or Authorized Sublessee, as applicable, for or revokes a permit, license, or approval that is required for Primary Tenant or Authorized Sublessee, as applicable, to construct or operate the Project and infrastructure on the Premises; (b) Primary Tenant determines that technical problems which cannot reasonably be corrected preclude Primary Tenant or Authorized Sublessee, as applicable, from using the Premises for its intended purpose; (c) Primary Tenant does not have acceptable and legally enforceable means of ingress and egress to and from the Premises; (d) Utilities necessary for Primary Tenant’s or if applicable Authorized Sublessee’s use of the Premises are no longer available to the Premises; or (e) The Premises or Project are damaged or destroyed to an extent that prohibits or materially interferes with Primary Tenant’s or if applicable Authorized Sublessee’s use of the Premises. If Primary Tenant terminates this Lease under this provision, Primary Tenant will be relieved of all further liability accruing hereunder on or after the date of termination except Decommissioning, as provided herein. Should Primary Tenant terminate in accordance with this Section 21, Primary 7 Tenant must ensure that the Authorized Sublessee Decommissions the Project in accordance with Section 16 above. 22. Assignment. This Lease Agreement and the rights and obligations of either Party may be assigned only as described in this Agreement, the Site Sublease Agreement, and Attachment 1 to this Lease Agreement. Any other assignment without prior written permission of Landlord will be a breach of this Lease Agreement. In its Master Services Agreement with the Authorized Sublessee, Primary Tenant shall include a right of first refusal for Primary Tenant to purchase the Project from the Authorized Sublessee prior to any sale of the Project to a third-party in an arm’s- length transaction that requires assignment of the Lease. For clarity, Primary Tenant’s right of first refusal will not apply to any assignment to an affiliate of Authorized Sublessee, to any financing party (including a Tax-Equity Financing Party), assignment in connection with any financing transaction (whether in the form of a sale and leaseback or otherwise), or to any foreclosure as described in Attachment 1. 23. Liability for Injury and Damage. Landlord and Primary Tenant are governmental entities in the state of Colorado. To the extent permitted by applicable law, Primary Tenant is responsible for any claims, damages, liability and court awards, including costs, expenses, and attorney fees incurred, as a result of its actions or omissions in connection with the performance of this Lease Agreement. To the extent permitted by applicable law, Landlord is responsible for any claims, damages, liability and court awards, including costs, expenses, and attorney fees incurred, as a result of its actions or omissions in connection with the performance of this Lease Agreement. 24. Insurance. Before Construction Commencement, Primary Tenant and Authorized Sublessee must obtain and provide evidence of the insurance coverages specified below. A. Commercial General Liability: Including bodily injury, property damage, products and completed operations, personal and advertising injury with limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 annual aggregate limit; B. Automobile Liability: All motor vehicles, including Hired and Non-Owned, used in connection with the Agreement; $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident; C. Workers’ Compensation: As required per the state law including Employer’s Liability E.L. $500,000 per accident and $500,000 per employee, and $500,000 caused by disease; and D. Umbrella Liability excess of General Liability, Auto Liability and Employer’s Liability for $5,000,000 Each Occurrence/Aggregate. Primary Tenant and Authorized Sublessee must provide the Landlord with certificates of insurance naming the Landlord as an additional insured and evidencing the procurement of insurance contemplated in this Section including endorsements, as required. 8 25. Revocation. In the event of a default in the terms of this Lease Agreement by either Landlord or Primary Tenant, the other Party may terminate this Lease Agreement. Events that constitute a default under this Lease Agreement include: a Party’s failure to perform or comply with any material provision of this Lease Agreement; an unauthorized assignment, a Party’s insolvency or inability to pay debts as they mature, or (subject to Attachment 1) an assignment for the benefit of creditors; or if a petition under any foreign, state, or United States bankruptcy act, receivership statute, or the like, as they now exist, or as they may be amended, is filed by a Party. Neither Party will be in default under this Lease Agreement unless and until it has been given written notice of a breach of this Lease Agreement by the other Party and fails to cure such breach within thirty (30) days after receipt of such notice. When a breach cannot reasonably be cured within such thirty (30) day period, the time for curing may be extended by agreement of the Parties, not to be unreasonably withheld, for such time as may be reasonably necessary to complete the cure, provided that the defaulting Party is making good-faith efforts to cure such breach with due diligence. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Lease Agreement, Landlord may terminate this Lease Agreement if onsite Project construction has not actually substantially begun within five (5) years of the Effective Date; provided, however, that Landlord may not cause this deadline to lapse by delays in approval of any required permit or authorization. 26. Damage to Project. If, at any time during the Term, the Project is substantially damaged or destroyed and rendered inoperable by fire or other occurrence of any kind, Primary Tenant must cause Authorized Sublessee to, at its sole cost and expense either (a) promptly repair or replace the Project, or (b) elect to terminate this Sublease Agreement, in which case Primary Tenant must require Authorized Sublessee to Decommission the Project, as required by this Lease and in accordance with any other agreements to which the Landlord or Primary Tenant are parties. 27. Terminate in Event of Governmental Shutdown. If a governmental authority decrees, orders or demands that operation of the Project cease or that the Project must be removed from the Premises, for reasons unrelated to any default, violation or breach by Primary Tenant or Authorized Sublessee of any applicable law, permit or consent, Primary Tenant or Authorized Sublessee may terminate this Lease Agreement without penalty to either Party upon delivery to Landlord of 30 days’ prior written notice, in which case Primary Tenant must ensure that Authorized Sublessee must Decommission the Project. 28. Force Majeure. In the event of a Force Majeure Event (as defined below), Primary Tenant is relieved from any Rent payments and any other obligations under this Lease Agreement during the period that the Force Majeure Event exists and is continuing. Subject to Attachment 1, if the Force Majeure Event lasts for more than ninety (90) consecutive days or more than one hundred twenty (120) days in any 365 day period, Primary Tenant may terminate this Lease Agreement by delivery to Landlord of a written notice of termination. “Force Majeure Event” means any act, event, cause or condition that prevents Primary Tenant from performing its obligations and is beyond Primary Tenant’s reasonable control. 9 A Force Majeure Event may include, but is not limited to the following: an act of god; war (declared or undeclared); sabotage; riot; insurrection; civil unrest or disturbance; military or guerilla action; terrorism; economic sanction or embargo; civil strike, work stoppage, slow-down, or lock-out; explosion; fire; earthquake; abnormal weather condition or actions of the elements; hurricane; flood; lightning; wind; drought; pandemic; the failure to act on the part of any governmental authority (provided that such action has been timely requested and diligently pursued); unavailability of electricity from the utility grid, equipment, supplies or products (but not to the extent that any such availability of any of the foregoing results from the failure of the Party claiming a Force Majeure Event to have exercised reasonable diligence); and failure of equipment not used by or under the control of the party claiming a Force Majeure Event. Notwithstanding the occurrence of a Force Majeure Event or the termination of this Lease Agreement by Primary Tenant in connection with a Force Majeure Event, Authorized Sublessee’s obligation to Decommission the Project will survive, provided that the period for performance of such obligation may be delayed until such time as it becomes reasonably possible to do so. 29. Miscellaneous provisions. (a) Applicable Law. This Lease Agreement will be interpreted and governed by the