HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2026-07-14Town Board of Trustees Regular Meeting
Tuesday, July 14, 2026, 7:00 p.m.
Town Hall Board Room, 170 MacGregor Ave, Estes Park
Accessibility Statement
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services.
Contact us if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or
townclerk@estes.org.
Meeting Participation
This meeting will be streamed live and available on the Town YouTube page at
www.estes.org/videos. Click on the following links for more information on Digital
Accessibility, and Public Comment.
Agenda – 7:00 p.m.
Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Approval
Public Comment
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 23, 2026
3. Estes Park Board of Adjustment Minutes dated June 2, 2026
4. Estes Park Planning Commission Minutes dated May 19, 2026 (acknowledgment
only)
5. Resolution 83-26 Declining the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment
(BEAD) Grant Award
6. Resolution 84-26 Change Order for the Visitor Center Parking Lot Improvements
Design with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., $46,508.50 – Budgeted
Reports and Discussion Items (Outside Entities)
1. 2025 Base Funding Report: Via Mobility Services
Presented by Director Torres
To present on how 2025 Town Base Funding was used to benefit the
community and/or advance the Town’s Strategic Plan.
Action Items
1. Policy 404 Public Art and Policy 405 Civic and Public Service Recognition
Presented by Director Careccia
To consider adopting Policy 404 Public Art (converting Public Works Policy
880 to Community Development) and adopting Policy 405 Civic and Public
Service Recognition.
2. Revised Policy 671 Town Funding of Outside Entities
Presented by Management Analyst Simpson
To consider adopting revisions to update the list of entities eligible to apply
for Base Funding, broaden the language related to deliverables, and clarify
reporting requirements for Community Initiative Funding.
Reports and Discussion Items
1. Estes Valley Childcare Facility Master Plan
Presented by Manager Speedlin
Continued from June 23, 2026. Presentation of the Estes Valley Childcare
Facility Master Plan Final Report from EPIC.
2. Request for Temporary Use of Lot 4 for Customer Parking at the Stanley
Presented by Deputy Town Administrator Damweber
Receive direction from the Town Board regarding a request received by a
representative of the Stanley Hotel to temporarily permit customer parking on
the portion of Lot 4 where construction staging and work crew parking is
currently permitted during construction.
Adjourn
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 23, 2026
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 23rd day of June, 2026.
Present: Gary Hall, Mayor
Kirby Hazelton, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Bill Brown
Chris Eshelman
Mark Igel
Frank Lancaster
Jamie Mieras
Also Present: Travis Machalek, Town Administrator
Jason Damweber, Deputy Town Administrator
Dan Kramer, Town Attorney
Stephanie Bramwell, Recording Secretary
Absent: None
Mayor Hall called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the
Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA APPROVAL.
It was moved and seconded (Igel/Hazelton) to approve the Agenda, and it passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Terry Rustin/Town resident recommended the Board consider repairing sections of the
multi-use trail on the east side of Highway 7. He acknowledged plans to reconstruct the
trail but expressed concern with the ten (10) year timeline for project completion. He
stated potholes, cracks, and an uneven surface has made the trail unsafe for bicyclists.
He stated he saw two (2) people fall and sustain abrasions while they ran on the trail in
the marathon the weekend prior. He shared four (4) photographs he had taken of the
condition of the trail within twenty (20) feet of the Highway 7 and Community Drive
intersection.
Laura Rustin/Town resident asked why one section of the Development Code related to
Planning and Zoning received greater attention from the Town Board during the Study
Session that evening compared to other sections of the Development Code. She noted
the Development Code was in the process of being updated and all of it contained
valuable information.
John Guffey/Town resident noted it was challenging to hear in the back of the room during
the Study Session and the need for constituents to hear Board discussion. He stated the
value of having community services such as Town Hall in a central location and expressed
concern with the Police Department moving out of Town Hall. He encouraged the Board
to consider other options for the Police Department to remain in its current location,
including expanding the building and finding alternative parking solutions. He welcomed
the new School Board Superintendent David Grubbs, expressed disappointment that
Superintendent Grubbs would not resided in Estes Park, and recommended the Board
consider how to support community leaders living within the community. He stated the
Dark Sky Initiative was important and asked the Board to discuss it further. He expressed
the importance of the ombudsman role and his opinion such a position could be of great
service to the community.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Board comments were heard and have been summarized: Thanked the Water Division
for the tour of the water treatment plants; encouraged people to attend the Upper
DRA
F
T
Board of Trustees – June 23, 2026 – Page 2
Thompson Sanitation District’s open house; shared local art and beautification
opportunities including the Friends of Folk Festival, discussion of façade improvements
for businesses, and the Art District’s initiative to paint additional public murals; Mayor Hall
and Mayor Pro Tem Hazelton attended the Visit Estes Park (VEP) Board annual retreat
where board governance, destination stewardship, new brand assets, lodging tax
revenue, VEP’s clean audit for 2025, and a new event funding process were discuss ed;
encouraged people to attend VEP’s Accessibility Showcase hosted in partnership with
Wheel the World; Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST) shared sales tax numbers
for 2025 for member communities, sales tax in some communities was down 4% to 18%;
encouraged people to attend the Trustee Talks; encouraged people to attend the
upcoming Rooftop Rodeo; Estes Park Sister Cities Association met and discussed
policies for home-stay students, a potential trip for adults to Costa Rica, and ideas for the
annual party in September; thanked the Auxiliary Police for their work at events;
encouraged people to attend the Estes Valley Amateur Radio Club’s Field Day; stated
intent to further discuss processes and oversight of the Estes Park Housing Authority
(EPHA) Board at a future study session; congratulated new Estes Valley Fire Protection
District Fire Chief Kevin Nunn; and Mayor Hall expressed sympathy for the residents of
Cleave Street due to the impacts of ongoing construction and reiterated his commitment
to maintaining the character, quality, and beauty of Estes Park.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Town Administrator Machalek asked the Board to continue Report and Discussion Item
2: Estes Valley Childcare Facility Master Plan to July 14, 2026 due to technical difficulties
connecting the consultants virtually.
He reported non-compliance of Governing Policy 3.4.5, as was reported in January,
specifically for the contract set to be considered for renewal in Action Item 1: Resolution
77-26. The original contract was over $100,000, and therefore, should have been
considered by the Town Board. He stated measures have been taken to avoid non-
compliance in the future including further educating managers about spending authority
limits and implementing the Tyler Enertprise Resource Planning System.
Consent Agenda:
1. Expenditure Approval List - Bills
2. Town Board Meeting and Study Session Minutes dated June 9, 2026
3. Resolution 74-26 Authorization to Execute Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment Closed Landfill Remediation Grant Agreement Amendment #1 for
Stabilization Work at the Power and Communication Elm Road Storage Facility
Located on the Closed Landfill in the Amount of $332,051
4. Resolution 75-26 Awarding the Mall Road Waterline Project to High Plains
Excavation & Aggregate, LLP, in the Amount of $1,786,950 and Authorizing the
Utilities Director to Approve Contingency Spending up to $536,000 for a Total Project
Cost of $2,322,950 – Budgeted
5. Resolution 76-26 Change Order for Fall River Trail Final Segment Design with Otak,
Inc., $21,606 – Budgeted
It was moved and seconded (Eshelman/Mieras) to approve Consent Agenda with the
removal of Item 4: Resolution 75-26, and it passed unanimously.
CONSENT ITEM REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION:
1. Item 4: Resolution 75-26 Awarding the Mall Road Waterline Project to High
Plains Excavation & Aggregate, LLP, in the Amount of $1,786,950 and
Authorizing the Utilities Director to Approve Contingency Spending up to
$536,000 for a Total Project Cost of $2,322,95 0, Budgeted. Board discussion
ensued and has been summarized: Questioned the 30% contingency budget, staff
DRA
F
T
Board of Trustees – June 23, 2026 – Page 3
stated a typical contingency for similar projects is 20% and the increased contingency
was in response to several anticipated challenges including crossing a siphon owned
by the Bureau of Reclamation, crossing of Big Thompson River, crossing Highway 34,
and the presence of a high pressure gas line in the area; asked about the
responsibilities of each sub-contractor, staff stated the task division had yet to be
determined. It was moved and seconded (Hazelton/Mieras) to approve Resolution
75-26, and it passed unanimously.
LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. RESOLUTION 78-26 NEW HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE FILED
BY CRAGS LODGE FBS LLC DBA HISTORIC GRAGS LODGE, 300 RIVERSIDE
DRIVE, ESTES PARK, CO 80517. Mayor Hall opened the public hearing. Town Clerk
Williamson presented Resolution 78-26 for a new Hotel and Restaurant Liquor
License under concurrent review and noted that all paperwork and fees had been
submitted. The applicant was present and confirmed they were scheduled to complete
responsible vendor training the following week. They stated the owners plan to
remodel the property in the future. Mayor Hall closed the public hearing. It was then
moved and seconded (Eshelman/Hazelton) to approve Resolution 78-26, and it
passed unanimously.
2. RESOLUTION 79-26 NEW HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE FILED
BY MOUNTAIN BERRY BAKERY LLC DBA KISSING MOOSE CAFÉ AND
SALOON, 1701 NORTH LAKE STREET, ESTES PARK, CO 80517. Mayor Hall
opened the public hearing. Town Clerk Williamson presented Resolution 7 9-26 for a
new Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License under concurrent review and noted that all
paperwork and fees had been submitted. The applicant was present and confirmed
staff were scheduled to complete responsible vendor training.
John Guffey/Town resident, expressed concern about the number of venues that
serve alcohol and the impact on public safety. The applicant stated confidence in their
training to avoid overserving.
Mayor Hall closed the public hearing. It was then moved and seconded
(Igel/Eshelman) to approve Resolution 79-26, and it passed unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ITEMS:
1. ORDINANCE 11-26 REZONING 440 VALLEY ROAD FROM RM (MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL) TO A-1 (ACCOMODATIONS, LOW-INTENSITY), DENICE D.
BORDA, BRIAN DELANEY, AND DANA D. BURKE/OWNERS. Mayor Hall opened
the public hearing. Planner Washam reviewed the application to rezone a property
containing a single-family home and a triplex used as accommodations and licensed
as three (3) separate vacation home licenses from RM (Multi-Family Residential) to
A-1 (Accommodations, Low-Intensity) zoning to allow for a reclassification to “Resort
Lodge”. The applicant contends the A-1 zoning classification more accurately reflects
their “small lodge” business model and would allow for a single accommodations
license to be issued rather than individual vacation home licenses and corresponding
workforce housing regulatory fees. The change in classification would not create a
non-conforming use, however, redevelopment would limit the property to up to three
(3) units on the 0.8-acre property. Planner Washam noted the application complies
with the relevant standards and criteria set forth in the Estes Park Development Code
including addressing changes in conditions in the area affected, noting a rezoning in
2011 for Fall River Lodge from CO (Commercial Outlying) to A -1 (Accommodations,
Low Intensity) to convert a small residential building into a small resort lodge; no new
development was proposed; the 2022 Comprehensive Plan outlines the future land
use in this area as “Suburban Estate”, which consists of low to medium density single-
family residential development, and would not conflict with the rezoning request; noted
the rezoning request would be consistent with the surrounding accommodations
corridor, and compatible with the neighborhood use ; and adequate public services
already exist with the current use. The rezoning was previously denied by the Town
Board at the January 27, 2026 meeting due to failure to meet the requirements of
DRA
F
T
Board of Trustees – June 23, 2026 – Page 4
Ordinance 11-25, established by the passing of Ballot Question 300. The applicants
sought to meet the requirements of Ordinance 11-25 by obtaining written support from
74% of property owners within 500 feet, exceeding the two-thirds required by
Ordinance 11-25 and resubmitted an application to rezone the property. The Estes
Park Planning Commission recommended approval of the application at their June 16,
2026 meeting.
Denice Borda and Donald Borda/Applicants provided an overview of the property
purchased in 1986 located on Business Hwy 34 between two churches and across
the highway from the Fall River Lodge. They reviewed the down zoning from
commercial (CO - Commercial Outlying) to residential (E-1 – Estate 1-acre) that took
place in 2000 even though there were multiple structures on the property, and the
corrective zoning in 2010 that rezoned the property from E-1 (Estate 1-acre) to RM
(Multi-family Residential). The property has been operated throughout the years as an
accommodation property with an onsite manager, however, due to the current zoning
of RM are licensed as three individual vacation homes subject to the fees, including
the workforce housing regulatory linkage fee. They collected signatures in support of
the rezoning from twenty-three (23) of thirty-one recorded property owners within 500
feet and hosted two neighborhood meetings to answer questions about the rezoning
application.
Board discussion ensued and has been summarized: Questioned the possibility of
other business owners pursuing rezoning to operate as Accommodations units rather
than Vacation Homes, Town Administrator Machalek stated staff did not anticipate this
decision being applicable to future rezoning requests; inquired about the process to
collect signatures from neighboring property owners, Denice and Donald Borda stated
they created forms and found neighboring property owners through online searches;
clarified the rezoning would not permit additional accommodation units to be built on
the property; and discussed the process to partially refund the 2026 vacation home
license fees, staff stated there is not a process to refund vacation home license fees.
Mayor Hall closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded (Igel/Lancaster)
to approve Ordinance 11-26, and it passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. RESOLUTION 77-26 CONTRACT RENEWAL WITH CERVI CHAMPIONSHIP
RODEO FOR THE 2026 ROOFTOP RODEO STOCK CONTRACTING. Director
Hinkle presented the first contract renewal for the 2025 contract with Cervi
Championship Rodeo. He noted the error in not receiving Board approval of the 2025
contract. He stated the Town had contracted with Cervi for the past eleven (11) years
to provide the stock, key personnel, and equipment needed for the Rooftop Rodeo to
be a Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association (PRCA) rodeo. He stated the renewal
had been budgeted. It was moved and seconded (Igel/Mieras) to approve
Resolution 77-26, and it passed unanimously.
2. RESOLUTION 80-26 CONTRACT WITH INFUSION ARCHITECTS, LLC FOR
DESIGN SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE FOR
THE ESTES PARK PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY. This item was postponed by staff
to a future meeting.
3. RESOLUTION 81-26 ADOPTION OF THE 2025 – 2026 WATER MASTER PLAN.
Manager Wesley, Superintendent Fredricks, Supervisor Lang, and Supervisor Rossi
presented the 2025-2026 Water Master Plan. The three considerations in water
master planning include reliability of service, resilience to hazards, and customer
experience. They noted although the water system continues to perform, the aging
infrastructure, operational constraints, and limited redundancy remain ongoing
concerns. Staff stated approximately 35% of the pipes, or 30 to 35 miles, are made of
cast iron and galvanized steel which have outlived their lifespan and require
replacement. On average there was a main break once a month, or twelve (12) to
fifteen (15) a year. The team reviewed water projects including the replacement of the
Thunder Mountain Tank in 2027; the replacement and consolidation of the Big
Thompson Tank and the Fall River Estates Tank; the replacement of the Fall River
DRA
F
T
Board of Trustees – June 23, 2026 – Page 5
Estates Pump Station to move it out of the floodplain and increase it in size; the
pipeline replacement program to replace pipes every 100 to 120 years; and the
construction of a new water treatment plant, upgrading Mary’s Lake Water Treatment
Plant and decommissioning the Glacier Creek Water Treatment Plant to create
redundancy and meet modern standards of water quality and delivery. A rate study
would be reviewed at a subsequent meeting to outline the cost of the water projects.
They presented an overview of public outreach in 2026: three public meetings were
held, two presentations to the Rotary, printed and digital information provided, and
spoke directly with the Estes Valley Fire Protection District and members of the
Chamber of Commerce. Common questions from the outreach included current
drought conditions, the Town’s diverse portfolio of water rights and adequate supply
to meet demand although water conservation would be advisable; the location of a
new water treatment plant, the site selection process would occur in 2027; and funding
mechanisms for the new water treatment plant , the funding package had not been
finalized but would likely include grants, low interest loans, and rate increases. Trustee
Eshelman stated he currently works for the YMCA. He noted his comments on the
Water Master Plan and siting of a new water treatment plant are based on his past
professional experience and his working knowledge of water treatment and not his
current employment.
Board discussion ensued and has been summarized: Questioned the feasibility of an
additional water source to Mary’s Lake Water Treatment Plant, staff stated the
financial cost would be high; asked if the plan was a living document, staff
acknowledge it would be; asked about the comparatively high water pressure in the
system, staff stated it was due to the peaks and valleys of the topography as well as
the undersized main pipes; questioned the ability to design for increased population,
staff stated intent to design the new water treatment plant to meet future capacity
needs as well as be able to be updated to meet future regulations; Trustee Eshelman
questioned the $2-3 million cost of a proposed pump station, expressing belief Town
staff could build a pump house for less, recommended staff lead the site selection
process for a new water treatment plant rather than a consultant , and stated his
employment at the YMCA of the Rockies. After further conversation, it was moved
and seconded (Hazelton/Brown) to approve Resolution 81-26, and it passed
unanimously.
4. ORDINANCE 12-26 ADOPTION OF THE WILDFIRE RESILIENCY CODE. Mayor
Hall opened the public hearing. Director Careccia presented the Wildfire Resiliency
Code adopted by the Estes Valley Fire Protection District (EVFPD). The State adopted
the Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code on June 1, 2025 and required municipalities to
adopt the minimum requirements of the code by July 1, 2026. The EVFPD adopted
the code with amendments and appendices on March 23, 2026. The code designated
the Estes Valley as a wildland-urban interface, established structure hardening
requirements for new or updated structures, and established site and area
requirements, among other measures. It would not apply retroactively to existing
structures, interior alterations, or structures of certain sizes and distances from
occupiable structures. Board discussion ensued and has been summarized: Asked
for further clarification on the local amendments, Chief Landkamer stated the
amendments are primarily those adopted by Larimer County in January 2026 ;
discussed the risk levels of different zones throughout the Estes Valley, the State
identified the downtown corridor as low risk while the code approved by EVFPD
categorized all of Estes Valley as moderate, high, or extreme risk; discussed the
financial cost to property owners to meet the code standards when building or
updating structures; discussed the potential impact of meeting these standards on
home owners insurance; discussed tree maintenance as a site requirement; and
Trustee Igel noted his current involvement with the EVRPD as a volunteer. It was
moved and seconded (Hazelton/Lancaster) to approve Ordinance 12-26, and it
passed unanimously.
5. RESOLUTION 82-26 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE ADMINISTRATION
AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE COLORADO WILDFIRE RESILIENCY CODE.
Director Careccia presented a cooperative agreement with the EVFPD to administer
the Wildfire Resiliency Code. As the code included both building and fire code
DRA
F
T
Board of Trustees – June 23, 2026 – Page 6
elements, the cooperative agreement divided responsibility for administration between
the Town and the EVFPD. The Town would be responsible for administering the
building safety elements and the EVFPD would be responsible for administering the
defensible space requirements. Board discussion ensued and has been summarized:
Questioned the additional staff time and cost to both organizations, Director Careccia
stated limited additional time is anticipated for SAFEBuilt, the company contracted by
the Town of Estes Park to provide building permitting, because properties are already
required to submit plans and undergo inspections for new developments or extensive
improvements, Town Administrator Machalek stated the contract with SAFEBuilt limits
any potential financial impact of increased staff time spent administering the wildfire
resiliency code in 2026; Captain Sutherland stated the EVFPD would expand the
existing home assessment program and community education programs and continue
to collaborate with SAFEBuilt. It was then moved and seconded (Igel/Eshelman) to
approve Resolution 82-26, and it passed unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Hazelton/Eshelman) to extend the meeting past 10:00
p.m., and it passed with Trustee Igel voting “No”.
6. INTERVIEW COMMITTEE FOR THE ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY (EPHA)
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. Town Clerk Williamson informed the Board there
were three (3) open positions on the EPHA Board of Commissioners and requested
two (2) trustees be selected to interview candidates to fill the positions. Board
discussion ensued and has been summarized: Discussed level of urgency to appoint
the positions and the EPHA’s continued ability to operate with a quorum; expressed
interest in further discussing the Town Board’s oversight of the EPHA as a Report and
Discussion Item at the July 14, 2026 regular meeting; and discussed the timeline of
the application and interview process. It was then moved and seconded
(Hazelton/Hall) to appoint Trustees Lancaster and Igel to the EPHA Board of
Commissioners interview committee, and it passed unanimously.
REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. BEAD RISK REPORT AND DOCUMENTATION. Manager Stiner presented rationale
for the staff recommendation to not accept the Broadband Equity, Access, and
Deployment (BEAD) grant. The grant would provide funding to expand broadband
internet access throughout the Estes Valley. Staff identified locations for broadband
expansion within the town limits of Estes Park that were not eligible to receive BEAD
grant funding. Staff recommended an alternate plan to expand broadband access
within town limits and the highest-density service areas before continuing to expand
access to lower-density service areas. The staff recommended plan prioritized
locations that were not eligible for BEAD funding. Board discussion ensued and has
been summarized: Questioned why the Town applied for the BEAD grant, staff stated
the limitations of the funding and the specific requirements of the grant agreement
were not provided in full until the application had been submitted and funds offered;
Special Counsel White discussed specific concerns within the grant agreement
including the requirement to comply with thirty-seven (37) federal regulations not
typically included in federal grant agreements and a two (2) year funding guarantee
for a four (4) year project.
2. ESTES VALLEY CHILDCARE FACILITY MASTER PLAN. This item was postponed
at the request of staff, due to technical difficulties.
Whereupon Mayor Hall adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m.
