HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Town Board Study Session 2025-10-28RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Town ofEstes Park, Larimer County, Colorado October 28, 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 28th day of October, 2025.
Board: Mayor Hall, Mayor Pro Tem Cenac, Trustees Brown,
Hazelton, Igel, Lancaster and Younglund
Attending: Mayor Hall, Trustees Brown, Igel, and Younglund
Also Attending: Town Administrator Machalek, Attorney Kramer, Director
Zimmerman, Senior Planner Hornbeck, Manager Garcia,
Manager Klein, and Recording Secretary Stoddard Cameron
Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Cenac, Trustees Hazelton and Lancaster
Mayor Hall called the meeting to order at 4:11 p.m.
REVISED POLICY 601 SPENDING AUTHORITY AND LIMITS. Director Zimmerman
and Accounting and Payroll Manager Garcia requested board input on revisions to the
organizational spending authority and the addition of language and parameters for
change orders. The proposed amendment would delegate the assignment of
departmental spending limits to the Town Administrator. Both the Town Administrator and
the Town Attorney would retain a spending limit of $100,000, which, if exceeded, would
be subject to board approval. Departmental heads would retain their spending limit of
$50,000. Table 1, which defined position titles and their corresponding spending limits,
was removed, allowing the Town Administrator to adjust limits as needed. It was noted
that many positions share titles but have differing responsibilities necessitating that
change. A defined threshold for purchase orders and contract change orders was set at
$50,000. Amounts greater than $50,000 must seek authorized board resolution. Director
Zimmerman acknowledged the advantages and disadvantages of the revisions, noting
the amended policy would streamline administrative processes, prevent project and work
delays, and clarify previously vague language. Disadvantages included the shift of
responsibility away from the Town Board and onto the Town Administrator. Staff noted
that purchasing authority was set at the minimum level required to do the job. Board
discussion ensued and has been summarized: Questioned how other municipalities
delegate spending authority; noted that change orders should be aggregated to illustrate
the full expense; requested broader financial transparency for the public; stated trust in
current staff, specifically the Town Administrator; noted that spending has been approved
in the budget, but must be publicly appropriated; and expressed approval for the sub
delegation of spending authority and proposed revisions.
OVERNIGHT PARKING. Manager Klein stated that in April of 2025 the board approved
Ordinance 06-25 amending Municipal Code 10.0440 which prohibited overnight parking
in any town-owned rights-of-way within or adjacent to the downtown corridor, along
MacGregor Avenue, or south of East Wonderview Avenue. The motive behind this ruling
was to deter visitors from camping in parking lots, a direct competition for the lodging
industry. Exceptions to the prohibition included authorization from the Public Works
Director by permit or authorization from the Director of Events for contractors and
participants at the Special Events Complex. During the 2025 season 39 downtown
commercial permits, 24 residential permits, 48 temporary guest passes, and 108 seven-
day parking structure passes were issued. Manager Klein stated that he observed parking
lots from the hours of 1:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. on October 18th and reported 111 vehicles
in marked stalls and downtown parking lots, 21 vehicles parked in town-owned rights-of-
way, and 14 vehicles parked in unmarked parking spots. Of the 146 vehicles observed
parking overnight, 131 were authorized via pass or permit. Staff noted that no public
feedback had been received on the adoption of this ordinance prior to it being scheduled
for board discussion. Board discussion ensued and has been summarized: Expressed
desire for additional data on complaints, violations and citations to better assess the
scope of the issue; questioned what demographics requested overnight permits, and how
many spaces were available on the night of observation; and requested additional
information on overnight parking for special circumstances such as mechanical issues or
intoxication.
POST OFFICE OPERATIONAL PERSPECTIVE. Postal Contractors provided the board
with an overview of challenges with loading and delivery logistics with the amendments
to Policy 842 which require postal vehicles to park at the Museum Annex parking lot rather
than in the downtown lot. They requested board direction on the possibility of revoking
the overnight parking restriction in downtown commercial parking lots, revising language
surrounding commercial-loading permits, or continuing to permit postal contractors during
working hours. In years past, delivery vehicles parked in front of the Post Office facility.