laws of the State of Colorado, and venue will be only in the state court of Larimer County, Colorado. (b) Rules of Interpretation. Titles and headings are included in this Lease Agreement for convenience only, and will not be used for the purpose of construing and interpreting this Lease Agreement. Words in the singular also include the plural and vice versa where the context requires. (c) Severability. If any provisions of this Lease Agreement are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court or regulatory agency of competent jurisdiction, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions will remain in force. (d) Entire Agreement; Amendments and Waivers. This Lease Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties relating to the lease of real property for the Project and supersedes the terms of any previous agreements or understandings, oral or written. Any waiver or amendment of this Lease Agreement must be in writing signed by the Parties. A Party’s waiver of any breach or failure to enforce any of the terms of this Lease Agreement will not affect or waive that Party’s right to enforce any other term of this Lease Agreement. (e) Further Assurances. Either Party shall execute and deliver instruments and assurances and do all things reasonably necessary and proper to carry out the terms of this Lease Agreement if the request from the other Party is reasonable. (f) Recordation. This Lease Agreement will not be recorded. However, the Parties agree that a memorandum of this Lease Agreement shall be recorded in the local land records 10 pursuant to applicable state law or applicable state authority, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D. (g) Governmental Immunity. Nothing in this Lease Agreement waives any immunities, rights, benefits, protections, or other provisions of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. §§ 24-10-101, et seq., or of any other defenses, immunities, and limitations of liability available by law or in equity to Landlord or Primary Tenant. 30. Representations and Warranties. (a) The Landlord represents and warrants to Primary Tenant as follows: i. Right, Power and Authority. It has full right, power and authority to enter into this Lease Agreement and there is nothing, which would prevent it from performing its obligations under the terms and conditions imposed on it by this Lease Agreement. ii. Binding Obligation. This Lease Agreement has been duly authorized by all necessary action of Landlord, and constitutes a valid and binding obligation on the Landlord, enforceable in accordance with its terms. iii. Performance. To the knowledge of Landlord, no fact or circumstance exists that will have, or is reasonably likely to have, a material adverse effect upon the Landlord’s ability to perform its obligations under this Lease Agreement. iv. Information. To the knowledge of Landlord, the information provided to Primary Tenant in this Lease Agreement is true and accurate in all material respects. (b) Primary Tenant hereby represents and warrants to the Landlord as follows: i. Right, Power and Authority. It has full right, power and authority to enter into this Lease Agreement and there is nothing which would prevent it from performing its obligations under the terms and conditions imposed on it by this Lease Agreement. ii. Binding Obligation. This Lease Agreement has been duly authorized by all necessary action of Primary Tenant, and constitutes a valid and binding obligation on Primary Tenant, enforceable in accordance with its terms. iii. Performance. To the knowledge of Primary Tenant, no fact or circumstance exists that will have, or is reasonably likely to have, a material adverse effect upon Primary Tenant’s ability to perform its obligations under this Lease Agreement. iv. Information. To the knowledge of Primary Tenant, the information provided to the Landlord in this Lease Agreement is true and accurate in all material respects. 11 31. Notices. All notices, demands, requests, consents, approvals, and other instruments required or permitted to be given pursuant to this Lease Agreement must be in writing, signed by the notifying Party, or officer, agent, or attorney of the notifying Party, and will be deemed to have been effective upon delivery if served personally, including but not limited to delivery by electronic mail, messenger, overnight courier service or overnight express mail, or upon posting if sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed as follows: To Landlord: Town Administrator PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517-1200 To Primary Tenant: Platte River Power Authority 2000 E. Horsetooth Road Fort Collins, CO 80526 hammittj@prpa.org The address to which any notice, demand, or other writing may be delivered to either Party as above provided may be changed by written notice given by such Party as above provided. 32. Counterparts. This Lease Agreement may be executed in counterparts, which, when taken together constitute a single instrument. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank; Signature Page Follows] 12 Lease Agreement – Signature Page IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties, as evidenced by the signatures of their Duly Authorized Agents, do hereby execute this Lease Agreement the date first set forth above. LANDLORD: ____________________________________ STATE OF COUNTY OF __________________________ On this _____ day of ____________________, 2025, ________________________________ personally appeared, and they acknowledged this instrument, by them sealed and subscribed, to be their free act and deed. Before me,___________________________________ Notary Public: Commission Expires: License #: ATTEST: __________________________ Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Town Attorney 13 Lease Agreement – Signature Page Cont’d PRIMARY TENANT: [INSERT] By: __________________________ Name: Title: Duly Authorized Agent STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF ___________________ On this day of ____________, 2025, ___________________, duly authorized agent of __________________________ personally appeared, and they acknowledged this instrument, by them sealed and subscribed, to be their free act and deed and the free act and deed of _____________________. Before me,___________________________________ Notary Public: Commission Expires: License #: 1 ATTACHMENT 1 Grant of Lender-Related and other Step-In Rights This Grant of Lender-Related and other Step-in Rights is attached and incorporated into that certain Site Lease Agreement between Primary Tenant and Landlord dated ____, 2025. Primary Tenant and Landlord agree that Landlord will grant Primary Tenant and the Authorized Sublessee through its Site Sublease Agreement (the “Sublease”) the rights set forth herein. Nothing in this Lease Agreement, including in this Attachment 1, is intended to change the relationship between Platte River Power Authority and Landlord as described in the Organic Contract and applicable Power Supply Agreement. Primary Tenant does not intend to exercise these rights on its own behalf or on behalf of any third party or Leasehold Mortgagee (as the term is defined below). a. Authorized Sublessee shall have the right at any time and from time to time, without Primary Tenant’s or Landlord’s prior written consent or approval (but with prior written notice to Landlord and Primary Tenant) to: (i) assign, encumber, hypothecate, mortgage or pledge (including by mortgage, deed of trust or personal property security instrument), or otherwise transfer all or any portion of its right, title or interest under the Sublease to its Lender(s) (as such term is defined below), as security for the repayment of any indebtedness and/or the performance of any obligation owed by Authorized Sublessee to such Lender(s); and (ii) mortgage its leasehold interest hereunder and/or collaterally assign its interest in the Sublease and in any monies due under the Sublease in connection with obtaining financing from any Lender(s) for the Project and all appurtenances thereto (including the interconnection facilities and the transmission facilities and improvements), or otherwise encumber and grant security interests in all or any part of its interest in the Sublease, the Premises, the Project, interconnection facilities or transmission facilities (holders of these various security interests are referred to as “Leasehold Mortgagees”). b. Following an event of default under any financing documents relating to the Project and all appurtenances thereto (including the interconnection facilities and the transmission facilities and improvements), any Lender or Leasehold Mortgagee may (but shall not be obligated to) assume, or cause their designees to assume, all of the interests, rights and obligations of Authorized Sublessee thereafter arising under the Sublease. Any Leasehold Mortgagee that has succeeded to Authorized Sublessee’s interests under the Sublease