Gary Hall, Mayor
DRA
F
T
Board of Trustees – June 23, 2026 – Page 7
Stephanie Bramwell, Recording Secretary
DRA
F
T
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado June 23, 2026
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 23rd day of June, 2026.
Board:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Mayor Hall, Mayor Pro Tem Hazelton, Trustees Brown,
Eshelman, Igel, Lancaster, and Mieras
Mayor Hall, Mayor Pro Tem Hazelton, Trustees Brown,
Eshelman, Igel, Lancaster, and Mieras
Town Administrator Machalek, Deputy Town Administrator
Damweber, Attorney Kramer, and Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: None
Mayor Hall called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
Business Support Strategic Objective.
Deputy Town Administrator Damweber outlined the current support the Town provides
to local businesses to address the 2026 Strategic Plan Objective to “Identify
opportunities to support an eclectic mix of business, including smaller ‘mom and pop’
shops” including base funding for the Economic Development Workforce Council
(EDWC) which provides business support strategies currently employed by the
Chamber and the EDWC, with support from the Town. These services include
facilitation of networking and relationship building, visibility and marketing, education
and skill-building, and advocacy. Staff reviewed other potential strategies employed by
local governments including grant or microloan programs, façade improvement
programs, and fee waivers for new businesses or business expansion/renovation. He
noted that each of the strategies would require program creation and administration,
and funding from the Town. Board discussion was heard and has been summarized:
questioned if analysis on what types of new businesses would be successful downtown
had been completed, it was noted no formal study had been completed; asked if staff
was seeing a demand for one of the options presented; questioned what challenges
businesses have with fees or other barriers, it was noted the cost of building fees have
been a issue for businesses, bridge loans are not uncommon for businesses to assist
with the off season; the Town should lean in on items that would stimulate business with
the façade and sidewalk improvements being beneficial to address; noted a
philosophical concern with government involvement on how small businesses operate;
would like to understand how the façade improvements would benefit the property
owners and the business owners and would support the program to improve
infrastructure that resides outside the downtown business corridor; assisting with
microloans/revolving loans as well as start ups would be of interest, however, concern
was expressed on whether the Town was the proper entity to implement such a
program; stated the Town should not be propping up businesses that are failing; the
Town should do no harm and should assist with Town processes, including a review of
planning processes and building requirements to assist new businesses and streamline
when feasible; and suggested a study be completed to compare the Town’s fees and
timelines for development with similar communities. Staff confirmed consensus on
reviewing a façade program and the cost associated, review and evaluate the level of
rigor required on the regulatory side for new business without the implementation of fee
waivers, and review partnerships and work with the Chamber to advocate microloans
through the local banks.
Rezoning Criteria.
Director Careccia stated rezoning criteria are established in the Estes Park
Development Code which outlines the need for a rezoning to show compliance with the
criteria. Staff reviewed the rezoning criteria of ten (10) other municipalities and noted
the major issue for Estes Park was the change in conditions. Three (3) rezoning criteria
DRA
F
T
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Town Board Study Session Minutes dated June 23, 2026 – Page 2
have been proposed: Review Criteria 1 - Consistency with the future land use plan,
Review Criteria 2 - Compatibility with surrounding area and mitigation of adverse
impacts, and Review Criteria 3 - Adequate public services. The change in conditions
would become a secondary review criterion under Review Criteria 1. The proposed
modification to the rezoning criteria would provide clarity for staff, stakeholders, and
decision makers. Board comments and questions were heard and summarized:
questioned how to clearly define “areas affected” within the change of use to provide
specificity; noted concerns with streamlining the process for both staff and the applicant,
Director Careccia commented in reviewing other land use codes he has not come
across a definition for a change in conditions that would provide the specificity
requested and noted it usually follows as a secondary condition or related to an error
that has occurred; it was noted a change in circumstance has been recommended and
would be in alignment with Larimer County; concern was raised on the use of the
phrase “close vicinity”; the governing body should be making decisions and have the
flexibility to make decisions which requires a level of vagueness of definitions; and the
consensus of the Board was to bring forward a Development Code revision to consider
amending the rezoning criteria prior to the completion of the Development Code rewrite
later in 2026. The item would be added to a future agenda as a report and discussion
item with public comment allowed and noted on the agenda.
Trustee and Administrator Comments and Questions.
None.
Future Study Session Agenda Items.
It was requested and determined to add a discussion on Micromobility to the August 25,
2026 meeting. Mayor Hall requested a study session on the old hydro plant on
MacGregor Ranch, the potential of giving the land to the Ranch, and the establishments
of easements to access areas of the Rocky Mountain National Park. Trustee Igel
requested a study session to discuss the structure of the Estes Park Housing Authority
Board and how to fill vacancies on the Board.
There being no further business, Mayor Hall adjourned the meeting at 6:49 p.m.
___________________________________
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk DRA
F
T
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 2, 2026
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of the
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. The meeting was held in the Town of
Estes Park on June 2, 2026.
Committee: Board: Jeff Moreau, Colin Godsey, Steven Neilson
Attending: Attending: Chair Moreau, Member Neilson, Director Steve Careccia, Permit Technician
Joe Berek, Town Board Liaison Bill Brown, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund
Absent: Godsey
Chair Moreau called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were 3 people in attendance.
INTRODUCTIONS:
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Neilson) to approve the agenda. The motion
passed 2-0.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Neilsen) to approve the Consent Agenda. The
motion passed 2-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT: none
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Building Setback and Landscape Buffer 2831 Fall River Road
Planner II Washam, presented by Joe Berek, Planning Technician
The subject property, addressed as 2831 Fall River Road (Highway 34), is 3.61 acres
and consists of two (2) 1.28-acre and 2.33-acre metes and bounds parcels. The
applicant purchased the properties in 2025 with the intent to plat them into one (1) lot.
The Applicant requests approval of a variance for a reduced building setback and
landscape buffer along arterial street frontage to allow encroachment by four (4)
proposed short-term rental cabins. Encroachment is proposed at a maximum of ten feet
(10') into the required front setback and landscape buffer. Staff recommended the
following conditions of approval of the variance:
1. Encroachment by the proposed development must be generally consistent
with Exhibit A.
2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed
development, the two subject parcels are required to be platted via the
Minor Subdivision process in accordance with EPDC § 3.9.D.1.a.
3. A development plan for the proposed structures must be approved before
any building permit is issued.
4. In accordance with EPDC § 7.3, the development plan must identify all
existing trees and comply with established Tree and Vegetation Protection
standards. The development plan submittal must incorporate a landscape
plan that emphasizes the preservation of trees to the maximum extent
feasible, provided that such landscaping—whether existing or newly
introduced—does not interfere with the sight distance requirements
necessary for development access.
DISCUSSION:
Member Neilsen questioned whether mature evergreen trees located in the CDOT right-
of-way were guaranteed to remain. Director Careccia clarified that they do not control
Board of Adjustment, June 2, 2026 – Page 2
those trees, so they were included in the plan as an enhancement rather than a
structural necessity for the variance, and noted that CDOT could remove the trees at its
discretion. In addition, it was noted that potential fire-mitigation regulations might
necessitate their removal in the future.
Public Comment:
Curtis Kelly, 2850 Fall River Road, pointed out that while the terrain provides some
natural screening, it wouldn't completely hide the proposed development. He noted that
the cabins would still be visible from homes below, especially toward the center and
east side.
Expressing concern about the impact on established neighborhoods, Kelly emphasized
that the area isn't just hotels and lodging; it includes residential properties with deep
roots in the community. He urged the board to consider typical neighborhood concerns ,
such as dark skies, noise, and privacy. He asked that the development remain sensitive
to the sightlines of adjoining homes throughout the approval process.
It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Neilsen) to approve the variance request to
reduce the front building setback and landscape buffer along Fall River Road,
consistent with staff-recommended conditions for the subject properties
addressed as 2831 Fall River Road in Estes Park. The motion passed 2-0.
REPORTS:
With no further business, Chair Moreau adjourned the meeting at 9:18 a.m.
Jeff Moreau, Chair
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, May 19, 2026
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK PLANNING COMMISSION of the
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. The meeting was held in the said Town
of Estes Park on May 19, 2026.
Commission: Chair Charles Cooper, Vice Chair David Arterburn, Dick
Mulhern, Chris Pawson, Julie Phares
Attending: Commissioners Cooper, Arterburn, Phares, Pawson,
Community Development Director Steve Careccia, Senior
Planner Paul Hornbeck, Town Attorney Dan Kramer, Town
Board Liaison Frank Lancaster, Recording Secretary Karin
Swanlund
Absent: Pawson, Phares
Chair Cooper called the meeting to order at 1:30 pm. There were 7 people in the
audience.
INTRODUCTIONS
Commissioners and staff introduced themselves.
AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Mulhern/Arterburn) to approve the agenda. The motion
passed 3-0.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated February 17, 2026
It was moved and seconded (Arterburn/Mulhern) to approve the consent
agenda. The motion passed 3-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT
NONE
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Commissioner Mulhern nominated Vice Chair Arterburn as Chair, and Chair Cooper
nominated Commissioner Mulhern as Vice Chair. Vice Chair Arterburn seconded both
nominations. The vote passed 3-0. Arterburn took over as chair for the rest of the meeting.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Fall River Village Planned Unit Development
Planner Hornbeck reviewed the staff report. The 24 existing units and event facility are
located on a single 3.8-acre lot that is proposed to be subdivided into 14 townhome lots,
one 8-plex lot, one duplex lot (2 units), and one lot for the event facility/office. The
subdivision is a separate application and agenda item from this application to amend
the existing PUD. Most of the desired uses are currently permitted under the PUD,
which allows multi-family and two-family residential dwellings, government offices, and
daycare. The PUD amendment is necessary to address nonconforming situations
resulting from the subdivision and to make minor changes to allowed uses. The PUD
seeks approval for changes in lot size, building envelopes, setbacks, parking, loading,
sidewalks, and "uses". Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward to the
Town Board a recommendation to approve the combined Preliminary/Final PUD Plan,
subject to the following findings and conditions of approval:
Planning Commission – May 19, 2026 – Page 2
Findings:
1. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for
consideration and comment, with no objections received.
2. The combined Preliminary/Final PUD Plan application complies with applicable
standards set forth in the Estes Park Development Code.
Conditions:
1. Parking shall be managed by the owner's association to ensure parking is
provided in accordance with the approved PUD in a safe manner that does not
block emergency access and shall include enforcement of event facility
occupancy limits as necessary.
Pete Levine, Director of Real Estate Development for the Housing Authority, gave a
presentation covering both agenda action items. He reviewed the background of how
the Housing Authority became the owner of the property. The review covered finances,
property goals and how to achieve the goals. Also discussed were the plans for Skyview
and Cliff House, HOA rules and the sales strategy for the buildings on the upper level of
Fall River Village.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Keith and Marlene Stone, 350 Far View Dr., expressed concerns regarding traffic and
noise. They raised questions about the parking capacity for the event center, noting that
there are currently very few dedicated spaces, leading to fears of overflow parking along
the Far View frontage, similar to past experiences with weddings at the location.
Kristine Poppitz, county resident, argued that the PUD amendment should be classified
as a major or new application rather than a minor one, which would trigger stricter
requirements under the Town's development code and Ordinance 11-25. She
expressed concerns about the lack of publicly available notes from the community
meeting. She requested more clarity on the financial risks involved, specifically
regarding the potential for the property to incur losses and to lose its affordability
covenants. She raised questions about the operational details of the Sky View event
center and the status of the proposed childcare facility, emphasizing that the community
deserves clear and early communication about these land-use changes.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Cooper asked if the school bus stops in FRV, and Chair Arterburn asked
about the neighborhood meeting minutes. Scott Moulton, Executive Director of the
Housing Authority, stated that childcare would be open to the entire community and
noted that they were unsure of the specific location of the nearest school bus
stop. Regarding the community meetings held for this project, Moulton admitted that
the meeting minutes had not been posted to the website, but committed to making them
available.
Planner Hornbeck clarified that there are 80 parking spaces in the lot. These include 16
garage spaces and 14 spaces in front of them, with the remainder designated as
common parking for the office and event facility. The 97-person occupancy limit for
the Sky View event center was derived from a study that assumed a 3-person-per-
vehicle ratio. Accounting for residential and daycare parking needs, approximately 22
spaces are available during the day, and there is sufficient capacity to support the event
outside office hours.
Planning Commission – May 19, 2026 – Page 3
It was confirmed that this is a major PUD application rather than a minor one, and it was
acknowledged that the proposal is subject to standard development requirements,
which were followed. Potential questions about ordinance 11-25 should be deferred to
the Town Board.
Moulton answered questions raised by Commissioner Mulhern. He confirmed plans to
install seasonally removable speed control devices (rubberized bumps) on the property
to improve safety, as permanent structures are not feasible due to winter snow removal.
He reiterated that the business plan—which involves selling 14 townhomes to pay down
debt—has been consistently communicated to the Town Board. He emphasized
that dedicated funding sources (voter-approved initiatives and regulatory linkage fees)
and a $2.5 million debt service reserve serve as backstops to mitigate the risk of
financial default or loss of affordability covenants. Discussion turned to the building code
requirements for the units, specifically the need for attic fire separation and fire
sprinklers in certain lots. The Housing Authority explained that they have a 180-day
window to complete this work and are actively working with contractors to execute the
retrofits as quickly as possible to meet safety standards prior to the final subdivision
recording.
It was moved and seconded (Cooper/Mulhern) to forward a recommendation of
approval for the combined Preliminary/Final Planned Unit Development Plan
according to the findings and conditions recommended by Staff to the Town
Board of Trustees. The motion passed 3-0
2. Fall River Village Amended Plat
Planner Hornbeck reviewed the staff report. The 24 existing units and event facility are
located on a single 3.8-acre lot that is proposed to be subdivided into 14 townhome lots,
one 8-plex lot, one duplex lot, and one lot for the event facility/office. A concurrent PUD
amendment is necessary to address nonconforming situations resulting from the
subdivision and to make minor changes to allowed uses.
Per Review Procedures and Standards of the Code, "Subdivisions are approved in two
stages: first, a preliminary subdivision plat is approved, and second, a final subdivision
plat is approved and recorded." Section 3.2 of the Code requires the Planning
Commission to review the preliminary plat and make a recommendation to the Town
Board, which is the final decision-making body. The final plat is reviewed by the Town
Board only. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward to the Town
Board a recommendation to approve the preliminary plat, subject to the following
findings and conditions of approval:
Findings:
1. Adequate public/private facilities are currently available or will be made available
by the applicant to serve the subject property.
2. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for
consideration and comment, with no objections received.
3. The preliminary plat application complies with applicable standards set forth in
the Estes Park Development Code, subject to approval of the corresponding
application to amend the PUD.
Conditions:
1. All recommendations identified in the building code analysis shall be completed,
inspected, and accepted by the Town prior to recording of the final subdivision
plat.
Planning Commission – May 19, 2026 – Page 4
DISCUSSION:
Planner Hornbeck confirmed that while some lots were granted a zero-foot setback for
internal property boundaries as part of the townhome development plan, the specific no-
build area discussed is a distinct requirement to maintain safety and access around
existing site amenities, such as the spa or hot tub. In response to Commissioner
Mulhern's question about the water meters on lots 13 and 14, the HOA will be
responsible for managing the water bill and using submeter data to bill individual lot
owners for their actual consumption accurately.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Kristine Poppitz, a county resident, questioned why the previous recommendation did
not include a condition regarding the potential application of Ordinance 11-25, Town
Board involvement. She also commented about the applicant's request for a sidewalk
waiver, citing past public discussions regarding Peak View apartments. The commenter
argued that the town code regarding sidewalks and trails should be strictly followed to
ensure connectivity for residents and visitors, urging the commission not to set a
precedent by granting special exceptions.
Planner Hornbeck clarified that the Public Works department had reviewed the
application and determined that new sidewalk construction was not necessary. The
decision was based on the fact that the property is an existing development that already
incorporates a sidewalk, which effectively provides the required pedestrian
connection through the facility.
It was moved and seconded (Cooper/Mulhern) to forward to the Town Board a
recommendation of approval of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat according to
findings and conditions recommended by Staff. The motion passed 3-0.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Director Careccia provided an update on the Development Code revision process,
noting we are currently reviewing early drafts and providing feedback to the consultant.
The goal is to have a document ready for public review by July, with potential study
sessions scheduled before both the Planning Commission and the Town Board in late
July.
He also reminded the Commissioners to notify the Planning Division regarding any
potential absences for upcoming summer meetings to ensure proper planning.
With no further business, Chair Arterburn adjourned the meeting at 2:45 pm.
_________________________________
Dave Arterburn, Chair
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Utilities Director Bergsten
Department: Utilities Department, Trailblazer Broadband Division
Date: July 14, 2026
Subject: Resolution 83-26 Declining the Broadband Equity, Access, and
Deployment (BEAD) Grant Award
Type: Resolution
Objective:
To provide the Town Board with a resolution affirming the decision to pursue the staff
recommended plan to continue Trailblazer Broadband's buildout using previously
earmarked local match funds and decline the Broadband Equity, Access, and
Deployment (BEAD) grant award.
Present Situation:
Trailblazer Broadband began construction in 2019 to bring locally owned fiber internet to
all Power & Communications customers. Construction was paused in 2023 due to a lack
of available funding with approximately 18% of the buildout and 10 % of the customers
remaining. These remaining locations are in the lowest-density and highest-cost areas.
Staff Outside and special council White reviewed the final draft agreement released in
April 2026 and found that the inclusion of Exhibit G and related federal requirements
included risks that materially changed staff's recommendation.
Staff reported their concerns at the June 23rd Town Board meeting.
Proposal:
Staff recommends declining the BEAD award and proceeding with a locally controlled
buildout plan. This plan will use the $1.917 million previously set aside for the BEAD
match to progress the build-out based on customer density and registered customer
interest. This approach allows the Town to maintain full local control over the project
scope, phasing, construction pace, cost management, and customer rollout.
Advantages:
Proceeding with the staff-recommended local plan would:
• Preserve local control over construction timing, project phasing, scope, and cost
management.
• Use funds already earmarked for the project without adding the delay of BEAD
reimbursement or clawback risks.
• Prioritize higher-density and higher-interest areas first, generating revenue
sooner to support continued buildout into harder-to-serve areas.
• Avoid BEAD's extensive long-tail federal reporting, documentation, audit, and
compliance obligations.
• Maintain flexibility to pursue future state, local, or federal funding opportunities
that may better align with municipal limitations.
Disadvantages:
• Declining BEAD funding means the Town will not access up to $5.74 million in
potential federal reimbursement; however, those funds represent grant imposed
costs and additional ineligible administrative costs.
• The staff-recommended local plan reaches fewer locations in the first portion of
Phase 4 than the BEAD plan; however, accumulation of net positive revenues
will fund construction in those highest cost/lowest revenue density locations.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the resolution formally declining the BEAD
award and direct staff to continue construction buildout using the earmarked Town
funding.
Finance/Resource Impact:
$1.917 million in previously earmarked local funds directly for locally controlled
construction. While this option does not provide external grant funding, it entirely avoids
BEAD reimbursement risks, federal compliance exposure, potential clawbacks, and
anticipated non-reimbursable grant administration costs.
Level of Public Interest:
Public interest remains high, particularly in unbuilt areas where residents and
businesses have requested service updates since the 2023 construction pause.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of Resolution 83-26.
Attachments:
1. Resolution 83-26
RESOLUTION 83-26
DECLINING THE BROADBAND EQUITY, ACCESS, AND DEPLOYMENT (BEAD)
GRANT AWARD
WHEREAS, Trailblazer Broadband began construction in 2019 to bring high-
quality, locally owned fiber internet service to all Power & Communications customers,
and paused construction in 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park initially pursued and was preliminarily
awarded federal grant funding through the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment
(BEAD) program; and
WHEREAS, the federal grant terms created risks greater than previous grant
agreements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
DATED this day of , 2026.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Attachment 1
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Trevor Wittwer, PE, Town Engineer
Department: Public Works Department
Date: July 14, 2026
Subject: Resolution 84-26 Change Order for the Visitor Center Parking Lot
Improvements Design with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., $46,508.50 -
Budgeted
Type: Resolution
Objective:
Public Works staff seek Town Board approval for a change order with Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn) for the design of the Visitor Center Parking Lot
Improvements. The proposed project is grant-funded and budgeted.
Present Situation:
The original intent of the project envisioned reconfiguring only the interior parking lot of
the Visitor Center, with little to no impacts to CDOT right-of-way along US 34. After the
public outreach phase of the project, a design concept was selected based on public
feedback from community surveys. The preferred design concept included a bus pullout
lane along US 34, with a smaller impact to the interior part of the site. Due to the
impacts to the state highway, the regulatory requirements are of a much larger scale
than originally scoped. The bulk of this additional scope of work includes environmental
research and clearance of the construction impacts to satisfy both state and federal
requirements. This scope was not included in Kimley-Horn’s original proposal.
Proposal:
Public Works staff propose approval of the contract change order with Kimley-Horn for
design of the Visitor Center Parking Lot Improvements in an amount of $46,508.50,
inclusive of labor and expenses.
Advantages:
• Allows Public Works staff to advertise the project for bid in 2026
• All improvements will also ensure full compliance with Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) standards to ensure access for users of all abilities.
Disadvantages:
• This project represents an investment of Town resources, both financial and staff
time; however, Town staff have robust experience managing this type of project,
and grant funding has been secured for the construction.