Now, all vehicles with Commercial Loading Business Permits are now required to park in
the Museum Annex Parking Lot (220 4th Street) between the hours of 5 p.m. and 10 a.m.
per Policy 842 Parking Permits. The postal contractors reported concerns with safety and
overburdened by their workload given the offsite parking requirement and noted that an
additional 655 miles and 90 hours had been added per month to provide the same service.
Postal contractor turnover at the Estes Park Post Office facility was reported to be 66%
in 2025. It was noted that the contracted postal carriers in Estes Park are responsible for
Amazon and FedEx packages in addition to all United States Postal Service (USPS) mail.
Staff reported that a Post Office Space Constraint Study would be requested from the
USPS.
Board discussion ensued and has been summarized: Declared a vested interest in
resolution to this issue and expressed support for the work that the contracted postal
carriers perform; questioned the number of parking spaces required to satisfy the Post
Office's needs, noting that the number must be limited to ensure fairness with surrounding
businesses; advised the postal contractors to voice their needs to USPS, Amazon, and
other major shipping carriers utilizing their work for deliveries; and directed staff to revise
the code to suspend the prohibition of overnight parking until a definitive solution can be
reached.
Nicole Shultz and Gina Stein/Green Jeep Tours requested overnight accommodation for
their vehicles, noting that while they own parking spaces behind their office, use becomes
dangerous in the winter due to snow and ice.
Lars Wyka/Town Resident acknowledged the hard work of contracted postal carriers,
noted the historical availability of parking spaces for post office workers and advocated
for additional parking spaces dedicated for post office employees.
Sam Tanenbaum/Owner ofWildside 4x4 Tours requested permission for one dedicated
overnight parking space for his guided tour business.
ANNEXATION POLICY AND POTENTIAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
WITH LARIMER COUNTY. Senior Planner Hornbeck summarized drafted updates to
the Town's annexation policy per the board's previous recommendation for modifications.
Changes noted were largely minor language alterations for clarity, such as switching "will"
to "should." Notable changes included a draft code amendment prepared by staff
regarding annexation requirements with extraterritorial water service which assigns
responsibility to the Town Board to waive the annexation requirements should staff find
annexation not to be in the best interest of the Town. In addition to policy updates, it was
noted that there were potential benefits to entering into an Intergovernmental Agreement
(IGA) with Larimer County, including giving the Town the right to first refusal on certain
land-use applications, the opportunity for the County to apply Town development plans
to County land by agreeing to the Town's comprehensive plan. Staff acknowledged that
many municipalities have entered into IGAs with Larimer County to ensure cooperation
on development and annexation management. Despite the marginal benefits, County and
Town staff determined that pursuit at this time would not be a high priority. Senior Planner
Hornbeck stated if directed by Town Board, staff would continue discussions with the
County on developing an IGA in 2026 or beyond. Board discussion ensued and has been
summarized: Questioned how the annexation of land differs with development, how
zoning is determined and if that occurs at annexation and whether data had been
collected on water agreements associated with annexed land; expressed desire for
criteria on the establishment of zoning, using the example of a robust checklist; noted the
importance of Town input to unincorporated development and maintaining a certain level
of control over the valley's evolution over time; and determined that the Town would
consider IGA negotiations upon any future changes to the Comprehensive Plan.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
None.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
It was requested and determined that Addressing Housing Needs for Town Employees
would be presented as a report and discussion item in a regular meeting rather than a
study session. A discussion on plaques for civic service in Town Hall was requested. Both
items were approved but unscheduled.
There being no further business, Mayor Hall adjSLLiTied the meeting at 6:48 p.m.
S^h Stp4ill^rc03ameron, Recording Secretary