in accordance with the provisions of this Section shall also have the right, without Landlord’s prior written consent or approval (but with prior written notice to Landlord), to assign or sublet the whole or any portion or portions of its interest in the Sublease, the Premises, the Project and all appurtenances thereto (including the interconnection facilities and the transmission facilities and improvements) for the uses permitted under the Sublease, to one (1) or more Creditworthy persons or entities (each, an “Assignee”). As used herein, “Creditworthy” shall mean an entity which has a Credit Rating of (a) “Baa3” or higher by Moody’s, and (b) “BBB-” or higher by S&P. Following any such sale, 2 conveyance, lease, assignment or sublet, the term “Authorized Sublessee” shall be deemed to include each “Assignee” then holding Authorized Sublessee’s interest (or portion thereof) in the Sublease. However, no Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee shall by virtue of Authorized Sublessee’s conveyance to it or its assumption or interests, rights and obligations of Authorized Sublessee arising under the Sublease acquire any greater interest in the Premises (including any easements created in the Sublease) or any other rights than Authorized Sublessee then has under the Sublease. Any such Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee, or Assignee shall be subject to Landlord’s Municipal Code and any and all of Landlord’s security and access protocols. c. As used herein, the term “Lender” means any financial institution or other entity or person (including a Leasehold Mortgagee) that from time to time provides debt or equity financing for some or all of Authorized Sublessee’s Project, collectively with any security or collateral agent, indenture trustee, loan trustee or participating or syndicated lender involved in whole or in part in such financing, and their respective representatives, successors and assigns. References to Authorized Sublessee in the Sublease shall be deemed to include any entity or person that succeeds (whether by assignment or otherwise) to all of the then-Authorized Sublessee’s then- existing right, title and interest under the Sublease in accordance with the provisions of this Section. d. If the rights and interests of Authorized Sublessee in the Sublease are assigned in accordance with this Section (which requires the assuming party to agree in writing to be bound by, and to assume, the terms and conditions hereof and any and all obligations to Landlord arising or accruing hereunder from and after the date of such assumption), Authorized Sublessee shall be released and discharged from the terms and conditions hereof (but not from the terms and conditions of any other agreements) and each such obligation hereunder from and after such date, and Landlord shall continue the Sublease with the assuming party as if such person had been named as Authorized Sublessee under the Sublease, provided, however, that the assuming party is Creditworthy. e. Landlord agrees to enter into a commercially reasonable non-disturbance consent and recognition agreement (an “NDA”) by and among any Lender(s) or Leasehold Mortgagee(s), Landlord, and Authorized Sublessee which shall include, without limitation, consent by Landlord to the Authorized Sublessee’s collateral assignment of the Sublease and Authorized Sublessee’s leasehold interest hereunder, cure rights and step in rights in favor of the Lender or Leasehold Mortgagees. f. Any Lender or Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee who acquires Authorized Sublessee’s leasehold interest pursuant to foreclosure or assignment in lieu of foreclosure that does not directly hold an interest in the Sublease, or that holds an interest, lien or security interest in the Sublease solely for security purposes, shall have no obligation or liability under the Sublease for obligations arising prior to the time such Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee directly holds an interest in the Sublease, or succeeds to title to such interest, or to the Sublease, except for any 3 past due Rent, which shall become immediately due and payable upon such Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee’s assumption of interest in the Sublease. With the exception of such past due Rent, any such Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee shall be liable to perform obligations under the Sublease only for and during the period it directly holds such interest or title. g. Within thirty (30) days after written request therefor, Landlord shall execute such estoppel certificates (certifying as to such truthful matters as Authorized Sublessee, Lender(s), Assignee(s) or Leasehold Mortgagee(s) may reasonably request, including that no default then exists under the Sublease, if such be the case, and that the Sublease remains in full force and effect), commercially reasonable consents to assignment and non-disturbance agreements as Authorized Sublessee or any Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee may request from time to time, it being intended that any such estoppel certificates, consents to assignment and the like may be relied upon by any Lender(s), Leasehold Mortgagee(s) or Assignee(s) or prospective Lender(s), Leasehold Mortgagee(s), or Assignee(s), or any prospective and/or subsequent purchaser or transferee of all or a part of Authorized Sublessee’s interest in the Premises, any easements granted hereunder, the interconnection facilities and/or transmission facilities and/or the Project. h. The provisions of this Attachment 1 are for the benefit of any Lender(s), Leasehold Mortgagee(s) and Assignee(s), as well as the Parties hereto, and shall be enforceable by any such Lender(s), Leasehold Mortgagee(s) and Assignee(s) as express third-party beneficiaries hereof. Landlord hereby agrees that no Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee, nor any entity or person for whom they may act, shall be obligated to perform any obligation or be deemed to incur any liability or obligation provided in the Sublease on the part of Authorized Sublessee or shall have any obligation or liability to Landlord with respect to the Sublease except to the extent any of them becomes a party hereto pursuant to this Attachment 1 or through the exercise of its rights or remedies and the written assumption of the Sublease or the easements granted hereunder. Any exercise by any Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee of any rights and remedies hereunder shall be subject to all rights, defenses and remedies available to Landlord, in each case subject to the terms of any NDA entered into between or among any Lender(s), Leasehold Mortgagee(s) and Assignee(s) and Landlord. i. A Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee shall have the right: (a) to enforce its lien and acquire title to Authorized Sublessee’s leasehold estate and easement rights by any lawful means; (b) to take possession of and operate the Premises or any portion thereof, in accordance with the terms of the Sublease and to perform all obligations to be performed by Authorized Sublessee under the Sublease, or to cause a receiver to be appointed to do so; and (c) to acquire such leasehold estate and easement rights by foreclosure or by an assignment in lieu of foreclosure and thereafter to assign or transfer such leasehold estate to a third party. j. To prevent termination of the Sublease or any partial interest in the Sublease, each Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee shall have the right, but not the obligation, at any time prior to termination of the Sublease, to perform any act necessary to cure any default and to prevent 4 the termination of the Sublease or any partial interest in the Sublease. As a precondition to exercising any rights or remedies as a result of any alleged default by Authorized Sublessee, Landlord or Primary Tenant shall give written notice of such default to each Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee previously disclosed by Authorized Sublessee, concurrently with delivery of notice to Authorized Sublessee, specifying in detail the alleged event of default and the required remedy. Authorized Sublessee, Lender, and Leasehold Mortgagee agree that no such notice may be used by Authorized Sublessee, Lender, and Leasehold Mortgagee (or any party claiming by or through those parties) as a basis for a civil claim against Landlord or Primary Tenant for defamation, libel, slander, false light, or similar causes of action. Each such Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee shall have the same amount of time to cure the default as to Authorized Sublessee’s interest in the Sublease as is given to Authorized Sublessee. The cure period for each Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee shall begin to run at the end of the cure period given to Authorized Sublessee in the Sublease; provided, however, that in no case will the