Action Recommended:
Public Works staff recommend approving the contract change order with Kimley-Horn in
the amount of $46,508.50. This would bring the total contract amount with Kimley-Horn
to $296,682.50.
Finance/Resource Impact:
Current Impact: The additional $45,508.50 will come from 26004037-535520 Capital-
Parking Lot (EPMOBH), $1,022,583 available budget as of June 23, 2026.
Level of Public Interest:
Public Works staff anticipate low interest in the final design of this project.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of Resolution 84-26
Attachments:
1. Resolution 84-26
2. Change Order with Kimley-Horn and Associates
3. Kimley-Horn and Associates Proposal
RESOLUTION 84-26
APPROVING A CHANGE ORDER WITH KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
FOR ENGINEERING AND DESIGN SERVICES
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to approve a change order for a professional
services contract referenced in the title of this resolution for design of the Visitor Center
Parking Lot with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
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 change order
referenced in the title of this resolution in substantially the form now before the Board in
the amount of $46,508.50 for this design project. This resolution supersedes the
maximum expenditure amount for this project set under Resolution 09-24. Town staff
may approve further change orders as may become necessary, within their delegated
authority under Town policies.
DATED this day of , 2026.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Attachment 1
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO.1
Date 6/23/2026 Consultant Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Submitted by Trevor Wittwer Address 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400
Project name Visitor Center Parking Lot Improvements City State Zip Denver, CO 80202
Project #
Instructions: Complete all sections with sufficient details. If not applicable insert "NA". Expand narrative space or attach additional pages as needed.
1 Reason for change (narrative)
2a Description of change (narrative)
2b NO.ITEM NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION
CURRENT
CONTRACT
QTY UNIT
UNIT
COST
CURRENT
ITEM COST
CHANGE
ORDER
QTY
CHANGE
ORDER AMT
ADJUSTED
ITEM COST
COSTS Original contract amount 250,174.00$
Change in contract costs previous change order/s #-$
Change in contract costs this change order 46,508.50$
Adjusted contract amount 296,682.50$
Percent change to contract costs (informational only)16%
TIME Original contract time
Change in contract time previous change order/s #days
Change in contract time this change order
Adjusted contract time
Original completion date date
Final completion date date
APPROVAL: This Change Order is accepted and the Contract is amended to conform thereto.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK CONTRACTOR
Approved by Project Manager Date Contractor signature Date
Approved by Engineering Manager Date Contractor title
Approved by Public Works Director Date TOWN SIGNATORY AUTHORITY THRESHOLDS
ENGINEERING MGR $30,000
DIRECTOR $50,000
Approved by Town Administrator Date TOWN ADMINISTRATOR $100,000
Copies to: project file, Finance Dept, Town Clerk
The original intent of the project envisioned reconfiguring only the interior parking lot of the Visitor Center, with little to no impacts to CDOT right-of-way along US 34. After
the public outreach phase of the project, a design concept was selected based on public feedback from community surveys. The preferred design concept included a bus pullout
lane along US 34, with a smaller impact to the interior part of the site. Due to the impacts to the state highway, the regulatory requirements are of a much larger scale than
originally scoped. The bulk of this additional scope of work includes environmental research and clearance of the construction impacts to satisfy both state and federal
requirements. This scope was not included in Kimley-Horn’s original proposal.
Additional cost and scope of work to perform environmental clearances to satisfy state and federal requirements.
Attachment 2
kimley-horn.com 3801 Automation Way, Suite 210, Fort Collins, CO 80525 303 228 2300
May 20, 2026
Mr. Trevor Wittwer, P.E.
Town of Estes Park Public Works Department
170 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Re: Letter Agreement for Professional Services for
Town Parking Lot Redesign – Change Order #1
Estes Park, Colorado
Dear Mr. Wittwer
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (the “Consultant” or “Kimley-Horn”) and The Town of Estes Park
(the “Client” or “Town”) entered in a Professional Services Agreement dated February 28, 2024 for the
Town Parking Lot Redesign at the Estes Park Visitor Center Project (the “Project”).
The parties now desire to amend the Agreement to include services to be performed by Consultant for
compensation as set forth below in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, which are incorporated
by reference.
Project Understanding
As a part of the initial project phase, Kimley-Horn completed Project Management, Community
Engagement, Data Collection, Alternatives Analysis, Conceptual Diagrams, and 60% Plans,
Specifications, and Estimates. Following the Alternatives Analysis phase of the project and coordination
with TAB, The Town determined in September 2024 that Alternative B – Reconfigured Parking Lot
consisting of a revised parking and circulation layout on the east side of the Visitor Center Parking Lot
was the preferred alternative. Kimley-Horn advanced the preliminary design, plans, specifications, and
cost estimates for the preferred alternative and advanced to a 60% design level.
In 2025 the Project went on hold due to IGA coordination with the Town and CDOT. Upon restarting
the Project in Fall 2025, the Town engaged the public for review of two (2) of the previously prepared
alternatives. Based on feedback from the public, it was determined Alternative A – Bus Pull Off
consisting of widening of Big Thompson Avenue to include a bus pull out area on the south side of the
street was the revised preferred alternative.
The purpose of this amendment is to account for the redesign of the project based on the change in
the preferred alternative and to include additional effort for the project based on the effort completed to
date (e.g. Project Management and Meetings). This amendment also accounts for the change in the
design and project process given that the original agreement expected CDOT oversight only and not
improvements within the CDOT ROW.
Based on scoping discussions with the Town and CDOT it is understood that the following will be
required:
Roadway Plan and Profile;
Roadway Drainage;
Traffic Control Plans;
Attachment 3
Page 2
kimley-horn.com 3801 Automation Way, Suite 210, Fort Collins, CO 80525 303 228 2300
Non-Structural Retaining Wall Design;
Environmental (See Revised Task 4.6); and
Special Use Permit Application.
It is not anticipated that structural retaining walls will be required. A geotechnical investigation and
structural wall design are not included in the scope but may be provided as an additional service.
The original Agreement included budget for a transit shelter. Kimley-Horn subconsultant, IronHorse,
was included in the team to provide these planning and design services. During the initial phase of the
project, the Town determined that this project element would not be moving forward. It is understood
that the remaining IronHorse budget, $30,725 can be reallocated to cover additional project fees at this
time.
This revised scope includes preparation of bid-ready construction documents for the bus pull off
alternative and related improvements as outlined in the following scope of services.
Scope of Services
Kimley-Horn will provide the services specifically set forth below.
REVISED TASK 1 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT/INTERNAL
COMMUNICATIONS
Based on the change in the project scope outlined in the Project Understanding the project schedule is
anticipated to extend for up to eight (8) months.
Revised Task 1.1 – Project Management Plan (PMP)
Project Management and Oversight Kimley-Horn and the Project Team will provide project
management and oversight for the project throughout the extended project schedule. This task is
intended to capture the effort for the project management and administration necessary for this project,
consisting of subconsultant management, invoicing, progress reports, schedule maintenance,
document of control, maintenance of the PMP, etc.
Task 1.4 – Project Manager Check-Ins
Kimley-Horn will prepare for, coordinate, and attend up to eight (8) additional virtual Town/Consultant
Project Manager Coordination Meetings based on the extended project schedule. The purpose of these
meetings will be to review project status and coordinate on action items.
Task 1.5 – CDOT Coordination
Kimley-Horn will continue to coordinate with CDOT regarding the preferred alternative. Kimley-Horn will
prepare for, coordinate, and attend up to three (3) one-hour meetings with CDOT discipline teams
including traffic and roadway design.
Page 3
kimley-horn.com 3801 Automation Way, Suite 210, Fort Collins, CO 80525 303 228 2300
REVISED TASK 4 – PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATES
(PS&E)
Revised Task 4.4 – Design Development (60% and 90% PS&E)
Kimley-Horn will advance the preferred alternative identified in the Project Understanding to 60% and
90% plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E). The submittals are anticipated to consist of
preliminary design and plan preparation for improvements within the Project Area. Improvements are
anticipated to consist of civil, roadway, drainage, landscaping, urban design, architectural, and
electrical improvements.
The 60% and 90% submittals are anticipated to consist of the following:
Title Sheet (up to one (1) sheet);
Standard Plans List (up to one (1) sheet);
General Notes (up to two (2) sheets);
Quantity Tabulations;
Survey Control (up to one (1) sheet);
Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) Plans;
Removal & Reset Plans (up to one (1) sheet);
Paving Plan and Details (up to four (4) sheets);
Grading Plan (up to one (2) sheets);
Drainage Plan, Map, and Details (up to five (5) sheets);
Landscape, Planting, and Irrigation Plans and Details (up to four (4) sheets);
Signing and Striping Plan (up to one (2) sheets);
Lighting and Electrical Plans (up to one (1) sheet);
Stormwater Management Plans (up to five (5) sheets);
Utility Plans and Matrix;
Drainage Report;
Cost Estimate; and
Specifications.
Design Review
Based on coordination with CDOT, the plans will be submitted to CDOT for approval under a Special
Use Permit. Prior to submitting for the permit, as part of Task 1.5 Kimley-Horn will coordinate and attend
up to three (3) meetings with the CDOT traffic and roadway teams, along with any other CDOT
disciplines that may want to attend these meetings. Once the 60% design direction has been cleared
with CDOT, Kimley-Horn will complete the 60% plans.
An electronic PDF of the 60% plans and 90% PS&E will be submitted to the Town for review. Once
comments have been received from the Town, Kimley-Horn will schedule and attend up to one (1)
virtual 60% meeting and one (1) virtual 90% meeting with the Town. Kimley-Horn will coordinate,
prepare for, attend, and provide minutes for the meeting. Kimley-Horn will document and summarize
comments, questions, concerns, and associated proposed solutions raised during the submittal review
Page 4
kimley-horn.com 3801 Automation Way, Suite 210, Fort Collins, CO 80525 303 228 2300
or meetings. Kimley-Horn will address reasonable consolidated Town comments on the 60% plans and
prepare 90% Final Design plans. Kimley-Horn will provide a formal comment response letter and/or
matrix for comments received for the 90% plans.
Kimley-Horn will submit the 90% plans to CDOT for approval of the Special Use Permit. Kimley-Horn
will address up to one (1) round of reasonable comments from CDOT on the permit application.
Task 4.5 – Final Design (100% PS&E)
Kimley-Horn will advance the previously described design elements and PS&E to a final design level.
Final design plans will be signed and sealed by a registered Professional Engineer in the State of
Colorado.
Permits and Clearances
Kimley-Horn will endeavor to obtain the necessary permits and clearances prior to construction. Kimley-
Horn will coordinate, prepare and submit applications, analyze and develop any necessary design
information for the appropriate agencies to obtain applicable permits and clearances. Such permits and
clearances are anticipated to include:
CDOT Special Use Permit Kimley-Horn will complete the Special Use Permit application
package to be submitted once the 90% plans have been approved by the Town. It is anticipated
that the Permit will be formally awarded once the bid package is awarded. It is assumed that
the Contractor will provide traffic control plans to complete the work within CDOT ROW.
Utility Clearance No private utility relocations are anticipated to be required for the project. If
necessary, utility relocation coordination may be provided as an additional service.
Right-of-Way (ROW) Clearance No ROW acquisitions or temporary construction easements
(TCEs) are anticipated to be required for the project. It is assumed that the Special Use Permit
will formalize allowance of the work being completed within the CDOT ROW. If a TCE is
deemed necessary, Boundary Verification, the Legal Description, and a TCE exhibit may be
provided as an additional service.
Environmental Clearances Information Summary Kimley-Horn, through use of a qualified
subconsultant, ERO Resources Corporation (ERO), will prepare a brief technical memorandum
summarizing the environmental resource analysis for each clearance on the CDOT Special
Use Permit and the May 8, 2026, CDOT Scoping and Clearance Letter for the Estes Park
Visitor Center Bus Lane and Parking Lot project, as well as any permitting or mitigation
requirements for inclusion in the engineering design plans.
Revised Task 4.6 – Environmental
Kimley-Horn, through use of a qualified subconsultant, ERO will provide environmental services
including research, fieldwork, and documentation to complete Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT) Categorical Exclusion (CatEx), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and Client environmental
requirements.
Table 1 below lists the resources and permitting requirements identified in the May 8, 2026, CDOT
Scoping and Clearance Letter for the Estes Park Visitor Center Bus Lane and Parking Lot project. ERO
Page 5
kimley-horn.com 3801 Automation Way, Suite 210, Fort Collins, CO 80525 303 228 2300
will address the clearances for hazardous materials, threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES)
species, cultural resources (archaeology and historic), and Section 6(f) resources, and understands
all other resources will not need to be analyzed in detail or that CDOT or the Client will provide
clearances, as noted. CDOT will perform the environmental clearance for paleontology. Kimley-Horn
will prepare the Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) and support the Town with the application
process for the Construction General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Permit, Dewatering/Discharge
Permit, and Floodplain Permit, as needed.
For deliverables as noted in the tasks below, ERO assumes up to one (1) combined review by the
Town, and CDOT. No additional reviews have been assumed. Additional reviews will be addressed
under a new scope of work and cost estimate.
Table 1. Resource Analysis and Permitting Requirements.
Resource or Permit Task Number
Project Management and Coordination Task 4.6.1
Clearances Required for NEPA Process
Biological Resources – TES Report and Wetland Delineation
(Survey)
Task 4.6.2
Hazardous Materials – Initial Site Assessment (ISA) Task 4.6.3
Cultural Resources (Archaeology and History) Task 4.6.4
LWCF Section 6(f) – Parks, Trails, and Recreational Resources Task 4.6.5
Environmental Clearances Information Summary (ECIS)
Technical Memorandum
Task 4.6.6
Task 4.6.1 – Project Management and Coordination
This task includes items associated with project coordination such as project start-up documentation,
health and safety plan compliance, monthly invoicing, communication through emails and phone calls,
and quality assurance. ERO will conduct project management activities and submit monthly invoices
and progress report documenting project activities for submittal with each invoice.
It is anticipated that up to five (5) virtual meetings will occur for this project. These are anticipated to
consist of a CDOT Region 4, CDOT Environmental Programs Branch (EPB), CDOT Department of
Transit and Rail (DTR) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Coordination Meeting and a CDOT
EPB Environmental Scoping Meeting.
For the Environmental Clearance Scoping Meeting, ERO will prepare an agenda for distribution prior
to the meeting and meeting minutes for distribution after the meeting.
Task 4.6.2 – Biological Resources
ERO will conduct a field review to assess the project area for biological resources, including general
wildlife, prairie dogs, federally listed threatened and endangered (T&E) species habitat, Colorado state-
listed species habitat, migratory birds, wetlands and waters of the U.S., and noxious weeds. As
determined by the CDOT Environmental Project Manager, ERO will prepare a biological resources
report (BRR) using the CDOT template summarizing the biological resources found and the regulatory
Page 6
kimley-horn.com 3801 Automation Way, Suite 210, Fort Collins, CO 80525 303 228 2300
requirements pertaining to these resources. The Draft BRR will be delivered to the Town for review and
is subject to revision prior to the Final BRR being submitted to CDOT.
Assumptions
The project area will be determined by the Town and CDOT prior to any field reviews.
Changes to the project area boundary after work on this contract has begun may require a
revised SOW.
Written permission to enter will not be required for Town or CDOT property.
CDOT will have provided guidance on what type of report is needed, and no substantive
changes will occur.
A noxious weed management plan will not be required.
Up to one (1) round of Town and CDOT review and revisions of the BRR are included in this
SOW. Additional revisions may require a revised SOW.
Deliverables
Draft BRR delivered to Town, and CDOT via email for review.
Final BRR submitted as a PDF document to the Town, and CDOT via email.
Task 4.6.2a. Federal- and State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species
Based on preliminary information of the project area, ERO assumes that habitat for federal- and state-
listed T&E species, and other protected species, such as prairie dogs, raptors, and migratory birds, is
absent. If no potential habitat is present in the project area, ERO will follow CDOT Statewide Impact
Finding Table (SWIFT) procedures to provide documentation that no habitat for T&E species or other
protected species occur in the project area.
Assumptions
No federal- or state-listed T&E species, or other protected species habitat, occur in the
project area.
This SOW includes up to one (1) round of review and revisions of the BRR by the Town.
Species presence/absence surveys for listed species will not be required by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. If a survey is required, ERO will provide a separate SOW and cost
estimate.
A summary of the habitat assessment will be included in the BRR.
Deliverables
Draft TES Report delivered with the BRR to the Town, and CDOT via email for review.
Final TES Report delivered with the BRR (PDF document) to the Town, and CDOT via email.
Notes on other regulated resources, if present, delivered to the Town via email.
Task 4.6.2b. Wetland Delineation (Survey)
ERO will delineate wetlands, open waters, and channels found in the project area. Wetlands will be
delineated following the methods for routine on-site wetland determinations in areas of less than 5
acres as described in the 1987 Corps of Engineers (Corps) Wetlands Delineation Manual and
Page 7
kimley-horn.com 3801 Automation Way, Suite 210, Fort Collins, CO 80525 303 228 2300
appropriate regional supplement. Open water and channels will be determined based on the presence
of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as defined in 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 328.
ERO will map the boundaries of wetlands, OHWM, open water, and channels to submeter accuracy
using a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit or, when appropriate, the boundaries will be mapped
onto an aerial photograph. ERO will provide the Client with a digital file containing the boundaries of
wetlands, OHWM, open water, and channels for incorporation into base mapping and copies of the
wetland determination forms.
Assumptions
ERO assumes that all wetlands, open water, and channels mapped in the project area will be
avoided and no Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permitting or CDOT Wetland Finding
Report will be required for the project.
Performing the delineation is weather dependent. The ground must be free of snow and, in
most instances, the soils must be unfrozen to collect the needed soil data.
A summary of the results of the wetland delineation will be included in the BRR.
This SOW does not include preparation of a wetland delineation report or a CWA Section 404
permit application for submittal to the Corps. If a wetland delineation report or Section 404
permit is required, ERO will provide a separate SOW and cost estimate.
This SOW does not include preparation of a CDOT Wetland Finding Report. If a CDOT
Wetland Finding Report is required, ERO will provide a separate SOW and cost estimate.
Deliverables
Electronic file with wetland boundaries (.shp file) and open water delivered to the Town via
email.
Wetland determination forms in PDF format delivered to the Town, and CDOT via email.
Task 4.6.3. Hazardous Materials —Initial Site Assessment (ISA)
ERO will conduct an ISA for hazardous materials for the project area. The assessment will generally
conform to CDOT ISA requirements detailed in CDOT’s Hazardous Material Guidance, dated June
2018. To complete this task, ERO will conduct a visual site inspection of the project area. The purpose
of the inspection is to document environmental concerns. ERO will document the general site setting,
such as current use(s) of the project area and adjoining properties, and general hydrogeologic and
topographic features. ERO will provide a general description of structures and other improvements and
identify the following site conditions, if they are observed during the site inspection:
The quantity, type, and storage system for hazardous substances and petroleum products in
connection with identified uses.
Tanks, containers, drums, barrels, and other systems used for storing hazardous substances
and petroleum products not connected to identified uses.
Aboveground and underground storage tanks.
Pits, ponds, lagoons, and other features potentially used for storage and/or disposal of
hazardous substances and petroleum products.
Odors, pools of liquids, stained soils and pavement, and stressed vegetation.
Page 8
kimley-horn.com 3801 Automation Way, Suite 210, Fort Collins, CO 80525 303 228 2300
Electrical equipment potentially containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
The following issues are specifically excluded from the ISA: radon and lead in drinking water.
ERO will also conduct a search of records and files from a variety of sources and compile information
pertaining to current and past environmental conditions. This search may include the following
information:
Topographic, land use, and environmental resource maps.
Aerial photographs.
County and city records.
State and federal databases.
Based on the information gathered during this record search and site inspection, ERO will compile the
information and findings into one (1) detailed written report that includes the site description, records
review, site reconnaissance, and conclusions. The ISA report will be delivered as a draft to the Client
for review and comment prior to being submitted to CDOT.
Deliverables
Draft ISA report delivered to Town, and CDOT via email for review.
Final ISA report submitted as a PDF document to the Town, and CDOT via email.
Task 4.6.4. Cultural Resources
Task 4.6.4a. Archaeology
Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) for archaeological
resources is required as part of the NEPA documentation and CatEx process. In coordination with
CDOT, ERO will conduct a file search and literature review of the project area to assist in determining
if the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Sources include historical aerial
photography, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles and highway maps, county assessor
records, and the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) Compass database.
Based on a preliminary review of historical records, no previously documented archaeological sites are
present and there is no potential for unknown archaeological sites in the area of potential effects (APE).
Because the project area is located entirely in disturbed areas, including the existing parking lot and
artificial landscaping, ERO will compile the file search and literature review results in a memorandum
to CDOT recommending “no historic properties affected” and no further work.
Assumptions
ERO cultural resources staff will consult directly with CDOT to define the APE.
ERO assumes the APE for this task is confined to areas of direct effect (i.e., the limits of
construction).
ERO will obtain OAHP data for archaeological resources under Task 4.6.3a.
This SOW includes up to one (1) round of edits on the draft technical memorandum if
requested by the CDOT reviewer.
Page 9
kimley-horn.com 3801 Automation Way, Suite 210, Fort Collins, CO 80525 303 228 2300
In the event CDOT determines fieldwork and reporting for consultation with the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) is necessary, ERO will conduct these tasks under a revised
SOW.
Deliverables
Draft technical memorandum recommending no further work delivered to Town, and CDOT
via email for review.
Final technical memorandum as a PDF document to the Town, and CDOT via email.
Task 4.6.4b. History
Compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and with the Colorado State Register Act (CRS 24-80.1 and
8 CCR 1504-5) is required as part of the NEPA documentation/CatEx process. ERO has completed a
preliminary file search and literature review of the project area to assist in determining if the project has
the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Based on the preliminary review, ERO has
determined that the project has the potential to cause effects on an undocumented segment of State
Highway 34 (5LR1331). Therefore, ERO has prepared the following tasks to identify and document
historical resources in the APE and to provide CDOT with an effects report.
Task 4.6.4b.1 File Search and Literature Review
ERO will perform a file search and literature review to identify potential historic properties in the project
area and surrounding region within a 0.25-mile buffer. For the record searches, ERO will conduct a
formal file search with OAHP and review other relevant records (such as the CDOT Historic Sites
Viewer, Historic Street Cars of Colorado, historical aerial photography, USGS quadrangles and
highway maps, and county assessor records) to identify previously evaluated and potential cultural
resources in the APE. The results of the formal records review will be provided to CDOT in email to
define the APE.
Assumptions
Based on current wait times, ERO assumes the OAHP will return file search results within 15
to 20 business days. A rush order may be requested for an additional $300 fee.
This SOW assumes no changes to the APE will occur after CDOT defines the APE.
Deliverables
Email to CDOT summarizing the result of the file search and requesting that an APE be
defined.
Task 4.6.4b.2 Cultural Resources Pedestrian Survey and Report
ERO will conduct a pedestrian survey to document cultural resources in the APE. All cultural resources
encountered will be documented on relevant OAHP site forms, mapped, photographed, and recorded
using a submeter GeoExplorer GPS unit. Previously recorded and newly identified cultural resources
will be assessed for their eligibility to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) per
36 CFR 60.4 of the NHPA, 1966, as amended.
Page 10
kimley-horn.com 3801 Automation Way, Suite 210, Fort Collins, CO 80525 303 228 2300
Following the cultural resource survey, ERO will prepare a summary of the eligibility of historical
resources in the APE and potential project effects on the resources. The history summary will be drafted
on CDOT letterhead and will provide information sufficient for CDOT to conduct an independent
evaluation of the survey and to conduct consultation with the SHPO regarding potential project effects
on historic properties.
Assumptions
Ground conditions must be 80 percent free of snow, and any pedestrian survey areas and
access roads must be dry to initiate the survey. These stipulations are required by the SHPO
and federal agencies.
ERO anticipates the project will require documentation and evaluation of one cultural
resource. Should the survey result in the identification of additional resources, ERO will
contact the Client immediately after the survey is completed to negotiate a new cost estimate.
If the project results in an adverse effect on cultural resources eligible for listing in the NRHP
and additional management or mitigation is required, ERO will provide these services under a
separate SOW.
This SOW includes one round of report edits.
Deliverables
Draft historical resources letter report and accompanying site forms delivered to Town, and
CDOT via email for review.
Final historical resources letter report and accompanying site forms as a PDF document to
the Town, and CDOT via email.
Task 4.6.5. Section 6(f) Resources
Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act applies to recreation properties
purchased or improved with LWCF grants. Section 6(f) of the LWCF prohibits the conversion of property
acquired or developed with these grants to a nonrecreational purpose without the approval of the
National Park Service (NPS). Potential impacts on a Section 6(f) property include the following:
Permanent easement or acquisition that converts land from public outdoor recreation use to
transportation use. Any conversion of these lands to uses other than outdoor recreation must
be approved by the NPS.
Temporary easements of less than six months, a temporary nonconforming use, are activities
other than outdoor recreation on a portion of a Section 6(f) property for less than six months
and may not trigger a conversion if Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) and the NPS
determine that required criteria are met.
If it is determined that the proposed action could potentially impact a Section 6(f) property and that
impact cannot be avoided, the OWJ of the Section 6(f) property and the CPW Section 6(f) State Liaison
Officer must be consulted.
ERO will assess the proposed project area for any properties that are purchased or improved with
LWCF grants.
Page 11
kimley-horn.com 3801 Automation Way, Suite 210, Fort Collins, CO 80525 303 228 2300
Assumptions
This SOW assumes Section 6(f) properties are present but will not be impacted by the
project. If Section 6(f) properties may be impacted by the project, ERO will conduct the
additional tasks under a revised SOW.
Deliverables
Draft Section 6(f) letter delivered to Town, and CDOT via email for review.
Final Section 6(f) letter and accompanying site forms as a PDF document to the Town, and
CDOT via email for submittal to Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW).
Task 4.6.6. Environmental Clearances Information Summary (ECIS) Technical
Memorandum
ERO will prepare a brief technical memorandum summarizing the environmental resource analysis for
each clearance on the CDOT Special Use Permit and the May 8, 2026, CDOT Scoping and Clearance
Letter for the Estes Park Visitor Center Bus Lane and Parking Lot project, as well as any permitting or
mitigation requirements for inclusion in the engineering design plans.
Deliverables
Draft ECIS technical memorandum delivered to Town, and CDOT via email for review.
Final ECIS technical memorandum as a PDF document to the Town, and CDOT via email.
Scope of Work Assumptions
Changes to the project area boundary after environmental tasks have begun will require
additional effort and ERO will coordinate with the Town to determine if changes in the scope
or budget are necessary.
A detailed noxious weed management plan is not required.
No habitat for T&E species is present in the project area.
Presence/absence surveys for T&E species are not included.
Performing the wetland delineation is weather dependent. The ground must be free of snow
and, in most instances, the soils must be unfrozen to collect the needed soil data.
A wetland delineation report, Section 404 wetland permit, and a CDOT Wetland Finding
Report will not be required for the project.
Paleontological resources, air quality, noise, farmland protection, and SB40 clearances will
not be needed.
No on-site or in-person meetings are included in this SOW. All project communication will
take place through virtual meetings, emails, and phone calls.
ERO will attend up to three (3) virtual meetings described under Task 4.6. No additional
meetings with the Client or City will be required to complete the environmental studies
discussed in this SOW.
This SOW does not include additional work required in the event any currently unknown
significant resource is located in the project area.
Up to one (1) round of revisions for all reports based on CDOT comments is included in this
SOW and no other revisions will be needed.
Page 12
kimley-horn.com 3801 Automation Way, Suite 210, Fort Collins, CO 80525 303 228 2300
Additional Services
Any services not specifically provided for in the above scope will be billed as additional services and
performed at our then current hourly rates including but not limited to the following:
SUE QL-A
Utility Coordination
Utility, ROW, or Environmental Clearances
Geotechnical Investigation
Structural Retaining Wall Design
Information Provided By Client
We shall be entitled to rely on the completeness and accuracy of all information provided by the Client
or the Client’s consultants or representatives. The Client shall provide all information requested by
Kimley-Horn during the project.
Schedule
We will provide our services as expeditiously as practicable based on a mutually agreed upon schedule
to be determined upon notice to proceed.
Fee and Expenses
Kimley-Horn will perform the services in Revised Tasks 1 and 4 on a labor fee plus expense basis with
the maximum labor fee shown below in Table 2. It is understood that the remaining budget from the
original project including the remaining IronHorse budget, $30,725 can be reallocated to cover
additional project fees at this time.
(The remainder of this page intentionally left blank)
Page 13
kimley-horn.com 3801 Automation Way, Suite 210, Fort Collins, CO 80525 303 228 2300
Table 2 Updated Fee Schedule
Ta
s
k
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l
Ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
Bu
d
g
e
t
Re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
Bu
d
g
e
t
C
O
#
1
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
Fe
e
s
to
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
C
O
#
1
Ne
t
F
e
e
s
No
t
e
s
Ki
m
l
e
y
-
H
o
r
n
1
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
/
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
2
2
,
6
7
5
.
0
0
$
(
6
,
6
7
5
.
0
0
)
$
1
5
,
2
6
5
.
0
0
$
2
1
,
9
4
0
.
0
0
$
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
2
-
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
F
u
t
u
r
e
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
5
,
1
6
0
.
0
0
$
4
0
.
0
0
$
-
$
(
4
0
.
0
0
)
$
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
.
3
-
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
6
,
1
7
5
.
0
0
$
1
,
5
4
2
.
5
0
$
-
$
(
1
,
5
4
2
.
5
0
)
$
N
o
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
.
4
-
P
l
a
n
s
,
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
n
d
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
1
1
5
,
9
2
0
.
0
0
$
4
8
,
1
5
5
.
0
0
$
9
6
,
6
0
5
.
0
0
$
4
8
,
4
5
0
.
0
0
$
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
f
e
e
s
t
o
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
r
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
.
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
(
E
R
O
)
3
3
,
0
1
4
.
0
0
$
3
2
,
2
7
1
.
0
0
$
4
0
,
6
9
7
.
0
0
$
8
,
4
2
6
.
0
0
$
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
f
e
e
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
c
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
s
c
o
p
e
.
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
(
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
)
3
5
,
9
7
5
.
0
0
$
3
0
,
7
2
5
.
0
0
$
-
$
(
3
0
,
7
2
5
.
0
0
)
$
N
o
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
w
o
r
k
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
.
S
u
b
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
b
u
d
g
e
t
t
o
b
e
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
r
e
d
to
o
f
f
s
e
t
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
T
a
s
k
4
f
e
e
s
.
To
t
a
l
C
h
a
n
g
e
O
r
d
e
r
#
1
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
A
m
o
u
n
t
46
,
5
0
8
.
5
0
$
Page 14
kimley-horn.com 3801 Automation Way, Suite 210, Fort Collins, CO 80525 303 228 2300
Kimley-Horn will not exceed the total maximum labor fee shown without authorization from the Client.
Individual task amounts are provided for budgeting purposes only. Kimley-Horn reserves the right to
reallocate amounts among tasks as necessary.
Closure
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
By: Matt Ciarkowski, PE By: Anthony Pratt, PLA, ENV SP.
Project Manager Associate
Total Expense Fee
Rate 275.00$ 255.00$ 240.00$ 210.00$ 185.00$ 165.00$ 130.00$ 202.00$ 137.00$ 171.00$ 121.00$ 204.00$ 140.00$ 117.00$ 123.00$ 121.00$
Hours 9.0 60.0 114.0 96.0 187.0 60.0 16.0 90.0 3.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 32.0 24.0 16.0 20.0
Estimated Total 2,475.00$ 15,300.00$ 27,360.00$ 20,160.00$ 34,595.00$ 9,900.00$ 2,080.00$ 18,180.00$ 411.00$ 2,736.00$ 2,420.00$ 4,896.00$ 4,480.00$ 2,808.00$ 1,968.00$ 2,420.00$
Estimated Total by Firm
Revised Task 1 Project Management/Internal Communications
Project Management - - - - 44.0 44.00
1.1 Project Management Plan - - - - -
Project Management and Oversight - 16.0 2.0 - 8.0 26.00
1.4 Project Management Check-Ins - 8.0 8.0 - 8.0 24.00
Review Meetings 4.0 6.0
CDOT Coordination Meetings (3) - 3.0 6.0 9.00
- - - - -
- 31.0 22.0 - - - 16.0 44.0 - - - - - - - - 103.00
-$ 7,905.00$ 5,280.00$ -$ -$ -$ 2,080.00$ 8,888.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 24,153.00$
Revised Task 4 Plans, Specifications, and Estimates
4.4 Design Development (60% and 90% PS&E) - - - - -
30% Design Vetting - - 16.0 - 10.0
Grading design - - 8.0 30.0 20.0
Drainage design/Memo/SWMP - 6.0 4.0 25.0 50.0
Retaining Wall 1.0 6.0 - 15.0 15.0
60% and 90% Plan Production - - 4.0 4.0 30.0 40.0
Comment Response 10.0 15.0
QA/QC 4.0 4.0 8.0 2.0
OPC 1.0 1.0 10.0 12.0
4.5 Final Design (100% PS&E) - - - - -
Address 90% Comments - 2.0 8.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Specs - 2.0 6.0 6.0 10.0
QA/QC 2.0 6.0 4.0 -
4.6 CDOT Special Use Permit Plans & Submittal 1.0 1.0 10.0 -
Address Comments - 1.0 4.0 4.0 10.0
4.6 Environmental - - - - -
Biological Resources - - - - 2.0 16.0 20.0 4.0 4.0 46.00
Hazardous Materials - - - - 2.0 24.0 4.0 2.0 32.00
Cultural Resources - - - - 2.0 32.0 24.0 4.0 8.0 70.00
Section 6(f) Resources - - - - 20.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 29.00
ECIS Tech Memo - - - - 20.0 2.0 2.0 24.00
- - - - -
9 29 92.0 96 187 60 0 46 3 16 20 24 32 24 16 20 201.00
2,475.00$ 7,395.00$ 22,080.00$ 20,160.00$ 34,595.00$ 9,900.00$ -$ 9,292.00$ 411.00$ 2,736.00$ 2,420.00$ 4,896.00$ 4,480.00$ 2,808.00$ 1,968.00$ 2,420.00$ 128,036.00$
EXP Reimbursable Expenses
Reimbursable Expenses 378.00$
152,189.00$
378.00$
Total Contract Amount (Not to Exceed) 152,567.00$
Technical
Editor GIS Specialist II
Staff Environmental
Planner II Biologist I
Project Cultural Resource
Specialist II
Senior
Geoscientist
Architectural
Historian I
40,319.00$
378.00$
40,319.00$
378.00$
Clerical/
Administrative
Totals
Analyst III Analyst II
ERO
Senior Environmental
Planner Staff Biologist
Kimley-Horn
Sr. Engineer III/
Sr. Professional III
Town of Estes Park - Town Parking Lot Redesign
Fee Estimate
Wednesday, May 20, 2026
TaskItem
Engineer/
Professional
Sr. Engineer I/
Sr. Professional I
Sr. Engineer II/
Sr. Professional II
111,870.00$
Total Expense Fee
Total Labor Fee 111,870.00$
-$
Page 1 of 1
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Printed: 5/20/2026
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Report
To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Suzanna Simpson, Management Analyst
Department: Town Administrator’s Office
Date: July 14, 2026
Subject: Via Mobility Services Base Funding Report
Objective:
Via Mobility Services received $37,000 in Base Funding for the 2025 funding year. Per
Policy 671, the organization is required to present to the Town Board on how they used
Town funds to benefit the community and/or advance the Town’s Strategic Plan for the
funding year.
^SSS-S:.
^^-3SB.S?^.^^Srsl^c-^,;
Via Mobility Services - Colorado Transit Provider: Empowering Independence with
Accessible Transportation Since 1979
Since 1979, Via has been a trusted nonprofit providing accessible transportation for individuals with limited
mobility. Our mission is to help our neighbors live more independently by offering safe, reliable transportation.
SERVING EIGHT FRONT RANGE COUNTIES:
• Adams • Boulder • Denver
• Arapahoe • Broomfield • Jefferson
Larimer
Weld County
We offer services such as Via Paratransit and
the Mobility Options Program. With the support
of dedicated drivers and strong community
partnerships, we empower individuals to move with
confidence and independence.
IN 2024, WE PROVIDED NEARLY 700,000 RIDES
FOR THE COMMUNITY, INCLUDING ALMOST
80,000 PARATRANSIT RIDES.
WHO WE SERVE
Via Paratransit Services in 2023
91°/(r0 Older Adults
f0 Adults with Disabilities
Including people tc'npo'(;nh/ di;.,ihlccl,
such -is nosl-;~,Utgc:iy '
24%Individuals with low incomes
Learn more about Via! Scan the QR
code to explore our services.
Via is not just a transportation organization.
We're a lifeline.
We provide mobility management services like
education, referrals, and travel planning to enhance
accessibility and informed travel choices.
Transportation Solutions for Government,
Business, and Community Partners
Via has been a trusted partner for specialty contract
services, offering reliable transportation and
micro transportation solutions for local and state
governments, businesses, and other organizations.
OUR SERVICES INCLUDE
Adams County A-Lift
Carbon Valley
City of Boulder's HOP
Bus Service
CU Buff Ride
Dacono
Eldo Shuttle to Eldorado
Canyon State Park
Erie Bee
Firestone, Frederick
Hop2Chautauqua
Littleton Omnibus
Lyons Flyer
Park-to-Park for Chautauqua
Ride Free Lafayette
RTD's FlexRide
The Climb
Westminster
Via provides the right-sized service to meet the unique
needs of our partners and the communities we serve.
Via Mobility Services is a private 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
Community Benefits
When local government contracts with Via for shuttles or other
public transit, there are several unique benefits that we provide
at no additional cost. These include:
Learn More
faoB^ Reinvestment
in Community Paratransit
Via directs the earned income from our contracts
into affordable, accessible transportation in
Colorado communities. This revenue, combined with
other funding, is used to leverage additional federal
and state grants, vastly increasing the services
provided to our communities. This is unique to
Via, as no other service provider reinvests its
earned income to increase and expand necessary
mobility services to our most vulnerable community
members.
Public Dollars Remain
in the Community
As a community-based nonprofit organization,
Via works hard to be an efficient and cost-effective
operation. We invest over 85 percent of our
resources on direct program support; our revenues
are reinvested in our communities, our employees,
our facilities, and our sustainability programs and
are not diverted to remote shareholders.
Crisis Response &
Community Safety
When local government contracts with Via we offer
our First and Second Crisis Response services.
Via provided emergency response evacuations
to residents during the 2013 floods and multiple
wildfire events over the years, including the Marshall
Fire in 2022. Via has been recognized by the
Boulder County Sheriffs Office as a heroic and vital
component of the Office of Disaster Management.
Via is not paid for these services, but we underwrite
the costs as a community reinvestment.
Public Access
SS^? Partnerships
A further community benefit of working with Via
includes access to our facilities: our12-acre east
Boulder campus is available to be used as a crisis
center and public meeting space. In the aftermath
of the horrific King Soopers killings, Via quickly
organized our facility into a crisis response
center where families could meet privately with
law enforcement, counselling, and other critical
resources—Via is there for the community.
Environmental
Sustainability Leadership
Via has been a leader in and is committed to
Environmental Sustainability and will be fully
converting our fleet to zero emission vehicles.
We are also partnering with the City of Boulder and
Boulder County to continue to build out our on-site
solar microgrid. We coordinate closely with our local
government partners to ensure that we represent
their policies and priorities in the services we offer
and the way we conduct our business.
Workforce Training
& Development
Via recently launched a relationship with CareerWise
Colorado to begin our first auto mechanic
apprenticeship program in 2024 with student
employees. It is our goal to mentor and train young
people in the newest emerging battery electric
and hydrogen technologies, and then be able to
offer a full-time, market-based position following
graduation.
Via Mobility Ser/iccs | 2855 6Jrd St., Boulder, CO 80301 I info,n:IViaColoiado.nr<,
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director
Department: Community Development
Date: July 14, 2026
Subject: Consideration of Policy 404 Public Art Policy and Policy 405 Civic and
Public Service Recognition
Type: Policy
Objective:
The objective is two-fold:
1.Town Board consider adoption of Community Development Policy 404 – Public
Art Policy (converting Public Works Policy 880 to Community Development); and
2.Consider adoption of Community Development Policy 405 – Civic and Public
Service Recognition.
Present Situation:
The Art in Public Places (AIPP) program was created by the Parks Advisory Board and
Public Works staff in 2015. It is currently formalized within Public Works Policy 880
(Public Art Policy). The Policy addresses the selection, acquisition, installation, and
maintenance of art proposed to be located on Town-owned property or facilities or on
private property if public funds are used. Pursuant to the Policy, all works of art intended
for public display require Town Board review and decision.
At a study session held on March 10, 2026, the Town Board considered revisions to the
Public Art Policy to address plaques honoring civic service, among other changes, and
directed staff to proceed with the revisions, including creation of a formal program to
recognize individuals with significant civic and public service contributions to the
community (Attachment 2).
Proposal:
In evaluating the Public Art Policy, staff is proposing several modifications, as outlined
below:
1.Administration of the Policy is currently the responsibility of the Public Works
Department, with the Parks Division having a significant role. Given the
significant responsibilities of this department and division, it was determined that
the more administrative functions of the Policy could be addressed by the
Community Development Department. As such, the formal policy has been
moved to Community Development (Policy 404) and where applicable within the
Policy, references to Public Works have been replaced with Community
Development. However, it should be noted that other Town departments (Public
Works especially) will still have a significant role in the administration of the
Policy and that the department holding ownership of a work of art retains
responsibility for such arts regular maintenance (i.e. Public Works will continue to
maintain works of art within Town parks).
2.Civic and public service plaques (and similar displays) are proposed to be
exempted from the definition of Work of Art, along with typical landscape,
hardscape, and similar improvements not tied to an integrated artistic design. In
addition to this change, staff was directed to create a formal program to honor
individuals that have made significant civic and public service contributions to the
community. As such, draft criteria are presented in the attached Policy 405, Civic
and Public Service Recognition, for Town Board consideration.
3.When construction, remodeling, painting, or repair work is planned for Town-
owned facilities that could affect a work of art, the Internal Services Department
has been added as a specific department tasked with evaluating and approving
the plan to protect and preserve such art. Another proposed modification clarifies
that the temporary removal of art for maintenance-related purposes is not
considered deaccessioning subject to Town Board review and decision.
Advantages:
•A formal program will recognize and honor individuals who have made significant
civic and public service contributions to the Town.
•Modifications to the Public Art Policy are proposed to reflect Community
Development assistance in the administration of the Policy, along with several
other clarifications.
Disadvantages:
•No disadvantages have been identified.
Action Recommended:
Town Board approve Policy 404 Public Art Policy and Policy 405 Civic and Public
Service Recognition.