cure periods permit the Lease or Sublease to extend beyond thirty (30) years from the Effective Date. k. If any default by Authorized Sublessee under the Sublease cannot be cured without the Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee obtaining possession of all or part of the Premises and/or all or part of the Project and/or all or part of Authorized Sublessee’s interest in the Sublease, then any such default shall be deemed remedied if: (i) during the cure period for Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee pursuant to Subsection j above, either Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee shall have acquired possession of all or part of the Premises and/or all or part of the Project and/or all or part of such interest in the Sublease, or shall have commenced appropriate judicial or non-judicial proceedings to obtain the same; (ii) the Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee, as the case may be, shall be in the process of diligently prosecuting any such proceedings to completion, the completion of which must occur no later than three (3) years after receiving notice from Landlord or Primary Tenant; and (iii) after gaining possession of all or part of the Premises and/or all or part of the Project and/or all or part of such interest in the Sublease, the Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee performs all other obligations as and when the same are due in accordance with the terms of the Sublease, but only for the period attributable to its possession of the Premises, provided, however, that the Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee shall pay the Rent and perform all the other obligations of Authorized Sublessee hereunder as of the date that Landlord could have terminated the Sublease for an event of default. If a Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee is prohibited by any process or injunction issued by any court or by reason of any action by any court having jurisdiction over any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding involving Authorized Sublessee or any defaulting Assignee, as the case may be, from commencing or prosecuting the proceedings described above, the time period specified in subsection k above for commencing such proceeding shall be extended for the period of such prohibition. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Lease Agreement, the Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee, as the case may be, must complete the prosecution of any such proceedings to completion no later than five (5) years after first receiving notice of default from Landlord or Primary Tenant, and in no case will the total time for proceedings allow the Lease or Sublease to extend beyond thirty (30) years from the Effective Date. 5 During any period of possession of the Premises by a Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee and/or during the pendency of any foreclosure proceedings instituted by a Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee, the Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee shall pay or cause to be paid the fees, Rent and all other monetary charges payable by Authorized Sublessee under the Sublease which have accrued and are unpaid at the commencement of such period and those which accrue thereafter during such period. Following acquisition of Authorized Sublessee’s leasehold estate by the Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee as a result of either foreclosure or acceptance of an assignment in lieu of foreclosure, or by a purchaser at a foreclosure sale (all of which are included in the term “Assignee”), the Sublease shall continue in full force and effect and the Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee shall, as promptly as reasonably possible (but in no case longer than one hundred twenty (120) days after Landlord or Primary Tenant’s written notice), commence the cure of all defaults under the Sublease and thereafter diligently process such cure to completion, and upon such completion of the cure of all defaults under the Lease Landlord’s right to terminate the Sublease based upon such defaults shall be deemed waived; provided, however, that the Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee or such party acquiring title to Authorized Sublessee’s leasehold estate shall not be required to cure those defaults which are not reasonably susceptible of being cured or performed by such party (“Non-curable defaults”). Non- curable defaults shall be deemed waived by Landlord upon completion of foreclosure proceedings or acquisition of Authorized Sublessee’s interest in the Sublease by such party. For purposes of clarity, although Non-curable defaults are waived, the party acquiring the Authorized Sublessee’s estate shall be obligated to bring the Sublease into current compliance. By way of example, Authorized Sublessee failure to maintain insurance is a Non-curable default and the party acquiring the Authorized Sublessee’s estate shall immediately obtain insurance in accordance with the requirements of the Sublease. l. Any Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee who acquires Authorized Sublessee’s leasehold interest, pursuant to foreclosure or assignment in lieu of foreclosure shall not be liable to perform the obligations imposed on Authorized Sublessee by the Sublease incurred or accruing after the Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee no longer has ownership of the leasehold estate or possession of the Premises. Neither the bankruptcy nor the insolvency of Authorized Sublessee shall be grounds for terminating the Sublease as long as all Rent and all other monetary charges payable by Authorized Sublessee under the Sublease are promptly paid by the Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee in accordance with the terms of the Sublease. The acceptance of Rent by Landlord shall not be deemed a waiver of any other rights or remedy it may have under the Lease at law or in equity. m. If the Sublease terminates for any reason, including because of Authorized Sublessee’s default or if the leasehold estate is foreclosed, or if the Sublease is rejected or disaffirmed pursuant to applicable bankruptcy law or other applicable requirements affecting creditor’s rights and, within ninety (90) days after such event, Authorized Sublessee or any Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee shall have arranged to the satisfaction of Landlord for the 6 payment of Rent, fees and other charges due and payable by Authorized Sublessee as of the date of such event, then Landlord shall execute and deliver to such Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee or designee, as the case may be, a new lease to the Premises which (a) shall be for a term equal to the remainder of the Term; (b) shall contain the same covenants, agreements, terms, provisions and limitations as the Sublease (except as otherwise provided in this Section and for any requirements that have been fulfilled by Authorized Sublessee or any Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee prior to rejection or termination of the Sublease); and (c) shall include that portion of the Project in which Authorized Sublessee had an interest on the date of rejection or termination. A Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee shall pay all of Landlord’s reasonable legal fees associated with a new lease of the Premises. n. Intentionally omitted o. If more than one (1) Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee makes a written request for a new lease pursuant to this provision, the new lease shall be delivered to the Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee requesting such new lease whose mortgage or assignment of the Sublease or the Authorized Sublessee’s leasehold interest hereunder is prior in lien, and the written request of any other Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee whose lien is subordinate shall be void and of no further force or effect. This Section (o) is for notification purposes only. p. The provisions of this Attachment 1 shall survive the termination, rejection or disaffirmation of the Sublease and shall continue in full force and effect thereafter to the same extent as if this Attachment 1 was a separate and independent contract made by and among Landlord, Primary Tenant, Authorized Sublessee and each Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee, and, from the effective date of such termination, rejection or disaffirmation of the Sublease to the date of execution and delivery of such new lease, such Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee may use and enjoy said Premises in accordance with the terms of such new lease, provided that all of the conditions for a new lease as set forth above are complied with, and with the understanding that such new lease will grant such Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee only those rights as set forth in the original Site Lease Agreement between Landlord and Primary Tenant. q. Landlord, Primary Tenant, and Authorized Sublessee agree that so long as there exists an unpaid Leasehold Mortgage or loan or other financing held by a Lender that is secured by Authorized Sublessee’s grant of a security interest in the Premises, the Sublease, the Project or any other Improvement, then (i) neither the Lease or the Sublease, as applicable, shall be modified or amended without the written consent of Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee or Assignee, as applicable, and (ii) neither Landlord or Primary Tenant shall accept surrender of any part of the Premises or the Lease or Sublease. r. If the Authorized Sublessee is in default of the Sublease and such default is not cured after the expiration of all notice and cure periods set forth in the Sublease and Lender, 7 Leasehold Mortgagee, and Assignee have not exercised their cure rights set forth in this Attachment 1, then Primary Tenant may terminate the Sublease by providing written notice to Authorized Sublessee without the consent of Lender, Leasehold Mortgagee, or Assignee. 8 Exhibit A Legal Description of Landlord’s Property LOT 4, ELM ROAD 2ND ADD, ESTES PARK 9 Exhibit B Depiction of Leased Premises The Leased Premises shall include no more than two acres within the limits of the design area as depicted above. 10 Exhibit C SITE SUBLEASE AGREEMENT This Site Sublease Agreement (“Sublease Agreement” or “Sublease”) dated as of _________, 2025 (the “Effective Date”) is made by and between Estes Park Storage, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Authorized Sublessee”) with an address of 50 Lakeside Avenue, Unit 110, Burlington, Vermont 05401, and Platte River Power Authority with an address of 2000 E. Horsetooth Road, Fort Collins, CO 80526 (“Primary Tenant”). Each of Authorized Sublessee and Primary Tenant are sometimes referred to individually as a “Party” and together as the “Parties.” Background A. Primary Tenant and the Town of Estes Park (“Landlord”) are parties to that certain Site Lease Agreement dated __ (the “Prime Lease”) which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference wherein the Landlord leased to the Primary Tenant that certain real property more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto (the “Property”). B. Authorized Sublessee is in the business of designing, installing, owning, operating and maintaining certain photovoltaic generation and energy storage facilities and equipment, including batteries, solar panels, mounting systems, inverters, transformers, integrators, electrical lines and conduits for the collection and transmittal of solar electrical energy to the delivery point and certain additional utility lines, cables, conduits, transformers, wires, meters, monitoring equipment and other necessary and convenient equipment and appurtenances. C. Authorized Sublessee wishes to sublease a portion of the Property, as more particularly depicted on Exhibit C (the “Premises”), and Primary Tenant desires to sublease the Premises to Authorized Sublessee on the terms and subject to the conditions described herein for the purpose of designing, developing, constructing, owning, operating, and maintaining a battery energy storage facility at the Premises (the “Project”). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants contained herein, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by both Parties, the Parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. Defined Terms and Incorporation of Prime Lease. All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meaning given to such terms in the Prime Lease. In addition to the specific rights set forth below, it is the intention of Primary Tenant and Authorized Sublessee that Authorized Sublessee shall have all of the rights to access and occupy the Premises and develop and operate the Project which have been granted to Primary Tenant in the Prime Lease. Primary Tenant agrees that it will use commercially reasonable efforts to cause the Landlord to perform its 11 obligations set forth in the Prime Lease. In the event that the Prime Lease permits the Landlord to take any action upon the consent of Primary Tenant, Primary Tenant shall notify Authorized Sublessee. If Authorized Sublessee reasonably determines that such action would materially impact the Project, then Primary Tenant shall not grant Landlord consent for such action unless Primary Tenant has first obtained consent from Authorized Sublessee, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Primary Tenant will not voluntarily terminate or amend the Prime Lease without Authorized Sublessee’s prior consent, not to be unreasonably withheld. 2. Sublease. Primary Tenant hereby sublets the Premises to Authorized Sublessee for the Term under the terms and conditions of this Sublease Agreement. 3. Permitted Use. Authorized Sublessee may use the Premises to construct, install, operate, maintain, improve, repair, and replace the Project for purposes of charging, storing, and discharging electricity from and to the local utility, subject to the limitations of this Sublease Agreement, the Prime Lease, and any other applicable agreements. Authorized Sublessee may not use the Premises for any purpose other than the Project. 4. Access to the Premises. Authorized Sublessee may access the Premises and use the Property granted to Primary Tenant in Section 4 of the Prime Lease subject to the restrictions in this Sublease Agreement. Authorized Sublessee shall further have the right to use the easements granted to Primary Tenant in Section 4 of the Prime Lease. At Authorized Sublessee’s reasonable request, Primary Tenant shall cause Landlord to execute such additional instruments as may be necessary or appropriate to fully vest in the Primary Tenant the easements and related rights. Authorized Sublessee must comply with all laws, rules and regulations relating to its use of the Property and the Premises in connection with the construction and operation of the Project. 5. Construction of the Project. The installation and construction of the Project must be performed in a good and workmanlike manner and in compliance with all applicable agreements, including all agreements between Primary Tenant and Authorized Sublessee related to Project construction. 6. Interconnection. Primary Tenant and Authorized Sublessee are responsible for the interconnection of the Project. The terms of interconnection will be addressed in a separate agreement. 7. Approvals and Permits. Authorized Sublessee must obtain all necessary approvals and permits required for the installation, construction, and operation of the Project, and pay all permit fees required in connection with its activities under this Sublease. Primary Tenant will cooperate with Authorized Sublessee to obtain all such approvals and permits but will not be required to take legal action to secure approvals or permits. 8. Intentionally Omitted. 12 9. Use of Subcontractors. Authorized Sublessee may license subcontractors or agents to perform any of its obligations or exercise any of its rights under this Sublease Agreement. Primary Tenant shall have the right to approve of all contractors and subcontractors performing work in excess of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. 10. Non-Interference with the Project. Primary Tenant will not (and Landlord is obligated under the Prime Lease not to) interfere with or undertake any maintenance or alterations to the Premises or the Project without the prior written permission of the Authorized Sublessee, provided, however, that in an emergency either the Landlord or Primary Tenant may access the Premises and perform any measures reasonably necessary to protect against immediate danger to health, safety, life, or property. 11. Non-Interference with Primary Tenant or Landlord Activities. Authorized Sublessee recognizes that the Premises is near or within a highly hazardous and tightly controlled electrical substation. Authorized Sublessee must cooperate in all respects with Landlord’s activities near the Premises, and must immediately follow all directives, policies, or protocols issued by the Landlord for use of the Property and the Premises to allow the substation and Landlord’s employees, agents, and contractors to operate safely and efficiently. 