Finance/Resource Impact:
There are no financial or resource impacts identified at this time.
Level of Public Interest:
To date, the level of public interest has been low.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of Policy 404 Public Art Policy and Policy 405 Civic and
Public Service Recognition.
Attachments:
1.Community Development Policy 404 Art in Public Places
2.Link to Town Board Study Session Minutes dated March 10, 2026
3.Community Development Policy 405 Civic and Public Service Recognition
Public Art Policy
Revisions: 0 7/14/26
Page 1 of 13 Town of Estes Park
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: Annually
Effective Date: July 14, 2026
References: n/a
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
404
Public Art Policy
1.PURPOSE
The Art in Public Places (AIPP) program enriches our community through public exposure
to the arts. The program is achieved through a collaboration of Estes Park residents,
businesses, organizations, art community, and Estes Park K-12 school programs to
develop a diverse art collection that creates a sense of place, provides a unique town
identity, offers educational opportunities, and serves as an economic driver.
The AIPP program weaves public art into the everyday experience of our community and
creates lasting impressions on those who experience it. It enhances our public spaces,
compliments our award winning seasonal floral displays, and makes Estes Park a visitor
destination for both its natural beauty and vibrant arts scene. The AIPP broadly defines
public art as any creation of visual art that is acquired with public monies, or acquired with
a combination of public/private funding; acquired by donation or loan to the Town’s AIPP
program; or privately sponsored artwork located on publicly owned land, easements, or
publicly owned equipment.
The Town Board recognizes that works of art often significantly alter public places,
becoming a new, major presence in the environment. In recent decades, visual art has
rapidly evolved and diversified, creating at times a gap between visual art and its
appreciation by the general public. The AIPP program shall endeavor to bridge this gap
by broadening community awareness of the issues involved in visual art and its historical
context, and encouraging informed discussion among all segments of the community.
2.POLICY
The AIPP program is administered by the Community Development Department
(Department) of the Town of Estes Park.
a.Program Definitions
i.Art in Public Places: Any visual work of art displayed for two weeks or more in
an open Town-owned area; on the exterior of any Town-owned facility; inside any
Town-owned facility in areas designated as public areas; or on non-Town property
if the work of art is installed or financed, either wholly or in part, with Town funds
or grants procured by the Town.
ii.Curatorial Support Services Provider: The individual, entity or organization that
Attachment 1
Public Art Policy
Revisions: 0 7/14/26
Page 2 of 13 Town of Estes Park
may be optionally selected by staff to provide recommendations for installation
and maintenance of the various types of art in the collection.
iii. Documentation: Includes, but is not limited to, periodic condition reports; records
of actual maintenance performed and an assessment of those efforts;
photographs; artist’s maintenance recommendations, information, methods, and
materials; potential problems with the work of art; finishes information (e.g.,
painter’s name, or when, where, what, and how the piece was finished); quality of
materials used; installation information; warranties; and professional and other
knowledgeable opinions regarding preservation and maintenance. May also
include the artist’s resume, artwork history, where the work has been exhibited,
and a personal interview with the artist.
iv. Maintenance: Performed according to a scheduled, piece-specific plan to clean,
repair, and preserve each work of art in the Town’s public collection. A
maintenance plan for outdoor works of art placed in landscaped settings may
include regular tree/shrub pruning or, when necessary, replanting to maintain
desired sight lines for viewing the work of art. Plans will include a means to assess
the ongoing effectiveness of preservation.
v. Mass-Produced: A work of art reproduced for mass distribution.
vi. Mural: Any work of visual art painted or applied directly on a wall, ceiling, or other
large permanent surface. Murals do not include pictures, symbols, or devices of
any kind that relate to a commercial business, product or service.
vii. Patron: A person who gives financial or other support to an organization, cause,
or activity.
viii. Preservation: Includes placement; installation; security; regularly scheduled
maintenance; and emergency repairs (with consideration to the natural process of
aging.
ix. Project: An existing plan or proposal where installation of a work of art may be
under consideration.
x. Reserve Account: Account established for AIPP program expenses. Shall not be
used for acquiring or funding of architectural rehabilitation or historical preservation
projects or other works deemed, by staff, to be inappropriate for the Town’s
collection.
xi. Site: Specific location being considered for or currently displaying a work of art.
xii. Work of Art: All forms of visual art, including but not limited to:
(1) Paintings of all media, including both portable and permanently affixed works such as frescoes and murals;
(2) Sculptures of any form and in any material or combination of materials. This
includes statues, monuments, fountains, arches, or other structures
intended for ornamentation or commemoration; (3) Crafts and folk-art works in clay, fiber, textiles, glass, wood, metal, mosaics, plastics, and other materials;
(4) Kinetic and/or interactive sculptures;
(5) Site-integrated artwork created by landscape designers and artists to
include landscapes and earth-works, integration of natural and human
made materials, and other functional art pieces. Site-integrated works may include building features; gates, street furniture; paving materials; and painted or wrapped utility equipment boxes (e.g., transformers, switches);
(6) Work of art would not include plaques, medallions, panels, or other
Public Art Policy
Revisions: 0 7/14/26
Page 3 of 13 Town of Estes Park
displays honoring civic or public service or for memorial, commemorative,
historical, or tribute purposes. Work of art would also not include typical
landscaping, hardscaping, paving, or signage not part of a site-integrated
artwork.
b. Administration and Curatorial Support
i.Community Development Department
The AIPP program will be administered by the Department, with significant support
from other Town departments and personnel. Staff shall establish and amend, with
Town Board approval, the criteria and guidelines governing the selection,
acquisition, purchase, commissioning, placement, installation, and maintenance of
public works of art. Selection and placement of works of art shall be in conjunction
with representatives of the Town Board and the Town department responsible for
maintaining the work of art.
Following placement or installation, maintenance and repair of works of art shall
be the responsibility of the Town department that possesses the work(s). Any
proposed works of art requiring extraordinary operation or maintenance expenses
shall require prior approval of the Department Director responsible for such
operation or maintenance.
All forms, agreements, and contracts needed to administer the program shall be in
a form and manner determined by the Department, and approved to form by the
Town Attorney.
ii.Curatorial Support Services Provider
The role of the optional curatorial support services provider shall be to perform
such duties as requested by staff as they pertain to the AIPP program. The
curatorial support services provider may be reimbursed for actual expenses
incurred for curatorial support. The Town and curatorial support services provider
shall enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to define and establish
the role and responsibilities of the provider.
Department staff shall maintain a detailed record of all art in public places,
including but not limited to accession numbers, site drawings, photographs,
designs, names of artists, and names of architects whenever feasible.
iii.Funds for Works of Art
A reserve account for the AIPP may be established. Funds deposited in the reserve
account may only be expended for the acquisition, installation, maintenance and
repair of works of art; costs associated with deaccessioning works of art; and AIPP
program administration expenses. Funds in the AIPP reserve account may come
from the Town’s annual General Fund Budget, grants, and donations. All funds set
aside or donated for works of art shall be paid into the reserve account. Any excess
or unexpended funds in the AIPP reserve account shall carry forward in this
account at the end of each fiscal year.
Public Art Policy
Revisions: 0 7/14/26
Page 4 of 13 Town of Estes Park
Funds in the AIPP reserve account shall not be used for purchasing architectural
rehabilitation or historical preservation projects or other works of art deemed
inappropriate for the collection.
3. PROCEDURE
a. Selection and Acquisition
Public art for the AIPP program may be acquired by the Town through commission
for a site-specific work, or the direct purchase or donation of an existing work of
permanent or temporary art.
A commissioned work of public art typically involves selecting an established artist to
develop a piece of artwork for an identified location or use. The Contract for
Commission of Artwork is submitted. If site specific, the artwork must conform to the
AIPP program regarding the site’s functional context, architecture, location,
relationship to the adjacent terrain, and social context. If a work of art is commissioned
for a specific use, it must meet the requirements set forth by the AIPP program.
The Town may be offered donations of works of art. For permanent donations, the
Artwork Donation Form is submitted. For temporary (loaned) donations, the Artwork
Loan Agreement is submitted. Donations are subject to the same policies and criteria
of the AIPP program as any other work of art being considered by the Town.
Department staff have the discretion, subject to AIPP program policies, to recommend
that the Town Board accept or reject any work of art offered to the Town for public art
purposes.
i. Artist Selection
When evaluating the possibility of working with a particular artist, Department staff
generally considers the artist’s presentation; the ability of the artist to work
cooperatively and effectively with stakeholders; the technical feasibility of a
proposed project and the artist’s technical ability; and other factors deemed by the
staff to be important.
ii. Works of Art Selection
In performing its duties with respect to AIPP program, Department staff will strive to
integrate the creative work of artists into public projects to thereby increase our
residents’ and visitors’ experience and improve the economic vitality of the Town
through the enhancement of public spaces in general and the pedestrian
landscape in particular. In doing so, special attention shall be given to the following:
(1) Conceptual compatibility of the design with the immediate environment of
the site;
(2) Appropriateness of the design to the function of the site;
(3) Compatibility of the design and location with a unified design character or
historical character of the site;
Public Art Policy
Revisions: 0 7/14/26
Page 5 of 13 Town of Estes Park
(4) Creation of an internal sense of order and desirable environment for the
general community by the design and location of the work of art;
(5) Preservation and integration of natural features of the site;
(6) Appropriateness of the materials, textures, colors, and design to the
expression of the design concept;
(7) Representation of the Town’s broad variety of tastes and the provision of a
balanced inventory of art in public places to ensure a variety of styles, design,
and media throughout the community.
Consideration for the purchase of a work of art may be initiated by staff or others.
Existing artwork may be directly purchased by the Town from an artist/owner in
unique circumstances (e.g., when the price presents an economic advantage) or
to meet one of the AIPP program goals. Staff may approach an artist, or an artist
may approach the Town. Artists who wish to have a finished work of art considered
for purchase by the Town Board should submit the following to staff:
(1) A proposal sheet with the artist’s name; title of the artwork; dimensions and
medium; date produced; price; location; number of reproductions and
restrictions on reproduction; other information the artist deems pertinent; and a
resume and references;
(2) A maquette and/or images or the actual work for review (to be provided
electronically or by hard copy, showing all sides and the proper scale of the
work);
(3) A cover letter explaining why the work should be added to the Town’s public
art collection;
(4) A conservation assessment describing the artwork’s condition, along with a
maintenance plan. The plan should be authored by a qualified conservator or
the artist; include an explanation of the expected lifespan of the work while
placed in a public environment, specifying the type of environment in which the
artwork may be placed; and address whether the artwork may be prone to
vandalism, and how vandalism effects may be mitigated. Staff may request
additional information.
Competitions may open to artists within the geographic limits and other
specifications set by staff (specifications vary from competition to competition).
Staff will strive to maintain balance between competitions involving local artists
only and artists from a larger area. The typical process for open competitions is as
follows:
(1) Staff issues an AIPP Request for Proposals of the project description,
budget, time schedule, and summary of duties and obligations.
(2) The artist shall provide a maquette and site drawing (if appropriate), design,
concept statement, recommended installation and maintenance requirements,
budget, photographs, resume and references.
(3) Proposals shall be considered by staff for recommendation to the Town
Board.
Public Art Policy
Revisions: 0 7/14/26
Page 6 of 13 Town of Estes Park
(4) Entry materials will be returned to the artist only if requested and if the
artist’s entry package provides appropriate packaging, postage, and insurance
for such returns. The names of selected artists may be obtained from staff.
Temporary works of art enrich the community; provide exposure to artists working
in a variety of media; and allow for the exhibition of a wide variety of works of art
that may supplement and enhance the permanent Town art collection. Selected
temporary artwork must exemplify commitment to quality and innovation. A
temporary art exhibit may be held with the intention of creating a mutually beneficial
partnership between the Town of Estes Park and artists working both within and
outside of the community. Selected artists will enter into a standard lease
agreement with the Town of Estes Park for each work of temporary art proposed
for exhibition. The length of the lease may be for up to one year. A ten percent
(10%) sales commission may be collected by the Town for any temporary work of
art that is sold during the exhibition and the funds deposited into an AIPP reserve
account.
Donations from arts organizations and private parties represent a large and
valuable portion of the Town’s collection of public art. The AIPP program has
limited funds for administration, preservation, and maintenance of works of art.
Likewise, there are a limited number of suitable municipal sites appropriate for the
installation of works of art. To ensure the quality of the collection, staff uses this
policy to decide whether a proposed donation is appropriate for addition to the
Town’s collection. The Town Board accepts only those works that will, in its
discretion, further the overall goals of the AIPP program.
Department staff request that individuals or entities interested in donating a work of
art follow these steps:
(1) Complete and submit the Artwork Donation Form.
(2) Provide a maquette and/or images or the actual work for review. Images
may be provided electronically or by hard copy, showing all sides and the
proper scale of the work.
(3) Include a cover letter explaining that the work of art is being offered to the
Town as a gift, and why it should be added to the Town’s public art collection.
(4) Provide a copy of the artist’s resume or biography; information about the
artist’s significance; and digital images showing a sampling of the artist’s work.
(5) Provide information about the artwork’s provenance, exhibition history, and
a current estimate of value. Include a letter of authenticity from the artist, if
possible.
(6) A conservation assessment describing the artwork’s condition, along with a
maintenance plan. The plan should be authored by a qualified conservator or
the artist; include an explanation of the expected lifespan of the work while
Public Art Policy
Revisions: 0 7/14/26
Page 7 of 13 Town of Estes Park
placed in a public environment, specifying the type of environment in which the
artwork may be placed; and address whether the artwork may be prone to
vandalism, and how vandalism effects may be mitigated. Department staff may
request additional information.
Department staff may request additional information for the donation.
Consideration factors include the artwork’s aesthetic quality (including
craftsmanship), compatibility with the Town’s existing public art collection, and
budget (i.e., maintenance requirements and installation costs). All works of art will
be taken to the Town Board at a regularly scheduled meeting to be voted on by
the full board. Larger acquisitions may be taken to the Town Board at a study
session for detailed discussion prior to a voting action by the Town Board.
iii.Ownership of Works of Art
All permanent works of art acquired pursuant to this policy shall be acquired in the
name of, and title shall be held by, the Town of Estes Park.
Exempt from this ownership provision are all works of art in the collections of, and
having been purchased or acquired as a donation by, the Estes Valley Public
Library and The Estes Park Museum; and all works of art that are the private,
personal property of any Town employee and that are displayed in Town offices or
other areas of Town-owned facilities that are not generally frequented by the public.
The Town Board recognizes the fact that exempted organizations acquire artwork
donated by patrons or purchased and donated by their supporting/friend
organizations. In acquiring new artworks for their collections, we respectfully
request the governing boards and staff of the exempted organizations be cognizant
of and embrace the spirit of the AIPP Guidelines as they continue adding to their
art collections.
b.Display of Art in Public Places
Department staff is charged with recommending sites for purchased or donated artwork.
Works of art selected and implemented pursuant to the provisions of this policy may
be placed in, on, or about any public place; or by agreement with the owner thereof,
placed on any private property with substantial public exposure in and around the
town.
Works of art owned by the Town may be loaned for exhibition elsewhere, upon
approval by the Town Board, and such terms and conditions as deemed necessary
by the Board.
All art in public places shall receive the prior review and approval of the Town Board.
None shall be permanently removed, altered, or changed without the prior review and
approval of the Town Board. No work of art financed either wholly or in part with Town
funds or with grants procured by the Town shall be installed on privately owned property
unless a written agreement is prepared and signed by the Mayor, acting on behalf
of the Town, and the owner of the property specifying the proprietary interests in the
Public Art Policy
Revisions: 0 7/14/26
Page 8 of 13 Town of Estes Park
work of art and specifying other provisions deemed necessary or desirable by the
Town attorney. In addition, such written agreement shall specify that the private
property owner assures that the installation of the work of art will be done in a manner
that will protect the work of art and that takes into consideration public safety; that the
work of art will be maintained in good condition; and that insurance and indemnification
of the Town will be provided as is appropriate.
Installation, maintenance, alteration, refinishing, and moving of art in public places
shall be done in consultation with the artist whenever feasible. Department staff shall
maintain a detailed record of all art in public places, including accession numbers; site
drawings; photographs; designs, names of artists; names of architects; and
correspondence among all parties involved in the creation, acquisition, placement,
and display of artwork whenever feasible.
i.Site Selection and Display Standards
Staff generally considers the following criteria in matching an artwork with a display
site:
(1)Conceptual compatibility of the design with the immediate site environment;
(2)Appropriateness of the design to the function of the site;
(3)Compatibility of the design and location with a unified design character or
historical character of the site;
(4)Creation of a desirable environment for the general community by the design
and location of the work or art;
(5)Preservation and integration of natural features of the site;
(6)Appropriateness of the materials and design to the expression of the artist’s
concept;
(7)Representation of a broad variety of tastes within the community and the
provisions of a balanced inventory of art in public places to ensure a variety of
styles, design, and media throughout the community;
(8)Visibility and accessibility;
(9)Public safety;
(10) Car and pedestrian traffic patterns, and other Right of Way considerations;
(11) Site conditions/constraints: existing landscaping, site furnishings, water for
irrigation, drainage, grading, electrical source for lighting, and other utility
considerations such as depth of existing utilities, access to natural gas hook
up, etc.;
(12) Environmental impacts such as noise, sound, light and odors;
(13) Impact on operational functions of the Town such as snow removal, mowing
operations, etc.;
(14) Compatibility with the site function;
(15) Susceptibility to vandalism;
(16) Costs of site preparation;
(17) Existing works of art in/near the site area;
(18) Impact on adjacent property owners;
(19) Any other criteria deemed by the staff to be important.
Public Art Policy
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park 7/14/26
Page 9 of 13
ii. Town Department Input
Whether working to select artwork for a designated site or selecting a site for an
already acquired artwork, it is important to get input from relevant Town
departments. Relevant departments will typically be either a department receiving
artwork in/on its building/grounds, or a department whose general responsibilities
will be materially impacted by the placement of a work of art at a particular site
(visual sightline obstruction, mowing or snow removal operations, etc.).
Designated Department staff will contact the Director of the relevant department(s)
to discuss potential sites and invite the Director to serve on any formal selection
committee. Selection processes which are determined by designated staff may
vary by project. Designated staff will ask the Director of the relevant department to
provide any concerns regarding the sites and/or their impact on department
operations before a selection process is finalized.
iii. Placement of Works of Art in the Public Right of Way (ROW)
All projects and installations proposed in the public right of way (ROW) will require
evaluation by Public Works staff. Administrative support is provided through the
department’s Engineering Division. In cases that impact the ROW, Public Works
will guide the process of securing collaborative support from other Town
departments as well as from other governmental agencies (i.e., CDOT, Town of
Estes Power & Communications, etc.).
Public Works staff can and will provide support, professional expertise, and
advisement as needed for installations selected by the Town Board. Primary
contact will be through the Public Works Director and any staff member who will
be supporting the project(s). In installations that involve CDOT ROW, Public Works
will develop a plan to address the separate contracts, review, and inspection
requirements necessary with these projects; this may include cost considerations
for project management if the size of the installation is large.
The Town of Estes Park utilizes the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) when determining uses, signage, visual sightline requirements, and
other issues that impact the ROW. The MUTCD is nationally accepted as the
primary standard for these requirements.
(1) Installations Adjoining the ROW
When considering installations along the ROW, Public Works staff shall
consider whether the particular installation impacts the egress of people with
disabilities; causes undue interruptions to the flow of pedestrians, bicycles, or
traffic, such as on a sidewalk or crosswalk; and the safety of maintenance
requirements/modifications that may be created by the installation.
(i) Installations Within the ROW
When considering installations in the ROW, the following factors must be
considered and resolved collaboratively with all stakeholders, with Public
Works making a final determination about a particular installation: ADA
Public Art Policy
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park 7/14/26
Page 10 of 13
requirements; impact on flow of pedestrians, bicycles, or traffic;
maintenance requirements that may be created by the installation; and
safety impacts.
Questions influencing the final determination include whether the
installation would cause undue distraction for drivers, so that vehicles are
more likely to cause accidents from slowing or disorientation; and whether
the installation causes a blockage of sightlines such that safety for drivers,
pedestrians, or cyclists is compromised. Since these sightlines will be
different in each installation, size may be a factor at certain locations. For
example, drivers’ blind spots can result from installations at a traditional
intersection location close to the sightlines at the corners, or within a
roundabout.
Height of installations is not generally an issue except when a foundation
structure is required that may limit visibility for pedestrians in wheelchairs or
may cause drivers to “rubber neck” for better viewing.
When installations are within the ROW, project planners must be sensitive
to works of art that may draw pedestrians into the traffic flow for viewing.
This is a critical factor in roundabouts, where traffic devices do not have
designated locations for drivers to stop and roundabout islands are not
intended to accommodate pedestrian traffic. A work of art designed for a
roundabout must be designed to be viewed from a distance. It is also
recommended that recognition for works of art (artist signatures, plaques
describing the work of art, etc.) be placed outside the roundabout’s flow of
traffic versus on the island itself.
When installations are proposed within the ROW, project planners should
check to ensure that the art would not interfere with future road expansions
or sidewalk/multiuse path installations.
iv.Post-Selection Process
Once a site has been selected, an installation plan will be developed by the
Department and other relevant staff with input from the artist, donor, and contractor
when appropriate. Following installation, the designated representative(s) of the
relevant department will meet to inspect the site and sign off on the finalized
project.
At the time of an acquisition, by donation or purchase, the proposed budget for a
work of art should include all costs of installation, which may include plinths or
other display components; site development, including landscaping and irrigation
system installation or modification; and an identification plaque.