12. Taxes. Primary Tenant and Landlord are government entities. Both are therefore exempt from taxes and no taxes may be lawfully assessed against Primary Tenant or Landlord in connection with this Sublease Agreement. Should any Governmental Authority seek to apply any taxes on the Project, Authorized Sublessee and Primary Tenant will collaborate to reach an agreement on the equitable payment of taxes. Should any taxing authority seek to assess taxes against the Project, the Project owner (whether Authorized Sublessee or another party) will be wholly responsible for payment of any taxes, with the Authorized Sublessee responsible to pay if any other Project owners do not. 13. Term. The initial term of this Sublease Agreement begins on the Effective Date and terminates on the date that is twenty-two (22) years from the Effective Date, unless terminated earlier in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Sublease Agreement (the “Initial Term”). At the option of Authorized Sublessee, the Term may be extended for one (1) additional term of five (5) years (the “Extension Term”). Authorized Sublessee may exercise each renewal option for an Extension Term by providing Primary Tenant with a written notice of renewal prior to the expiration of the then-current Term. The Initial Term together with any properly exercised Extension Term are referred to collectively herein as the “Term”. If the Authorized Sublessee exercises any such renewal option for an Extension Term, then Primary Tenant shall exercise the corollary Extension Term under the Prime Lease. The exercise of a renewal option by Primary Tenant under the Prime Lease shall not obligate Authorized Sublessee to exercise a renewal option 13 for an Extension Term. In no case shall the Term, in addition to the Decommissioning period in Section 16, exceed 30 years. 14. Rent. Authorized Sublessee must pay Primary Tenant rent in the amount of $10.00 per year (“Rent”), which is due and payable within 15 days of the Effective Date and every anniversary of the Effective Date thereafter for the duration of this Sublease Agreement. 15. Premises Leased. The Premises consist of the lease area depicted on an survey attached as Exhibit C hereto. Before the Commercial Operations Date, Authorized Sublessee may propose to update or replace Exhibit C, with the approval of Landlord and Primary Tenant, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld provided that the location and configuration of the Premises is consistent with applicable law. Following construction of the Project and completion of an as-built survey of the Premises (the “As-Built Survey"), Authorized Sublessee and Primary Tenant agree to promptly (within not more than ten business days after receipt of a final version) amend this Sublease and any of the easements granted by Landlord in connection with the Project as necessary, attaching the As-Built Survey as the final Exhibit C to this Sublease setting forth the conclusive and definitive depiction of the Premises for the remainder of the Term. 16. Ownership of the Project. The Project is the personal property of Authorized Sublessee (unless otherwise agreed in a separate agreement between Primary Tenant and Authorized Sublessee) and is not a fixture, notwithstanding how the Project is, or may be, affixed to the Premises. Authorized Sublessee must maintain the Project in a good state of repair and in compliance with this Lease, the Sublease, and any other agreements regarding the Project to which the Primary Tenant or Authorized Sublessee are parties. The Authorized Sublessee may grant a security interest and collateral assignment for purposes of security to its lenders or investors in accordance with Attachment 1 to the Prime Lease which is incorporated herein by reference and Primary Tenant shall provide and shall causes Landlord to provide any consent or waiver reasonably requested by any such lender or investor, consenting to such lender’s and/or investor’s security interest in the Project. 17. Decommissioning. Unless otherwise agreed to by Primary Tenant and Authorized Sublessee, within six months after the expiration or earlier termination of the Term, Authorized Sublessee, or its successors or assigns, must sever, disconnect, and remove the Project and all other Project-related equipment from the Premises and restore the Premises to as close to original condition as reasonably practicable (“Decommissioning”). The Authorized Sublessee shall have the right to access the Premises during this six (6) month period for the purposes of Decommissioning. The Decommissioning will be at Authorized Sublessee’s sole expense and will be conducted in accordance with the Project’s applicable permits. Authorized Sublessee shall post all Decommissioning security required by all applicable land use approvals for the Project obtained by Authorized Sublessee in accordance with the requirements of such approvals or as otherwise mutually agreed to in writing. 14 18. Quiet Enjoyment. Primary Tenant covenants and agrees that Authorized Sublessee, provided it remains in compliance with its obligations under this Sublease Agreement and any other agreements between Primary Tenant and Authorized Sublessee related to the Project, will have the right to hold, occupy and enjoy the Premises for the Term of this Sublease. 19. Environmental Matters. Authorized Sublessee is not liable for any past or present contamination or pollution or breach of environmental laws, if any, relating to the Premises or the Property, unless attributable to Authorized Sublessee’s activities, its employees, contractors or agents. If Authorized Sublessee encounters or becomes aware of any unknown hazardous material at the Premises, it must promptly cease any work in progress in an orderly, safe and efficient manner and inform Primary Tenant of the nature and location of the hazardous material and make any reports required under applicable law. Should any contamination be caused by Authorized Sublessee’s activities, or those of its employees, contractors or agents, Authorized Sublessee agrees to assume responsibility for and protect, indemnify and defend the Landlord and Primary Tenant against any liability for response costs for any contamination or pollution or breach of environmental laws related to the Premises and the Property affected by the contamination, except that to the extent caused or exacerbated, by Landlord or Primary Tenant. 20. Government Approvals. Primary Tenant acknowledges that Authorized Sublessee’s ability to use the Property and Premises for the development of a Project is contingent upon obtaining all government and utility approvals. Primary Tenant will cooperate with Authorized Sublessee in its effort to obtain such approvals. Should Authorized Sublessee be unable to obtain all necessary approvals or be unable to maintain such approvals due to changes in law, Authorized Sublessee may terminate this Sublease Agreement as outlined further in Section 21 below. 21. Right to Terminate. In addition to the termination provisions described in Section 25 (Revocation), before the Commercial Operations Date, Authorized Sublessee may terminate this Sublease Agreement by providing prior written notice to Primary Tenant. On or after the Commercial Operations Date, Authorized Sublessee may terminate this Sublease Agreement by providing at least six (6) months’ prior written notice to Primary Tenant. In addition, after the Commercial Operations Date, Authorized Sublessee may terminate this Sublease, at its option, after giving not less than thirty (30) days’ prior written notice to Primary Tenant, if: (a) Any governmental agency denies a request by Authorized Sublessee for or revokes a permit, license, or approval that is required for Authorized Sublessee to construct or operate the Project and infrastructure on the Premises; (b) Authorized Sublessee determines that technical problems, which problems cannot reasonably be corrected, preclude it from using the Premises for its intended purpose; (c) Authorized Sublessee does not have acceptable and legally enforceable means of ingress and egress to and from the Premises; 15 (d) Utilities necessary for Authorized Sublessee’s use of the Premises are no longer available to the Premises; or (e) The Premises or Project are damaged or destroyed to an extent that prohibits or materially interferes with Authorized Sublessee’s use of the Premises. If Authorized Sublessee terminates this Sublease under this provision, Authorized Sublessee will be relieved of all further liability hereunder except Decommissioning, as provided herein. Should Authorized Sublessee terminate in accordance with this Section 21, it must Decommission the system in accordance with Section 17 above. 22. Assignment. The rights and obligations of either Party may only be assigned as described in Attachment 1 to the Lease, as described in this Sublease, or as permitted in any agreement between Authorized Sublessee and Primary Tenant, with the prior written permission of Primary Tenant, which permission may not be unreasonably conditioned or withheld. Assignment without the prior written permission of Primary Tenant will be a breach of this Sublease Agreement, and Primary Tenant may terminate this Sublease Agreement as described in Section 25 of this Agreement. 