(1)Contracts. Following final selection of a work of art or artist, a Contract for
Commission of Artwork shall be prepared by the Town Attorney. Executed
contracts shall be filed with the Town Clerk and a copy placed in the artwork
Public Art Policy
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park 7/14/26
Page 11 of 13
accession file managed by the staff.
(2) Public Disclosure. All works of art will be taken to the Town Board at a
regularly scheduled meeting to be voted on by the full board. Larger
acquisitions may be taken to a Town Board Study Session for detailed
discussion prior to a voting action by the Town Board.
c. Maintenance of Art in Public Places
i. Maintenance Process
(1) Initial Documentation. A standardized form is completed and submitted by
the artist/donor prior to a piece being accepted into the Town collection.
Department staff, appropriate Town department(s), outside contractors, service
people and experts may be asked to review this documentation.
Documentation will reside in the records of Department staff, who will be
responsible for creating, keeping, and periodically updating the documentation.
Staff will use the projected cost of maintenance as one consideration in its final
determination of acceptance and placement. Although documentation and
maintenance recommendations alone will not be used to specifically exclude
artwork from the Town collection, the recommendation may play a role in that
final determination. The AIPP reserve fund may be used to pay for acquiring
critical, missing documentation not obtained at the time of acquisition of a work
of art.
(2) Maintenance Documentation. When a work of art is accepted into the Town
collection, a maintenance schedule of benchmark tasks will be established.
Maintenance documentation, which may be reviewed and revised as needed,
will include a standard for regular maintenance (e.g., timing, type of
maintenance) and identify any maintenance issues that may require special
attention. Each artistic medium will require knowledgeable people to develop
maintenance criteria. In addition, the maintenance criteria may include future
historic and aesthetic considerations for each piece.
(3) Inspection and Condition Report. As determined by Department staff, a
curatorial support services provider may be retained to initiate and produce an
inspection and condition report. Paid professional condition
appraisers/conservators and/or knowledgeable volunteers, craftspeople or
industry experts may perform the inspection for each piece. The inspection and
condition report will become part of the permanent documentation for the
specific work of art and will reside with the curatorial support services provider.
(4) Regular Maintenance. Town staff from the department in possession of
work(s) (i.e., Facilities & Parks Division, Power and Communications, etc.),
paid professionals and/or trained and supervised volunteers will perform
regular maintenance of works of art based upon the maintenance schedule and
condition report for each specific work of art. Maintenance will be performed
upon a recommended schedule developed by the relevant department and
representative of the curatorial support services provider (if available) on a
schedule determined by the department charged with maintenance of the piece
of art.
(5) Special Maintenance. As needed, paid professionals or knowledgeable
Public Art Policy
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park 7/14/26
Page 12 of 13
volunteers will perform maintenance that requires specialized tools, equipment,
or knowledge. The representative of the curatorial support services provider will
use the condition report and/or site visits to determine need.
(6) Emergency Maintenance or Repair. As needed, paid professionals or
knowledgeable volunteers may be retained by staff to perform emergency
maintenance/repair.
(7) Construction, Remodeling, Painting & Repair. Whenever construction,
remodeling, painting or other maintenance projects undertaken by the Town
adversely impact any work of art in the Town collection, the relevant department
staff should be notified. A plan to protect and preserve the works of art likely to
be impacted is to be developed, in conjunction with the representative of the
curatorial support services provider (if applicable), and approved by the Internal
Services Department (for work involving Town-owned facilities) and other
relevant department staff prior to work commencing.
ii. Maintenance Implementation
(1) Maintenance Plan Implementation. Department staff may retain a curatorial
support services provider to assist in monitoring the AIPP maintenance plan
and periodic reporting to the Town Board on the status of art work maintenance
as determined by the staff.
(2) Funding. Funding for maintenance will be established through a budget
developed annually by the relevant department. Funds for maintenance may
come from the AIPP reserve account or be a line item in the appropriate Town
department’s annual operating budget. Maintenance funding of works of art in
the permanent Town collection will take precedent over new art purchases.
(3) Contract Services. Contracts with paid professionals/craftspeople will follow
established Town guidelines and will be handled through the appropriate Town
department.
(4) Quality Control. The Town believes in regulating the quality of maintenance
to an established standard. Therefore, Staff and responsible departments will
collect and assimilate maintenance data pertinent to the various types of works
of art in the Town’s collection (e.g., lacquer vs. waxing, annual vs. biannual
maintenance, professional vs. trained volunteer, etc.)
(5) Maintenance Policy Review. As needed, relevant department staff will
recommend changes to maintenance policies.
d. Deaccessioning Works of Art
De-accessioning is a procedure for permanently withdrawing a work of art from the
Town of Estes Park’s public collection. Department staff is responsible for
recommending to the Town Board whether any piece(s) should be deaccessioned.
Deaccessioning may be considered for the reasons outlined herein. Deaccessioning
does not include the temporary removal of art for maintenance, repair or other
construction-related purposes whether to the art itself or area in which the art is
located.
i. Considerations for Deaccessioning
(1) The work of art endangers public safety.
Public Art Policy
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park 7/14/26
Page 13 of 13
(2)The work of art has been determined to be in unsatisfactory condition.
(3)The work of art lacks a suitable display site.
(4)The condition or security of the work of art cannot be reasonably guaranteed
where located.
(5)The work of art is attached to a structure slated for destruction, remodeling or
repair (so that it is not practical to keep it).
(6)The work of art is or has become incompatible with the rest of the collection.
(7)The Town wishes to replace the work of art with a piece of more significance
by the same artist.
(8)The work of art requires excessive maintenance or it has faults of design or
workmanship.
(9)The work of art is found to be fraudulent or not authentic.
(10) The Town cannot properly care for or store the work of art.
(11) For any other reason as determined by staff.
ii.Process/Disposition
Staff should review the works of art in the Town’s collection, which they have
responsibility, at least once every five years to recommend whether any piece(s)
should be deaccessioned. In addition, the Town reserves the right to deaccession
a work of art at any time deemed appropriate by the Town Board. Deaccessioning
may only be considered during a regular or a special meeting of the Town Board.
A majority of Town Board members in a quorum must approve deaccessioning.
Staff may consider the following options, subject to Town Board approval, for
disposition of a deaccessioned artwork: return to the artist; sale or trade;
destruction (which shall be reserved for works deteriorated or damaged beyond
reasonably priced repair); donation; or any option deemed appropriate by staff.
Approved:
_______________________________
Gary Hall, Mayor
Date
Civic & Public Service Recognition 7/14/26
Revisions: 0 Page 1 of 2
Town of Estes Park, Community Development
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: Annually
Effective Date: July 14, 2026
References: n/a
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
405
Civic and Public Service Recognition
1.PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to establish a formal program for the recognition of individuals
whose exemplary civic or public service has provided a meaningful and lasting benefit to
the Town of Estes Park.
2. POLICY
The Town Board finds that extraordinary civic and public service strengthens the
community and advances the public interest. At their discretion, the Town Board shall
recognize individuals whose service, leadership, advocacy, volunteerism, or acts of
courage have made a significant and positive contribution to the community.
3.PROCEDURE
a.The Town Board may recognize up to two individuals in any calendar year for
exemplary civic or public service that has produced a substantial benefit to the
community.
b.Nominations shall be made by members of the Town Board for consideration at a
regular meeting of the Board.
c.Nominated individuals must be residents of the Town of Estes Park. Residents of the
wider Estes Valley may be considered at the discretion of the Town Board.
d.In evaluating nominations, the Town Board shall place primary emphasis on the
significance of the nominee’s achievement, impact, and benefit to the community,
rather than solely on length of service. Relevant considerations may include, but are
not limited to, the following:
i.service on a public board, committee, or commission;
ii.volunteerism benefiting vulnerable or at-risk populations;
iii.acts of bravery, courage, or self-sacrifice;
iv.community leadership that fostered improvements in quality of life or the natural
environment; and
v.efforts that advanced community inclusivity and equity.
Attachment 3
Civic & Public Service Recognition 7/14/26
Revisions: 0 Page 2 of 2
Town of Estes Park, Community Development
e.Formal recognition of a nominee shall require the approval of a majority of the Town
Board.
f.Upon approval, the Town shall recognize the individual through a plaque or similar
display approved by the Town Board. Such recognition shall not be considered
public art subject to the Town’s Art in Public Places program (Community
Development Policy 404).
g.The manner, form, and size of the plaque or display shall be at the discretion of the
Town Board. Town staff will provide recommendations for such plaque or display for
Board consideration at the regular meeting to consider nominations.
h.Presentation of the recognition shall ordinarily be made by the Mayor at a regular
meeting of the Town Board.
i.Any commemorative plaque or display authorized under this policy shall be placed in
Town Hall or another Town or public facility approved by the Town Board.
j.Town staff shall be responsible for the installation and routine maintenance of any
plaque or display authorized under this policy.
k.The permanent removal of any plaque or display authorized under this policy shall
require approval of the Town Board.
l.The relocation or temporary removal (i.e. for maintenance or construction purposes)
of any plaque or display authorized under this policy shall not require prior Town
Board approval.
Approved:
_____________________________
Gary Hall, Mayor
_____________
Date
7/15/2026
1
Public Art &
Civic/Public Service Recognition
Policies
July 14, 2026
Objective
•Consider adopting Policy 404 Public Art Policy
•Consider adopting Policy 405 Civic and Public Service
Recognition
2
1
2
7/15/2026
2
Present Situation
•Public Art Policy created in 2015
•Parks Advisory Board and Public Works Dept
•Selection, acquisition, installation, & maintenance of public art
•Town Board ultimate decision maker
•No formal program to recognize individuals who have made significant civic and
public service contributions to Town
•March 10 study session –proceed with changes & create program
3
Proposal – Public Art Policy
•Community Development – primary administrative function
•Other departments still involved in evaluation
•Responsible department still maintains their art
•Civic service plaques, typical landscape & hardscape – not public art
•Internal Services – partner to protect art during maintenance
•Temporary removal of art does not require Town Board approval
4
3
4
7/15/2026
3
Proposal – Honoring Civic/Public Service
•Create program to recognize significant civic & public service
•Establish nomination process & criteria
•Two per year
•Board nomination, majority approval
•Significance of nominee’s achievements, impact & benefit to community
•Plaques within Town Hall or other town facilities
5
Advantages & Disadvantages
Advantages:
•Public Art Policy reflects updated administration & other changes
•Creation of formal program to honor civic & public service
Disadvantages:
•None
6
5
6
7/15/2026
4
Action Recommended
7
•Town Board approve Policy 404 Public Art Policy and Policy 405 Civic
and Public Service Recognition
•I move for the approval/denial of Policy 404 Public Art Policy and Policy
405 Civic and Public Service Recognition
7
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Suzanna Simpson, Management Analyst
Department: Town Administrator’s Office
Date: July 14, 2026
Subject: Policy 671 – Town Funding of Outside Entities
Type: Action
Objective:
Revise Policy 671 – Town Funding of Outside Entities to update the list of entities
eligible to apply for Base Funding.
Present Situation:
The Estes Nonprofit Network will be ceasing operations at the end of 2026. As such,
they will need to be removed from the list of entities eligible to apply for Base Funding.
Additional edits to the policy were made to broaden the language from “Town
Administrator’s Office” to “the Town” in reference to deliverables. An additional
clarification was made to the reporting requirements for Community Initiative Funding.
Proposal:
Staff proposes removing the Estes Nonprofit Network from the list of entities eligible to
apply for Base Funding.
Advantages:
If Policy 671 is revised as proposed, the policy will reflect an accurate list of operational
entities who are eligible to apply for Base Funding, broader language regarding
deliverables in the event that the process is not managed by the Town Administrator’s
Office in the future, and will clarify the reporting requirements for Community Initiative
Funding recipients.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
Approve revisions to Policy 671 – Town Funding of Outside Entities.
Finance/Resource Impact:
None.
Level of Public Interest:
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of the proposed revisions to Policy 671 – Town Funding
of Outside Entities.
Attachments:
1.Revised Policy 671 – Town Funding of Outside Entities
Policy 671 – Town Funding of Outside Entities 06-10-2025
Revisions: 78 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 1 of 5
Effective Period: Until superseded
Review Schedule: Triennially
Effective Date: 06-10-2025
References: Governing Policies Manual 3.12
FINANCE
671
Town Funding of Outside Entities
1. PURPOSE
To provide a process by which the Town of Estes Park allocates and distributes funding
to outside entities.
2. POLICY
The Town of Estes Park recognizes the important role those outside entities play in
meeting the needs of the residents of the Estes Valley. Accordingly, when adequate funds
are available, the Town may make financial contributions to these entities in accordance
with the procedure below.
3.PROCEDURE
a. Base Funding
i. Purpose
Base funding from the Town is intended to support the general operations and
overhead of nonprofit entities that play a critical role in supporting the Town’s
Strategic Plan.
ii. Eligibility
The following entities are eligible to apply for Base Funding from the Town of Estes
Park:
1)Crossroads Ministry of Estes Park
2)Estes Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Department
Estes Nonprofit Network
3)Estes Park Senior Citizens Center, Inc.
4) Estes Valley Crisis Advocates
5) Estes Valley Investment in Childhood Success
6) Salud Family Health Centers (Estes Park)
Attachment 1
Policy 671 – Town Funding of Outside Entities 06-10-2025
Revisions: 78 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 2 of 5
7)Via Mobility Services
8) Estes Valley Watershed Coalition
9) Estes Arts District
iii. Review of Eligible Entities
The Town Board will review the list of entities eligible to apply for Base Funding at
each scheduled review of this policy or at the request of the Town Board. This
review will also include opportunity for public comment.
iv. Application
Eligible entities seeking Base Funding from the Town shall submit a completed
“Base Funding Application” (Exhibit A) to the Town Administrator’s Office by July
1st of each calendar year for the next year’s budget (i.e. by July 1, 2021 for the
2022 budget year).
v. Process
Applications for Base Funding will be processed as a departmental budget request
by Town staff and presented to the Town Board as such. The following information
will be presented by staff to the Town Board during the public budget hearings:
1) The Base funding request from each entity; and
2) The Base funding support recommended by the Town Administrator.
vi. Annual Reporting
1) Written Report: Any entity receiving Base Funding must submit an annual
report to the Town Administrator’s Office by May 30th of the year following
the year in which funding was received (i.e. May 30th, 2022 2027 for funding
received for the 2021 2026 calendar year). This report must be no more
than 350 words and should be structured as a press release on what
programs and services the entity used the Town funding to support. The
report should specify how the organization used Town funds to benefit the
community and/or advance the Town’s Strategic Plan for the funding year.
2) Town Board Presentation: Any entity receiving Base Funding is expected
to present to the Town Board once per year. Similar to the written report,
the presentation should be succinct and specify how the organization used
Town funds to benefit the community and/or advance the Town’s Strategic
Plan for the funding year. The report shall not contain historical context of
the organization or programs executed outside of the Town’s Base Funding.
In addition to providing information about community benefits in a public
setting, another reason for requiring a presentation is to provide the Town
Board with an opportunity to directly engage with representatives of Base
Funding entities.
Policy 671 – Town Funding of Outside Entities 06-10-2025
Revisions: 78 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 3 of 5
b.Community Initiative Funding
i. Purpose
Community Initiative funding is intended to support specific projects and programs
that advance one or more Outcome Areas in the Town’s Strategic Plan.
ii. Eligibility
Any entity or group serving the Estes Valley is eligible to apply for Community
Initiative funding, except those groups receiving Base funding under Section 3.a
of this policy, other taxing districts, and organizations that exist for the purpose of
providing financial support and/or fundraising for the Town or other taxing districts.
Applications that do not meet this criteria will not be submitted to the Town Board
for approval. Base Funding recipients must ask for all desired funds through the
Base Funding process.
iii. Application
Eligible entities seeking Community Initiative funding shall submit a completed
“Community Initiative Funding Application” (Exhibit B) to the Town Administrator’s
Office on or before August 31st of every year.
iv. Process
Applications for Community Initiative funding will be reviewed and ranked by each
Board member individually in advance of the annual public budget hearings.
Funding decisions will be made by the Board as a whole and will be adopted along
with the budget.
v. Criteria
The following criteria will be used in the evaluation of Community Initiative funding
applications:
1) Application Quality – is the application complete and does it adequately
describe the proposed project or program?
2) Strategic Plan Advancement – how well, or to what degree, does the
proposed project/program advance the Town’s Strategic Plan?
3) Initiative Reach – how many residents of the Estes Valley will benefit from
the proposed project or program?
vi. Project Report
Any recipient of Community Initiative funding must submit a project/program report
to the Town Administrator’s Office by May 30th of the year following the year in
which funding was received (i.e. May 30th, 2027 for funding received for the 2026
calendar year. upon completion of the project/program that received funding from
the Community Initiative funding process. The report must be no more than 350
words and should be structured as a press release that the Town may use to tell
the story of the project..
Policy 671 – Town Funding of Outside Entities 06-10-2025
Revisions: 78 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 4 of 5
c. Event Sponsorship Funding
i. Purpose
Event Sponsorship funding is intended to demonstrate the Town’s support for
community events.
ii. Eligibility
Any nonprofit organization that is organizing a local event (serving the Estes
Valley) that is open to the public may request Event Sponsorship funding from the
Town.
iii. Application
Eligible entities seeking event sponsorship funding shall submit a completed
“Event Sponsorship Funding Application” (Exhibit C) to the Town Administrator’s
Office.
iv. Process
All Event Sponsorship funding applications will be reviewed and awarded by the
Town Administrator or designee. No sponsorship shall exceed $1,000 and an
organization may only receive one (1) sponsorship per calendar year (no in-kind
funding requests will be considered). A budget for event sponsorships will be
adopted annually and will be distributed on a first-come, first-served basis.
v. Criteria
The Town Administrator or designee will evaluate Event Sponsorship funding
applications using the following criteria:
1) Vision Alignment – does the event align with the Town’s Vision?
2) Cost of Event Attendance – is the event free or affordable for the general
public?
3) Reach of Event – how many people does the event expect to attract?
4) Other Funding – have the organizers of the event received any other
funding?
vi. Exclusions
Promotional sponsorships funded by Trailblazer Broadband are excluded from
subsection (c), including the Event Sponsorship Funding criteria and processes.
d. Limitations on Off-Cycle Funding Requests
i. Definitions
For the purposes of this policy, an “Off-Cycle Funding Request” is any request for
financial support from an eligible outside entity that occurs outside of the
procedures established in Sections 3.a, 3.b, and 3.c of this policy.
Policy 671 – Town Funding of Outside Entities 06-10-2025
Revisions: 78 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 5 of 5
ii. Purpose
The Town of Estes Park strives to consider all funding requests from eligible
outside agencies in a holistic manner in order to best prioritize these requests. To
this end, the Town does not accept or grant off-cycle funding requests with the
exception of those described in Section 3.d.iii.
iii. Exceptions
The Town will only consider off-cycle funding requests from entities that are eligible
for Community Initiative funding, and only in the following circumstances:
1) The Town is being asked to fund the final gap of a fundraising effort for a
time-sensitive project or program, and the Town’s contribution represents
twenty-five percent (25%) or less of the total amount fundraised; or
2) There is a time-limited opportunity to leverage a significant amount of
outside funding (at least a 1:1 match of the funding requested from the
Town).
iv. Application
Eligible entities seeking off-cycle funding must submit the following to the Town
Administrator:
1) A completed “Community Initiative Funding Application” (Exhibit B); and
2) A letter (no more than 500 words) explaining why the request qualifies under
one of the exceptions listed in Section 3.d.iii of this policy.
v. Process
If the off-cycle funding request application falls under one of the two exceptions
listed in Section 3.d.iii of this policy, the Town Administrator will schedule the
consideration of said request as an action item for a Town Board meeting.
Approved:
_____________________________
Gary Hall, Mayor
March 26, 2024
Date
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Report
To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Carlie Speedlin, Housing and Childcare Manager
Department: Administration
Date: July 14, 2026
Subject: Estes Valley Childcare Facility Master Plan
Objective:
Presentation of the Estes Valley Childcare Facility Master Plan presented by EPIC.
Present Situation:
Executives Partnering to Invest in Children (EPIC) was selected through a competitive
process in 2025 to conduct a Childcare Facility Master Plan following the Town's receipt
of grant funding from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA). The objectives
of the Childcare Facility Master Plan project include:
•Summary of Existing Conditions and Needs
•Stakeholder Engagement Summary
•Facilities and Land Use Analysis
•Policy, Funding, and Management Strategy
•Management and Operation Plan for Town-owned Facilities
In addition to the objectives outlined above, the funding requirements from DOLA
include adopting at least one Best Practice in order to reduce barriers to the
development of childcare facilities. DOLA Best Practices focus on streamlining local
zoning, aligning building codes with state regulations, and improving permitting. These
best practices fall under financial, planning and zoning, and regulatory support and
incentives, as well as real estate and land use strategies. Staff have identified multiple
Best Practices from this list provided by DOLA to support childcare in the Estes Valley,
in addition to the two recommendations EPIC has provided in the Final Report (pg. .
After several months of research, stakeholder outreach, and report drafting, they are
prepared to deliver the Final Report and policy recommendations.
Proposal:
The Final Report does not recommend a specific childcare facility site for development.
Instead, it identifies three facility development models that can be used to guide future
childcare investments as opportunities, funding, and community needs evolve.