23. Liability for Injury and Damage. Authorized Sublessee will defend, indemnify and hold harmless Primary Tenant and Landlord from any and all liability, loss, cost, damage or expense sustained by reason of the injury or death of any person, or damage to or destruction of any property arising from or caused by the Project or caused by any act, omission, or neglect of Authorized Sublessee or its subcontractors, agents, servants, employees, invitees, visitors or guests, including reasonable attorney’s fees and other litigation expenses. Nothing in this Section 23 is intended to overrule, conflict with, or otherwise supersede any remedies available to Primary Tenant, Authorized Sublessee, or Landlord that may be available under any other agreement with Authorized Sublessee related to the Project. 24. Insurance. Before starting operations, Authorized Sublessee must obtain and provide evidence of the insurance coverages specified below. A. Commercial General Liability: Including bodily injury, property damage, products and completed operations, personal and advertising injury with limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 annual aggregate limit; B. Automobile Liability: All motor vehicles, including Hired and Non-Owned, used in connection with the Agreement; $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident; C. Workers’ Compensation: As required per the state law including Employer’s Liability E.L. $500,000 per accident and $500,000 per employee, and $500,000 caused by disease; and 16 D. Umbrella Liability Excess of General Liability, Auto Liability and Employer’s Liability for $5,000,000 Each Occurrence/Aggregate. Authorized Sublessee must provide Primary Tenant with certificates of insurance naming Primary Tenant and Landlord as an additional insured and evidencing the procurement of insurance contemplated in this Section including endorsements, as required. 25. Revocation. In the event of a default in the terms of this Sublease Agreement by either Primary Tenant or Authorized Sublessee, the other Party may terminate this Sublease Agreement. Events that constitute a default under this Sublease Agreement include, but not be limited to, a Party’s failure to perform or comply with any material provision of this Sublease Agreement; termination of the Prime Lease with Primary Tenant; catastrophic damage or destruction of the Project facilities on the Property; an unauthorized assignment, a Party’s insolvency or inability to pay debts as they mature, or an assignment for the benefit of creditors; or if a petition under any foreign, state, or United States bankruptcy act, receivership statute, or the like, as they now exist, or as they may be amended, is filed by a Party. Neither Party is in default under this Sublease Agreement unless and until it has been given written notice of a breach of this Sublease Agreement by the other Party and fails to cure such breach within thirty (30) days after receipt of such notice. When a breach cannot reasonably be cured within such thirty (30) day period, the time for curing may be extended by agreement of the parties, not to be unreasonably withheld, for such time as may be reasonably necessary to complete the cure, provided that the defaulting Party makes good-faith efforts to cure such breach with due diligence. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Sublease Agreement, Primary Tenant may terminate this Sublease Agreement if onsite Project construction has not actually substantially begun within five (5) years of the Effective Date of the Lease Agreement; provided, however, that Landlord or Primary Tenant may not cause this deadline to lapse by delays in approval of any required permit or authorization. 26. Lender Protection. Authorized Sublessee shall have the right to assign and encumber this Sublease in accordance with the provisions set forth in Attachment 1 to the Prime Lease. Any lender or mortgagee of Authorized Sublessee shall have all the benefits, duties, and protections in Attachment 1 to the Prime Lease. 27. Damage to Project. If, at any time during the Term, the Project is substantially damaged or destroyed and rendered inoperable by fire or other occurrence of any kind, Authorized Sublessee must, at its sole cost and expense either (a) repair or replace the Project, or (b) elect to terminate this Sublease Agreement, in which case Authorized Sublessee must Decommission the Project, as required by this Sublease and in accordance with any other agreements between Primary Tenant and Authorized Sublessee. 17 28. Terminate in Event of Governmental Shutdown. If a governmental authority decrees, orders or demands that operation of the Project cease or that the Project must be removed from the Premises, for reasons unrelated to any default, violation or breach by Authorized Sublessee of any applicable law, permit or consent, Authorized Sublessee may terminate this Sublease Agreement without penalty upon delivery of thirty (30) days prior written notice to Primary Tenant, in which case Authorized Sublessee must Decommission the Project in accordance with Section 17. 29. Force Majeure. In case of a Force Majeure Event (as defined below), Authorized Sublessee is relieved from any Rent payments and any other obligations under this Agreement during the period that the Force Majeure Event exists and is continuing. If the Force Majeure Event lasts for more than ninety (90) consecutive days or more than one hundred twenty (120) days in any 365-day period, Authorized Sublessee may terminate this Lease by delivery to Primary Tenant a written notice of Termination. “Force Majeure Event” means an unforeseeable act, event, cause or condition that prevents Authorized Sublessee from performing its obligations and is beyond Authorized Sublessee’s reasonable control. A Force Majeure Event may include the following: an act of god; war (declared or undeclared); sabotage; riot; insurrection; civil unrest or disturbance; military or guerilla action; terrorism; economic sanction or embargo; civil strike, work stoppage, slow-down, or lock-out; explosion; fire; earthquake; abnormal weather condition or actions of the elements; hurricane; flood; lightning; wind; drought; pandemic; or unavailability of electricity from the utility grid, equipment, supplies or products (but not to the extent that any such availability of any of the foregoing results from the failure of the Party claiming a Force Majeure Event to have exercised reasonable diligence). Notwithstanding the occurrence of a Force Majeure Event or the termination of this Sublease Agreement by Authorized Sublessee in connection with a Force Majeure Event, Authorized Sublessee’s obligation to Decommission the Project will survive, provided that the period for performance of such obligation may be delayed until such time as it becomes reasonably possible to do so. 30. Miscellaneous provisions. (a) Applicable Law. This Sublease Agreement will be interpreted and governed by the laws of the State of Colorado, and venue will be in the state and federal courts of Larimer County, Colorado. (b) Rules of Interpretation. Titles and headings are included in this Sublease Agreement for convenience only and should not be used for the purpose of construing and interpreting this Sublease Agreement. Words in the singular also include the plural and vice versa where the context requires. 18 (c) Severability. If any provisions of this Sublease Agreement are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court or regulatory agency of competent jurisdiction, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions will remain in force. (d) Entire Agreement; Amendments and Waivers. This Sublease Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties relating to the Sublease of real property for the Project and supersedes the terms of any previous agreements or understandings, oral or written. Any waiver or amendment of this Sublease Agreement must be in writing signed by the Parties. A Party’s waiver of any breach or failure to enforce any of the terms of this Sublease Agreement will not affect or waive that Party’s right to enforce any other term of this Sublease Agreement. (e) Recordation. This Sublease Agreement will not be recorded. However, the Parties agree that a memorandum of this Sublease may be executed recorded in the local land records pursuant to applicable state law or applicable state authority, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D. (f) Specific Performance. In the event that the Primary Tenant is in material default under this Sublease Agreement, then the Authorized Sublessee may in its sole discretion, in addition to any other remedies available at law or in equity, tender performance of the obligations of the Authorized Sublessee and specifically enforce all obligations of the Primary Tenant. (g) Third Party Beneficiary. The provisions of this Sublease Agreement are for the benefit of the Town of Estes Park, as Landlord under the Prime Lease, as well as the Parties hereto, and shall be enforceable by the Landlord as an express third-party beneficiary hereof. Other than the rights afforded Landlord herein, the rights and obligations of this Sublease Agreement are solely for the benefit of the parties hereto, and no other party shall be a third-party beneficiary of the terms hereof. (h) Governmental Immunity. Nothing in this Sublease Agreement waives any immunities, rights, benefits, protections, or other provisions of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. §§ 24-10-101, et seq., or of any other defenses, immunities, and limitations of liability available by law or in equity to Landlord, Authorized Sublessee, or Primary Tenant. 