Facility development alone cannot solve the childcare shortage in the Estes Valley. The
Childcare Facility Master Plan recommends that the Town Board consider two DOLA
Best Practices to support policy direction:
1. Childcare-friendly land use and zoning that makes it easier to develop, expand,
or adapt facilities for childcare use in appropriate locations.
2. A public-private childcare infrastructure partnership strategy that supports facility
development and operations.
The Town Board will have an opportunity to consider policy and program
recommendations provided in at a future date, likely with the review of the updated
Development Code this fall/winter.
At this time, Town staff propose that the Town Board hear the presentation and receive
the Estes Valley Childcare Facility Master Plan from EPIC.
Advantages:
New data and information regarding the Estes Valley’s childcare-related needs and
capacity
Proposed strategies to help inform decision-making regarding childcare facilities
Policy recommendations to decrease barriers to increasing childcare capacity in the
Estes Valley
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends the Town Board receive the Estes Valley Childcare Facility Master
Plan from Executives Partnering to Invest in Children (EPIC).
Finance/Resource Impact:
N/A
Level of Public Interest:
Moderate.
Attachments:
1. Executive Summary
2. Estes Valley Childcare Facility Master Plan
3. Exhibit A: Property Site Assessments
4. Property Report Cards
5. Estes Park Landscape Assessment
6. Financial Modeling
7. Presentation Slides
ESTES VALLEY CHILDCARE FACILITY MASTER PLAN
Summary for Town Board Consideration
Recommended Board Direction
To advance childcare expansion efforts, the Master Plan recommends that the Town:
1.Adopt childcare-friendly land use, zoning, and development standards that
reduce barriers to childcare facility development and expansion.
2.Establish a public-private childcare partnership framework that defines the
Town's role, partner commitments, and funding approach.
3.Complete detailed due diligence and feasibility analysis for models for Town
consideration in short and long term planning
4.Develop a capital funding strategy that leverages local, state, federal,
philanthropic, employer, and private investment sources.
5.Advance design, entitlement, licensing, and implementation activities for projects
that demonstrate strong community benefit and operational feasibility.
Background & Activities
The Town of Estes Park received a Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) Childcare
Planning Grant to develop a Childcare Facility Master Plan and Facility Management Plan.
The planning effort was initiated to address ongoing childcare capacity challen ges that
affect local families, workforce participation, employer recruitment, and economic vitality.
The plan is intended to provide a framework for future childcare facility investments,
partnerships, and implementation strategies.
Since project initiation, the consultant team and Town staff have:
•Assessed childcare supply, demand, affordability, and workforce impacts.
•Conducted stakeholder engagement with providers, employers, community
organizations, and public partners.
•Evaluated existing childcare facilities and potential development opportunities.
•Developed conceptual facility models representing expansion, redevelopment, and
new construction pathways.
•Assessed ownership, partnership, and funding strategies to support long -term
sustainability.
•Prepared the Childcare Facility Master Plan and incorporated stakeholder feedback
for final consideration.
Attachment 1
Child Care Supply Needed
Analysis identified infant and toddler care as the community's most significant unmet
need. The Master Plan establishes a capacity goal of approximately 170 new infant and
toddler seats over the next five years through provider expansion and facility
redevelopment opportunities.
Facility Development Framework
The Master Plan does not recommend a specific site for development. Instead, it identifies
three facility development models that can guide future childcare investments as
opportunities, funding, and community needs evolve.
Pathway Time Horizon Representative Example/Model
Expansion Near-Term (0–2 years) Mountaintop Childcare
Re-Development Medium-Term (2–5 years) Presbyterian Community Church
New Construction Long-Term (5+ years) Dry Gulch
Representative sites were evaluated to demonstrate how each model could function
within the Estes Valley context and should not be interpreted as selected or preferred
projects. Expansion represents the most implementation -ready opportunity, while
redevelopment and new construction provide medium- and long-term options.
Implementation Approach: Development is expected to occur in phases. Expansion
opportunities represent the most implementation-ready strategy for increasing childcare
capacity in the near term. Re-development opportunities may provide a viable medium -
term approach as partnership opportunities emerge, while new construction should be
preserved as a long-term option capable of addressing future childcare demand and
community growth.
Funding and Sustainability
The Master Plan recognizes that facility development alone will not solve the
community's childcare challenges. Successful implementation will require alignment
among land use policy, licensing requirements, facility feasibility, capital funding,
workforce availability, operational sustainability, and community partnerships.
Future funding strategies should leverage local resources, including 6E Lodging Tax
revenues and Larimer County's Ballot Measure 1B investments , alongside state
childcare infrastructure funds, federal grants, philanthropic contributions, employer
participation, private investment, and other public-private funding opportunities.
Conclusion
The Estes Valley Childcare Facility Master Plan provides the Town Board with an
actionable framework for addressing childcare infrastructure needs while maintaining
flexibility as community priorities, partnerships, and funding opportunities evolve.
The plan does not commit the Town to a specific facility project or site. Rather, it
establishes a strategic roadmap that aligns policy reform, public-private partnerships,
funding strategies, and long-term operations to support sustainable childcare expansion in
the Estes Valley. By treating childcare as essential community infrastructure, Estes Park
can take a more coordinated and sustainable approach to supporting families,
strengthening the workforce, and investing in the community's long -term vitality.
ESTES VALLEY CHILDCARE FACILITY MASTER PLAN
Contents
1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 2
2. Introduction and Background .................................................................................. 5
3. Planning Process and Methodology ......................................................................... 7
4. Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment ............................................................. 9
5. Community and Stakeholder Engagement ..............................................................16
6. Childcare Facilities and Site Analysis ......................................................................21
7. Policy and Funding Strategy ....................................................................................26
8. Town Role in Childcare Facilities ............................................................................32
9. Management and Operations Plan ..........................................................................36
10. Priority Projects and Facility Pipeline .....................................................................45
11. Implementation Plan ............................................................................................50
12. Financial Strategy ................................................................................................53
13. Recommendations ...............................................................................................59
14. Appendices..........................................................................................................60
Attachment 2
Last Updated June 2026 2
1. Executive Summary
The Town of Estes Park has been awarded a Childcare Planning Grant from the Colorado
Department of Local Affairs to develop a comprehensive Childcare Facility Master Plan
and Facility Management Plan for the Estes Valley. This planning effort responds to
longstanding childcare capacity challenges that affect families, employers, workforce
stability, and the broader economic vitality of the community. The purpose of the plan is to
establish a sustainable, data-informed framework for future childcare facility investment,
site development, public-private partnership opportunities, facility management, and
long-term operational viability.
The Childcare Facility Master Plan is intended to help the Town move from reactive
investment decisions toward a coordinated infrastructure strategy. The plan identifies
current childcare needs, evaluates potential facility development opportunities, assesses
land use and zoning considerations, recommends policy and funding strategies, and
defines the Town’s potential role in supporting childcare facilities. The final plan provides a
practical roadmap for Board consideration, partner alignment, and future implementation.
Findings from the landscape assessment, stakeholder interviews, and facility evaluation
indicate that childcare access in the Estes Valley is shaped by several interconnected
conditions. Infant and toddler care remains the community’s most significant unmet
need, while childcare costs continue to exceed affordability benchmarks for many
families. Providers face ongoing challenges related to staffing, facility limitations,
workforce housing, and operational sustainability. Childcare services are concentrated
in central Estes Park, while many families with young children live elsewhere in the Valley.
A significant portion of care also occurs through informal or home-based arrangements,
reflecting family preferences, cultural considerations, and limitations within the formal
childcare system.
Stakeholder engagement confirmed that future investments should prioritize infant and
toddler capacity, strengthen existing providers, support flexible care models, and
leverage public-private partnerships. Stakeholders consistently emphasized that
childcare is closely connected to workforce participation, housing, economic
development, and long-term community sustainability. These findings suggest that
future investments should be targeted, flexible, and responsive to the specific needs of
Estes Valley families while recognizing the broader role childcare plays within the
community.
The planning process also recognizes that facility development alone will not solve the
community’s childcare challenges. Successful implementation will require alignment
between land use policy, licensing requirements, facility feasibility, capital funding,
operating sustainability, and community partnerships. For this reason, the plan
recommends that the Town focus on two primary policy directions at this stage.
Last Updated June 2026 3
1.The Town should adopt a childcare-friendly land use and zoning framework that
makes it easier to develop, expand, or adapt facilities for childcare use in
appropriate locations.
2.The Town should establish a public-private childcare infrastructure partnership
strategy that defines the Town’s role, identifies partner commitments, evaluates
funding sources, and supports sustainable facility development and operations.
The facility assessment evaluated a range of potential childcare opportunities throughout
Estes Valley and identified three primary facility development models for further
consideration. These include:
•re-development of existing community and institutional buildings,
•expansion of previously operating childcare spaces, and
•new construction opportunities.
Conceptual test-fit analyses were completed for the Presbyterian Community Church of
the Rockies Mountaintop Childcare, and the Dry Gulch Property as representative
examples of three facility development models identified through the planning process.
Together, these models provide a framework for future decision-making while preserving
flexibility as funding opportunities, partnerships, and community priorities evolve.
Each model presents different implementation considerations. The Expansion Model
offers the most immediate opportunity to increase infant and toddler capacity by building
upon existing childcare infrastructure and operations. The Re-Development Model
provides an opportunity to adapt existing community facilities through partnership and
investment, while the New Construction Model offers the greatest long-term flexibility
and capacity potential but requires the highest level of capital investment and the
longest implementation timeline. Together, these models provide a range of options that
can be pursued as funding, partnerships, and community priorities evolve.
This Master Plan does not recommend a specific childcare facility site for development.
Instead, it identifies three facility development models that can be used to guide future
childcare investments as opportunities, funding, and community needs evolve.
Representative sites were evaluated to illustrate how each model could function within the
Estes Valley context. These examples are intended to inform decision-making and
should not be interpreted as preferred or selected projects.
Implementation is expected to occur in phases. In the near term, the Town should focus on
adopting childcare-friendly land use policies, establishing partnership and funding
frameworks, pursuing grant opportunities, and advancing due diligence on priority
facility opportunities. Based on the facility evaluation process, the Expansion Model
represents the most implementation-ready opportunity to increase childcare capacity in
the near term. Re-Development opportunities may provide a viable medium-term
Last Updated June 2026 4
strategy as partnership opportunities emerge, while New Construction should be
preserved as a long-term option capable of addressing future childcare demand and
community growth. The Town should continue monitoring childcare demand, facility
performance, provider sustainability, and changing community needs to guide future
investments and capital reinvestment.
Estimated funding needs will continue to be refined as facility opportunities advance from
concept to implementation. At a minimum, future financial strategies should account for
predevelopment costs, capital construction or renovation costs, licensing and code
compliance improvements, furniture, fixtures and equipment, outdoor play areas,
startup costs, operating subsidies, facility maintenance, and long-term capital
reinvestment. Potential funding sources may include Town capital investment, state
childcare infrastructure funds, federal grants, philanthropic contributions, employer
participation, private investment, low-cost financing, and in-kind public assets such
as land, infrastructure support, or fee reductions.
The plan establishes a management and operations framework that clarifies the Town's
role in supporting the long-term success of childcare investments. Potential roles may
include serving as a strategic partner, infrastructure supporter, community convener,
facility owner, or, where appropriate, direct operator. Future facility investments should
prioritize sustainable governance and operational models that align with community
needs, available resources, and organizational capacity while ensuring responsible
stewardship of public assets and public investments. This approach allows the Town to
leverage public resources and partnerships to expand access to high-quality services
for children and families.
Recommended Next Steps
To advance childcare expansion efforts, the Town should prioritize the following actions:
1.Adopt childcare-friendly land use, zoning, and development standards that
reduce barriers to childcare facility development and expansion.
2.Establish a public-private childcare partnership framework that defines the
Town's role, partner commitments, and funding approach.
3.Identify preferred near-term and long-term facility development pathways
based on community priorities, implementation readiness, and available resources.
4.Complete detailed due diligence and feasibility analysis for priority facility
opportunities.
5.Develop a capital funding strategy that leverages local, state, federal,
philanthropic, employer, and private investment sources.
6.Advance design, entitlement, licensing, and implementation activities for
projects that demonstrate strong community benefit and operational feasibility.
Last Updated June 2026 5
This Master Plan provides the Town Board with an actionable framework for decision-
making. By aligning facility investment with policy reform, public-private partnerships,
funding strategies, and long-term operations, Estes Park can take a more coordinated
and sustainable approach to childcare infrastructure. The recommendations in this plan
are intended to support near-term Board action while preserving flexibility as additional
data, stakeholder input, site feasibility findings, and funding opportunities continue to
emerge.
Challenge What We Heard Recommended Response
Infant/toddler
shortage
Families struggle to find
care
Prioritize infant/toddler capacity
Facility limitations Providers cannot easily
expand
Invest in facility improvements
Workforce shortages Staffing remains difficult Support provider sustainability
High development
costs
Expansion requires
partnerships
Establish public-private
partnerships
Future growth Community needs will
evolve
Maintain a facility pipeline
2. Introduction and Background
The Town of Estes Park was awarded a Childcare Planning Grant through the Colorado
Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) to develop a comprehensive Childcare Facility
Master Plan and Facility Management Plan for the Estes Valley. This planning effort was
initiated in response to ongoing childcare capacity challenges that impact local families,
employers, workforce participation, and long-term community sustainability.
Childcare is increasingly recognized as essential community infrastructure. Access to
affordable, high-quality childcare supports healthy child development, enables parents
and caregivers to participate in the workforce, strengthens local businesses, and
contributes to the overall economic vitality of the community. As Estes Valley continues to
address challenges related to housing, workforce recruitment and retention, and
economic resilience, ensuring access to reliable childcare remains a critical community
priority.
This planning effort builds upon previous childcare investments and community initiatives,
including the 6E Lodging Tax Extension, which has supported tuition assistance, provider
Last Updated June 2026 6
stabilization, out-of-school programming, and broader efforts to strengthen the local
childcare system. While these investments have expanded access and support for
families, providers continue to face challenges related to staffing, facility limitations,
operational sustainability, and workforce housing.
To support future decision-making, the Town partnered with Executives Partnering to
Invest in Children (EPIC), Zanone Project Management, and Neenan Archistruction to
complete a comprehensive assessment of childcare needs, facility opportunities, and
implementation strategies. The resulting Master Plan provides a framework for evaluating
future facility investments, supporting provider sustainability, identifying partnership
opportunities, and guiding long-term childcare infrastructure planning.
The purpose of this plan is to:
•Assess existing childcare capacity and community needs.
•Identify opportunities for future facility development and expansion.
•Evaluate facility development models and implementation pathways.
•Establish policy, funding, and partnership strategies.
•Define potential roles for the Town and community partners.
•Provide a roadmap for future childcare facility investments.
The planning process included a landscape assessment, stakeholder engagement,
childcare facility inventory, site evaluations, property report cards, conceptual test-fit
analyses, and implementation planning. Together, these efforts provide the foundation
for the recommendations and priority projects identified throughout this Master Plan.
This document is intended to serve as a practical guide for future decision-making.
Rather than identifying a single facility solution, the plan provides a flexible framework
that allows the Town and its partners to evaluate opportunities, pursue funding, and
advance projects as community needs and resources evolve.
Last Updated June 2026 7
3. Planning Process and Methodology
The Town of Estes Park and partners implemented the following methodologies:
• Assess Childcare Needs and Facility Capacity: Review and synthesize existing
assessments of childcare supply, facility conditions, workforce access, and
projected demand within the Estes Valley. This analysis will identify gaps in access,
capacity, quality, and infrastructure that constrain families’ options and limit
workforce participation.
• Community and Stakeholder Engagement: Design and implement an inclusive,
structured community and stakeholder engagement process that meaningfully
incorporates the perspectives of families, childcare providers, employers, and
public partners. Engagement findings will be systematically documented and
analyzed to directly inform childcare facility planning, policy considerations, and
funding and investment recommendations, ensuring that the resulting Master Plan
and Facility Management Plan reflect community priorities, operational realities,
and equitable access needs.
• Develop a Data-Informed Childcare Facility Master Plan: Prepare a Childcare
Facility Master Plan that establishes a clear roadmap for coordinated childcare
facility development. The plan will identify priority sites, expansion opportunities,
phasing strategies, and investment recommendations to support sustainable and
equitable growth of childcare capacity across Estes Valley.
• Establish a Sustainable Facility Management Framework: Develop a Facility
Management Plan for Town owned childcare facilities that provide practical
guidance on governance, operations, maintenance, policies, and budgeting. The
framework will support long-term financial viability, operational consistency, and
responsible stewardship of public assets.
This project has produced the following deliverables:
• Summary of Existing Conditions and Needs: A concise synthesis of current
childcare supply, facility conditions, workforce demand, and service gaps affecting
families and employers in the Estes Valley.
• Stakeholder Engagement Summary: Documentation of stakeholder and
community engagement activities, key themes, and input, demonstrating how
feedback informed facility, policy, and investment recommendations.
• Facilities and Land Use Analysis: An evaluation of existing and potential childcare
facility sites, land use considerations, regulatory constraints, and feasibility factors
to support strategic facility planning.
Last Updated June 2026 8
• Policy, Funding, and Management Strategy: A set of actionable policy
recommendations and funding and governance strategies to support sustainable
childcare facility development and long-term operations.
• Management and Operation Plan for Town-Owned Facilities: A practical
framework outlining governance, operations, maintenance, budgeting, and
performance considerations for Town owned childcare facilities.
• Draft and Final Childcare Facility Master Plan: A comprehensive planning
document presenting facility needs, site recommendations, phased
implementation strategies, and capital investment priorities, refined through Town
and community review.
• Presentation to Town Board and/or Community Stakeholders: A clear,
accessible presentation summarizing findings, recommendations, and
implementation steps to support informed decision-making and public
communication.
Timeline and Milestones
Phase Activities
Phase 1: Project
Initiation
Contracting, kickoff meeting, finalize scope
and schedule, establish Estes Park working
group
March 2026
Phase 2: Data
Collection and
Assessment
Review existing data, assess facility inventory,
identify needs and gaps April 2026
Phase 3: Stakeholder
Engagement
Interviews, focus groups, and community
engagement sessions April-May 2026
Phase 4: Draft Planning
Documents
Prepare draft Master Plan and Facility
Management Plan April–Early May 2026
Phase 5: Review and
Refinement
Town, partner, and community feedback;
revisions May–June 2026
Phase 6: Final
Deliverables and
Presentation
Final plans, Town Board presentation, and
implementation toolkit June 2026
Last Updated June 2026 9
4. Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment
Childcare in Estes Valley is a critical piece of the community’s infrastructure; and today, it
is not meeting the needs of families, employers, or the local economy.
This landscape overview examines childcare supply, demand, affordability, and access
across Estes Valley. It provides a data-driven understanding of how well the current
childcare system meets the needs of local families, employers, and the broader
community.
The key questions explored through this landscape assessment were:
1. How does childcare supply compare to demand across age groups in Estes Valley?
2. How affordable is care for families across income levels?
3. Where are the biggest gaps and opportunities to improve access to childcare?
The findings point to a system with meaningful gaps, particularly for infants and toddlers,
and highlight clear opportunities to better align childcare investments with community
needs.
To see the full Landscape Assessment click here: Estes Park Landscape
Assessment.pdf
Workforce and Local Economy
Childcare challenges are not just a family issue; they are an economic issue.
When families cannot access affordable, reliable care, it directly affects workforce
participation, employee retention, and productivity. Across Larimer County, these impacts
are estimated to exceed $110 million annually in lost earnings, reduced productivity,
and public costs.
Last Updated June 2026 10
In Estes Valley, where employers rely in a stable, in-person workforce, these challenges
are particularly important. Limited childcare options make it harder for businesses to
attract and retain employees, especially during peak tourism seasons.
Demand for Care
The number of young children (under
age five) in Estes Valley declined by
8% over the past decade, while the
population age 55 and older grew and
all other age groups decreased.
Despite this shift, demand for
childcare remains strong. Most
children live in households where all
available parents are working (62% of
young children and 81% of school-age
children) meaning families rely on
consistent, reliable care to participate
in the workforce.
Estes Valley has a higher
concentration of tourism and
hospitality jobs than Larimer County
overall, along with elevated employment across several service-based industries.
-8%
-0.4%
-10%
-10%
16%
Percent Change in Population by Age
Group in the Estes Park School District,
2010 to 2020
55 years and older
8%
8%
8%
8%
11%
15%
15%
16%
5%
6%
10%
7%
10%
25%
Other Services
Finance & Real Estes
Manufacturing
Construction
Retail trade
Professional & Admin
Tourism & Hospitality
Education & Health
Percent of the Civilian Employed Population 16 Years and Over
Employed in Each Industry
Larimer County Estes Valley
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; Town of Estes
Park, 2025
Last Updated June 2026 11
These sectors rely heavily on in-person work, often during evenings, weekends, and peak
seasons. As a result, families need childcare that is not only available, but flexible enough
to align with nontraditional and variable work schedules.
Family incomes in the Valley are relatively high overall but vary widely. Nearly one-
third of families earn under $75,000 annually, which significantly impacts their ability to
afford care.
Affordability
Childcare is out of reach for many
families. Childcare is out of reach
for many families. The cost of care
for one child is estimated at 10–
11% of the county's median
household income (across all
households), well above the 7%
affordability benchmark
established by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human
Services.
For families with lower or moderate
incomes, these costs create real
constraints on employment and
financial stability. Even when care is available, many families cannot afford to use it.