31. Representations and Warranties. (a) Primary Tenant represents and warrants to Authorized Sublessee as follows: i. Right, Power and Authority. Primary Tenant enters into this Sublease Agreement under Primary Tenant’s authority in the Prime Lease, and this Sublease Agreement is limited and conditioned by each of the terms of the Prime Lease. 19 ii. Binding Obligation. This Sublease Agreement has been duly authorized by all necessary action of Primary Tenant and constitutes a valid and binding obligation on Primary Tenant, enforceable in accordance with the terms hereof. iii. Performance. To the knowledge of Primary Tenant, no fact or circumstance exists that will have, or is reasonably likely to have, a material adverse effect upon the Primary Tenant’s ability to perform its obligations under this Sublease Agreement. iv. Information. To the knowledge of Primary Tenant, the information provided to Authorized Sublessee under this Sublease Agreement is true and accurate in all material respects. (b) Authorized Sublessee hereby represents and warrants to Primary Tenant as follows: i. Right, Power and Authority. It has full right, power and authority to enter into this Sublease Agreement and there is nothing which would prevent it from performing its obligations under the terms and conditions imposed on it by this Sublease Agreement. ii. Binding Obligation. This Sublease Agreement has been duly authorized by all necessary action of Authorized Sublessee and constitutes a valid and binding obligation on Authorized Sublessee, enforceable in accordance with its terms. iii. Performance. To the knowledge of Authorized Sublessee, no fact or circumstance exists that will have, or is reasonably likely to have, a material adverse effect upon Authorized Sublessee’s ability to perform its obligations under this Sublease Agreement. iv. Information. To the knowledge of Authorized Sublessee, the information provided to Primary Tenant is true and accurate in all material respects. 32. Notices. All notices, demands, requests, consents, approvals, and other instruments required or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing, signed by the notifying party, or officer, agent, or attorney of the notifying party, and will be deemed to have been effective upon delivery if served personally, including but not limited to delivery by electronic mail, messenger, overnight courier service or overnight express mail, or upon posting if sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed as follows: To Primary Tenant: Director of Legal Affairs Platte River Power Authority 2000 E. Horsetooth Road Fort Collins, CO 80526 20 hammittj@prpa.org To Authorized Sublessee: Estes Park Storage, LLC 50 Lakeside Avenue, Unit 110 Burlington, VT 05401 legal@encore.eco The address to which any notice, demand, or other writing may be delivered to any party as above provided may be changed by written notice given by such party as above provided. 33. Counterparts. This Sublease Agreement may be executed in counterparts, which, when taken together constitute a single instrument. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank; Signature Page Follows] 21 Sublease Agreement – Signature Page IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, as evidenced by the signatures of their Duly Authorized Agents, do hereby execute this Sublease Agreement the date first set forth above. PRIMARY TENANT: PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY By: ________________________ Name: ________________________ Title: ________________________ STATE OF COUNTY OF ______________ On this ___ day of ____________, 2025, ___________________ personally appeared, and they acknowledged this instrument, by them sealed and subscribed, to be their free act and deed. Before me,___________________________________ Notary Public: Commission Expires: License #: 22 Sublease Agreement – Signature Page Cont’d AUTHORIZED SUBLESSEE: ESTES PARK STORAGE, LLC By: __________________________ Name: Title: Duly Authorized Agent STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF ___________________ On this day of ____________, 2025, ___________________, duly authorized agent of __________________________ personally appeared, and they acknowledged this instrument, by them sealed and subscribed, to be their free act and deed and the free act and deed of _____________________. Before me,___________________________________ Notary Public: Commission Expires: License #: 23 Exhibit A to Sublease Agreement Copy of Prime Lease 24 Exhibit B to Sublease Agreement Legal Description of Landlord’s Property 25 Exhibit C to Sublease Agreement Depiction of Leased Premises 26 Exhibit D to Lease Agreement MEMORANDUM OF LEASE KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS that a certain Site Lease Agreement (the “Lease”) was entered into on the ___ day of ___________, 2025, by and between ___________________, a _________________ (the “Tenant”) and ___________________, (the “Landlord”). 1. Names of the Parties to the Lease. The names of the parties to the Lease, as set forth in the Lease, are ___________________, as tenant, and ___________________, as landlord. 2. Addresses. The addresses set forth in the Lease as those of the parties are as follows: Landlord: Town Administrator Town of Estes Park PO BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517-1200 Tenant: Platte River Power Authority 2000 E. Horsetooth Road Fort Collins, CO 80525 3. Date of Execution. The date of the execution of the Lease is ________________, 202__. 4. Term of Lease. The initial term of the Lease commences on the ____ day of ___________, 2025 and continues for twenty-two (22) years following the Effective Date. The Lease may be extended for one (1) additional five (5) year term at the option of the Tenant. 5. Property Affected by the Lease. The leased property, as set forth in the Lease, is set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto. 6. Right of Purchase or First Refusal. There is no purchase right or right of first refusal granted in the Lease or otherwise held by the Tenant. 7. Restrictions on Assignment. The Lease and the rights and obligations of either party may be assigned in accordance with the terms of the Lease so long as any assignee assumes all rights, duties and obligations of the assigning party. 8. Location of Original Lease. The original signed copy of the Lease will be maintained at 27 the principal office of the Tenant. 9. Conflict With Lease. The provisions of this Memorandum should not be used in interpreting the Lease, and in the event of any conflict between this Memorandum and the Lease, the terms of the Lease control in all respects. 10. Use. Tenant may not construct or erect any structure or building on the Premises, if the use or useful occupancy of that structure or building will require the installation of or connection to a potable water supply or wastewater system, without first complying with the applicable rules and obtaining any required permit. 11. Miscellaneous. All capitalized terms not defined herein have the meaning set forth in the Lease. This Memorandum is governed by the laws of Colorado. This Memorandum may be executed in counterparts which, when taken together, constitute a single instrument. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank; Signature Page Follows] 28 THIS MEMORANDUM OF LEASE is executed as of the date first set forth above by the undersigned parties thereto. LANDLORD: Town of Estes Park, Colorado By:________________________ Name:________________________ Title:________________________ STATE OF COUNTY OF ______________ On this ___ day of ____________, 2025, ___________________ personally appeared, and they acknowledged this instrument, by them sealed and subscribed, to be their free act and deed. Before me,___________________________________ Notary Public: Commission Expires: License #: 29 Memorandum of Lease – Signature Page Cont’d TENANT: PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY By: __________________________ Name: Title: STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF ___________________ On this day of ____________, 2025, ___________________, duly authorized agent of __________________________ personally appeared, and they acknowledged this instrument, by them sealed and subscribed, to be their free act and deed and the free act and deed of _____________________. Before me,___________________________________ Notary Public: Commission Expires: License #: 30 Exhibit A to Memorandum of Lease Property Leased 31 34628561_v4