Public subsidy programs help, but access remains limited. Only about one-third of
providers accept CCCAP, and participation is concentrated among a small subset of
providers; those few account for roughly 54% of total capacity despite representing just
33% of providers. CCCAP has been frozen since February 2024, limiting access to
subsidies. The Town has used 6E funds to backfill gaps, serving eligible families through
EVICS tuition assistance.
11%10%11%
Infant Toddler Preschool
Cost of Care for One Child as a Percent of
Meidan Family Income in Estes Valley
Cost Affordable Threshold
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey
5-Year Estimates; Estes Valley Child Care Needs Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Last Updated June 2026 12
6E Investments Are Expanding Access to Childcare in Estes Valley
The 6E Lodging Tax Extension has become a critical local funding source supporting
childcare access and workforce stability
in the Estes Valley. In 2025, the tax
generated approximately $6.0 million
in total revenue, with roughly $1.2
million directed toward childcare
initiatives. This represents a substantial
increase in investment over time, with
funding for childcare nearly doubling
since 2023.
These resources are strategically
deployed across multiple priority areas, including tuition assistance for families, workforce
stabilization for providers, facility expansion, and out-of-school programming. Together,
these investments are designed to address both the affordability and supply-side
challenges identified in the broader landscape assessment.
A key outcome of this increased
investment is the expansion of tuition
assistance to serve a broader range of
families. Eligibility now includes
middle-income households earning up
to approximately 110% of area median
income, significantly widening access
to support. As a result, more than half
of children enrolled in care in Estes
Valley now receive some form of
financial assistance, compared to just
over one-fifth in 2023.
In addition to expanding access for
families, 6E funding has played an
important role in stabilizing the local childcare system. Investments in workforce support
have helped providers increase wages, improve retention, and maintain consistent staffing
levels—factors that are essential to sustaining and expanding care capacity. Funding has
also supported the growth of out-of-school programming, enabling providers to extend
hours, add service days, and serve more children throughout the year.
Key Outcomes
•Expanded tuition assistance to
include middle-income families
(up to ~110% AMI)
•Over 50% of children in care now
receive assistance (up from 21%)
•Stabilized childcare workforce
through wage and retention
supports
•Increased out-of-school
programming capacity across
providers
Source: 2025 Impact Report
$1.2M
$678K
$597K
2025
2024
2023
Child Care Investment Growth
Last Updated June 2026 13
Accessibility
The most pressing supply challenge in Estes Valley is the shortage of care for infants
and toddlers. 1
Infant childcare capacity meets the needs of only about 8% of the infant population,
while toddler care can accommodate approximately 11% of toddlers in the Estes
Valley. In contrast, preschool capacity serves roughly 71% of preschool-age children.
These figures highlight a significant shortage of licensed care for infants and toddlers
and underscore the need for strategic investments that expand capacity for the
community's youngest children. This means families with the youngest children face the
greatest difficulty finding care.
Despite this need, the number of providers has remained flat in recent years (six in
2025 and six in 2026) with no meaningful increase in capacity. Although one provider
opened in 2026 and another closed between 2024 and 2026, the total number of licensed
childcare providers has remained unchanged. Without intervention, these gaps are
unlikely to resolve on their own.
1 Data Note: Estimates based on U.S. Census ACS 5-year population for Estes Park and age distribution from the
Colorado State Demography Office for Larimer County. Family childcare home capacity is estimated by allocating a
portion of home slots to each age group. Homes are assumed to contribute approximately 25% of infant and toddler
capacity and 50% of preschool capacity, reflecting typical enrollment patterns in mixed-age home settings.
5 15
154
60
138
218
Infant (0 - 18 months)Toddlers (18-26 months)Preschoolers (36-72 months)
Population and Access to Licensed Childcare by Age Group
Estimated Estes Valley Capacity Estimated Estes Valley Population
Sources: Colorado Child Care Facilities Report as of February 2026; 2024 Childcare Needs
Assessment and Strategic Plan
Last Updated June 2026 14
While the highest concentration of families
with young children is in the southern part of
the Valley, many families who choose to
access childcare are likely to commute to the
center of town, where existing services,
employment, and daily errands are more
concentrated. This means that central Estes
Park will continue to play an important role as a
childcare access point.
At the same time, the distribution of families
highlights an opportunity to invest in family
childcare homes closer to where people live.
Family childcare can combine homeownership
and small business ownership, creating a lower
cost and more flexible path for providers while
offering families smaller, more intimate care
environments. These settings may also be
better positioned to reflect the language,
culture, schedules, and relationships of the
families they serve.
Demographic and economic indicators also
vary across the Estes Valley, particularly
between the southern and northern census tracts. The southern tract experiences the
highest poverty rate and the highest share of children ages five and older who speak a
language other than English at home. In contrast, the northern tract has the highest
concentration of Hispanic residents.
These patterns suggest that some families may face overlapping barriers related to
affordability, language access, transportation, and proximity to care. Existing childcare
providers remain concentrated near the population center, while areas with higher
concentrations of young children and elevated economic need have fewer nearby options.
Understanding how demographic and economic conditions vary across the Valley can help
inform more equitable approaches to future childcare investment, outreach, and facility
planning.
Sources: Colorado Child Care Facilities Report as
of February 2026; Colorado Demography Office;
American Community Survey 5-year Estimates
Table S0101
Last Updated June 2026 15
Considerations for Expanding ECE Capacity
While unmet demand for infant and toddler care is clear, expanding childcare capacity
in Estes Valley will require careful consideration of long-term operational and financial
feasibility.
Several factors may constrain future development opportunities. Estes Valley’s mountain
geography, limited land availability, and relatively high construction costs can make
new facility development challenging. In addition, viable childcare sites must meet
licensing requirements related to indoor and outdoor space, parking, safety, and year-
round accessibility.
Workforce conditions also affect the feasibility of expansion. Housing affordability,
seasonal employment patterns, and ongoing staffing shortages may limit providers’ ability
to recruit and retain qualified early childhood educators. Long-term sustainability may
therefore depend not only on capital investment, but also on continued operational
supports such as workforce stabilization funding, tuition assistance, and public-
private partnerships.
At the same time, Estes Valley has several assets that may support future expansion
efforts. Existing 6E investments demonstrate a strong and growing local commitment
to childcare access, affordability, and workforce stability. Since 2023, childcare
funding supported through the 6E Lodging Tax Extension has nearly doubled, with
approximately $1.2 million directed toward childcare initiatives in 2025 alone. These
investments have expanded tuition assistance eligibility to include more middle-income
families, increased workforce stabilization support for providers, and strengthened out-of-
school programming capacity across the Valley. Continued 6E investment creates an
important foundation for future facility expansion by helping stabilize operations, support
educator retention, and improve affordability for families. Future opportunities may also
include re-development of existing buildings, co-location models, employer
partnerships, and phased expansion strategies that align facility size with long-term
enrollment demand and operational sustainability.
Rather than large-scale expansion, Estes Valley is best positioned for targeted,
scalable approaches that prioritize infant and toddler care capacity in areas with the
greatest unmet need.
Last Updated June 2026 16
Key Takeaways
Three themes emerge clearly from this assessment:
Finding Implication
Infant capacity is limited Expansion should prioritize infants and
toddlers
Childcare costs exceed affordability
benchmarks Financial assistance remains important
Providers face staffing challenges
Childcare supports workforce
participation Investments have economic benefits
Taken together, these challenges limit access to care, constrain the workforce, and create
ripple effects across the local economy.
5. Community and Stakeholder Engagement
A targeted stakeholder engagement process was conducted to inform the Childcare
Facility Master Plan. Rather than broad public meetings, the engagement strategy focused
on structured interviews with childcare providers, community organizations, employers,
education partners, housing organizations, and local agencies that play a role in
supporting families and workforce development.
Interview participants included representatives from NOCO Kids Thrive, Estes Park School
District, EVICS Family Resource Center, Mountaintop Childcare, Little Kid Montessori,
Boys and Girls Club of Larimer County, Crossroads Ministry, Estes Park Housing Authority,
Estes Valley Recreation and Park District, and other community stakeholders.
The purpose of the interviews was to better understand current childcare challenges,
identify future facility needs, evaluate potential recommendations, and determine the
appropriate role of the Town in supporting childcare infrastructure.
Organization Interviewed
NOCO Kids Thrive (former ECCLC) x
Estes Park School District x
EVICS Family Resource Center x
Mountaintop Childcare x
Park Place Preschool x
BKB Early Childhood
YMCA Summer Day Camp
Larimer County Boys and Girls Club x
Muddy Boots
Last Updated June 2026 17
Key Findings
•Infant and toddler care remains the community’s greatest unmet need, with
ongoing shortages in affordable, flexible, and high-quality care options.
•Estes Park’s tourism-based economy requires more flexible childcare models,
including evenings, weekends, holidays, and seasonal care that better match
workforce schedules.
•Stakeholders strongly support
stabilizing and expanding existing
providers rather than building a large
new center, with family childcare homes
viewed as one of the most practical
solutions.
•Facility limitations, staffing shortages,
burnout, and high operating costs are
the biggest barriers to implementation
and long-term sustainability.
•Childcare is deeply connected to
housing, workforce retention, school
enrollment, and overall community
sustainability, requiring coordinated
partnerships between the Town, employers, nonprofits, and providers.
Current & Future Needs
Research Question: How do current childcare needs in Estes Park compare to anticipated
future needs, and what trends are shaping demand over the next 5–10 years?
Stakeholders consistently identified infant and toddler care as Estes Park’s greatest
unmet need, with demand expected to continue growing over the next 5–10 years.
What We Heard
Theme Frequency
Infant/Toddler Care High
Provider Sustainability High
Staffing Challenges High
Flexible Care Options Moderate
Facility Expansion Moderate
Housing Impacts Moderate
Last Updated June 2026 18
Participants emphasized that the town’s tourism-driven economy requires more flexible
childcare options that better align with workforce schedules and family realities.
Key themes included:
•Infant and toddler care shortages
remain the community’s largest gap.
•Families need more flexible care
options, including evenings, weekends,
holidays, and summer care.
•Traditional childcare schedules do not align with local workforce patterns.
•Families rely heavily on FFN and informal care arrangements.
•Middle-income families continue struggling to afford care.
Reactions to Data & Recommendations
Research Question: To what extent do stakeholders believe the proposed
recommendations align with community needs and realities?
Stakeholders overwhelmingly agreed that the proposed recommendations reflect the
realities of childcare in Estes Park. Participants strongly supported practical, community-
based solutions focused on provider stabilization, partnerships, and flexible care models.
Key themes included:
•Strong agreement with the landscape assessment findings and recommendations.
•Support for expanding existing providers rather than creating a large town-operated
center.
•Strong support for increasing infant and toddler care capacity.
•I am interested in creative models such as shared-use facilities and family
childcare homes.
•Public-private partnerships were viewed as essential for long-term success.
Populations Served & Gaps
Research Question: Which populations are most effectively supported by the proposed
childcare solutions, and which groups may remain underserved?
Stakeholders believed the proposed solutions would most effectively support low-income
families, infant and toddler families, tourism workers, and Spanish-speaking families.
However, several populations were identified as likely to remain underserved.
“Particularly with Estes Park is
after-hour and summer care,
and even holiday types of
holiday care.”
Last Updated June 2026 19
Key themes included:
•Infant and toddler families remain the most
underserved population.
•Families working nontraditional schedules
continue to face major gaps in care access.
•Low-income families benefit most from
subsidies and scholarship programs.
•Middle-income and ALICE families remain
financially underserved.
•Families relying on informal care
arrangements may remain excluded from
some funding systems.
•Young families and essential workers continue struggling with housing and
childcare instability.
Role of the Town
Research Question: What role should the Town of Estes Park play in supporting,
coordinating, or investing in childcare solutions?
Stakeholders consistently viewed the Town of Estes Park as an essential partner in
supporting and coordinating long-term childcare solutions. Participants emphasized
collaboration, infrastructure support, and strategic investment over direct operation of a
childcare system.
Key themes included:
•The Town should serve as a collaborative coordinator and convener.
•Public-private partnerships were strongly supported.
•Facility supports and access to usable space were viewed as critical Town roles.
•The Town should continue investing in childcare funding, workforce support, and
affordability efforts.
•Employer partnerships and shared-use facility models were viewed as promising
opportunities.
“We have a lot of people in our
community who don’t work 9 to
5 weekday hours.”
“Estes Park’s workforce
includes many parents who do
not work standard weekday
hours, creating gaps in care
availability”
“Wouldn’t it be cool if there was a partnership where it’s like the town, the
hospital, the Y, and the school?”
Last Updated June 2026 20
Barriers & Concerns
Research Question: What barriers, risks, or implementation challenges could affect the
success of future childcare initiatives in Estes Park?
Stakeholders identified several implementation risks that could limit the success of future
childcare initiatives. Financial sustainability, staffing shortages, and facility limitations
emerged as the most significant concerns.
Key themes included:
•High construction, renovation, and
infrastructure costs remain major barriers.
•Lack of commercially viable childcare
space limits expansion opportunities.
•Staffing shortages, burnout, and workforce
retention remain significant challenges.
•Provider wages and financial sustainability
are increasingly difficult in Estes Park’s
high-cost environment.
•Housing affordability and childcare challenges are deeply interconnected.
Alignment & Community Fit
Research Question: How well do the proposed childcare strategies reflect the values,
priorities, and practical realities of the Estes Park community?
Stakeholders consistently felt the proposed strategies strongly reflect the values,
priorities, and realities of the Estes Park community. Participants emphasized that
successful solutions must be collaborative, flexible, and grounded in the needs of
working families.
Key themes included:
•Stakeholders strongly agreed with the recommendations aligning with
community realities.
•Expanding and stabilizing existing providers was viewed as more practical than
building a large new center.
•Family childcare homes were viewed as a realistic and cost-effective strategy
for increasing supply.
•Partnerships and coordinated community approaches were repeatedly
emphasized as essential.
“There’s not a lot of available
housing; there’s not a lot of
childcare options.”
“Parents really struggling to
figure out, how do I work, and
how do I get my child quality
childcare?”
Last Updated June 2026 21
• Stakeholders stressed the importance of balancing expansion with quality care
and provider sustainability.
6. Childcare Facilities and Site Analysis
6.1 Existing Facilities Inventory
The project team evaluated 17 potential properties throughout the Estes Valley,
including Town-owned sites, institutional properties, vacant land, and community
facilities. The purpose of evaluating individual properties was to test the feasibility of
different childcare facility development models. Each location may face unknown
restrictions or obstacles not evaluated, but each were selected due to known positive
attributes which would allow for these models to be applied to similar properties in the
future. The Town is not being asked to select a specific site through this Master Plan.
Rather, the site evaluations informed us of the development of three facility development
models that can guide future childcare investment.
Each site was assessed using a standardized evaluation framework that considered
licensing feasibility, accessibility, site constraints, parking, outdoor play space, utility
availability, expansion potential, and overall suitability for childcare use. Results of
the inventory informed the identification of priority facility development models and
conceptual test-fit analyses.
Appendix A summarizes the evaluated sites and the facility development models that
emerged from this analysis, including conceptual test-fit scenarios used to assess
feasibility and guide future childcare facility planning.
The Facilities and Site Analysis considered several primary childcare development
approaches within the Estes Valley context:
• Re-development of existing communities or institutional buildings
• Expansion of previously operating childcare spaces
• New construction and mixed-use development opportunities, including joint
development with housing or community-serving uses.
“Childcare, housing, workforce retention… it’s all connected.”
“It’s not just about seats. It’s about quality seats and families want quality seats.”
Last Updated June 2026 22
Each approach presents different opportunities, costs, timelines, partnership
requirements, and operational considerations that should be evaluated alongside
community priorities and available funding resources.
Model 1: Re-Development of Existing Community and Institutional Buildings
Re-development involves converting an existing building that was originally designed for
another purpose into a childcare facility. Common examples include churches, schools,
community centers, office buildings, and other institutional facilities. This approach can
reduce development timelines and capitalize on existing infrastructure while preserving
community assets.
Re-development opportunities are often attractive because they avoid the costs
associated with land acquisition and ground-up construction. However, these projects
frequently require significant investments to meet childcare licensing requirements,
accessibility standards, life-safety codes, playground requirements, and operational
needs.
Estes Valley Example: Presbyterian Community Church of the Rockies
The Presbyterian Community Church of the Rockies represents an example of the re-
development model. The property offers substantial square footage, significant parking
capacity, and an established community-serving function. These characteristics
reduce the need for new site development and create opportunities to leverage existing
infrastructure.
However, the analysis identified several significant challenges. Accessibility
improvements, fire suppression upgrades, code compliance requirements,
playground development, and egress limitations would require substantial
investment. Portions of the building present constraints related to childcare occupancy
requirements and would require additional evaluation before redevelopment could
proceed.
Key Considerations
Advantages
• Utilizes existing community infrastructure for use in managing the property and
potentially an operator for the facility programming.
• Significant building area and parking availability due to the assembly usage of
these facilities
Last Updated June 2026 23
•Potentially lower site development costs if the building fitting this model is in
good condition.
•Preserves and reactivates community assets.
Challenges
•Potentially significant renovation and code compliance requirements within an
operating facility may increase costs.
•Existing building layout may have inherent conflicts with licensing requirements.
•Potential accessibility and life-safety upgrades
•Feasibility dependent on ownership and partnership structure
•A specific and detailed due diligence of any existing building should be
conducted prior to committing capital to a project.
A conceptual test-fit analysis was completed based upon the information available today
to evaluate potential classroom configurations, outdoor play areas, circulation patterns,
parking, and licensing feasibility. The test fit demonstrated that property such as this may
support a licensed childcare program subject to further design, code review, and
operational analysis. See Appendix C.
Model 2: Expansion of Previously Operating Childcare Spaces
Re-establishing previously operating childcare spaces focuses on returning facilities with a
history of serving children and families to active childcare use. This model builds upon
existing community familiarity, established childcare infrastructure, and locations
already associated with early childhood services.
Because these facilities were previously designed or utilized for childcare purposes, they
may present fewer implementation barriers than entirely new facilities. However, many
require modernization, code upgrades, and operational improvements before they can
support current licensing standards and community needs.
Estes Valley Example: Mountaintop Childcare
The Mountaintop property represents an opportunity to re-establish and expand a site with
an established history of serving children and families.
Rather than developing a new facility, this model focuses on renovating, modernizing,
and expanding existing childcare locations. Preliminary test-fit analysis indicates the
site could accommodate additional capacity through building improvements, expanded
classroom space, and upgraded outdoor play areas.
Last Updated June 2026 24
The property benefits from community familiarity, an existing childcare identity, and a
location already associated with early childhood services. These factors may reduce
implementation barriers and provide a more direct pathway to increasing capacity.
Several challenges were identified through the assessment, including accessibility
deficiencies, aging building systems, parking circulation concerns, and potential
environmental remediation requirements. These improvements need to be addressed
as part of any future redevelopment effort.
Key Considerations
Advantages
• Builds upon an established childcare location.
• Community familiarity and support at this location which at one time did support
the logistical needs of those it served.
• Potentially shorter implementation timeline due to existing zoning
• Opportunity for phased expansion
• Supports increased infant and toddler capacity.
Challenges
• Building modernization requirements due to the age of the previous code compliant
improvements
• Accessibility and code compliance upgrades
• Site circulation and parking improvements
• Limited expansion potential compared to new construction.
• In short, the existing conditions which help to reduce costs can also have function
limitations if not accounted for in the capital budget and construction.
A conceptual test-fit analysis was completed to evaluate potential classroom
configurations, outdoor play areas, circulation patterns, parking, and licensing feasibility.
The test fit demonstrated that the property may support a licensed childcare program
subject to further design, code review, and operational analysis. See Appendix C.
Model 3: New Construction and Mixed-Use Development Opportunities
New construction involves developing a purpose-built childcare facility designed
specifically to meet current licensing standards, community needs, and long-term
operational goals. Mixed-use development opportunities may integrate childcare with
housing, community services, workforce development initiatives, or other public uses.
Last Updated June 2026 25
This model offers the greatest flexibility and long-term capacity potential because
facilities can be designed around operational needs rather than adapting existing
structures. However, new construction projects generally require the highest levels of
capital investment, planning, and implementation time.
Estes Valley Example: Dry Gulch Property
The Dry Gulch property represents the most significant long-term opportunity identified
through the facility assessment.
As a publicly owned site of approximately four acres, the property provides sufficient
space for a purpose-built childcare facility designed to meet current and future community
needs. Preliminary test-fit concepts demonstrate the potential to accommodate a larger-
scale facility serving infants, toddlers, preschool-aged children, and school-age
children while providing dedicated parking, playgrounds, and supporting infrastructure.
The site offers the greatest flexibility among the opportunities evaluated and could
support future integration with broader community development objectives, including
workforce housing, community services, open space services, senior community center,
or other public uses. This type of approach would also allow more capital sources to be
utilized for broader development.
At the same time, Dry Gulch presents the most complex implementation pathway.
Development would require substantial capital investment, site engineering, infrastructure
improvements, access planning, environmental review, and additional due diligence.
Key Considerations
Advantages
•Purpose-built design tailored to community needs
•Greatest capacity expansion potential
•Long-term community asset
•Opportunity to integrate with broader development goals.
•Maximum operational flexibility
•Predictability in the future due to the site being controlled and customized to the
Town’s needs.
Challenges
•Highest capital cost
•Longest implementation timeline
•Significant predevelopment and infrastructure requirements
Last Updated June 2026 26
• Greater project complexity and risk
A conceptual test-fit analysis was completed to evaluate potential classroom
configurations, outdoor play areas, circulation patterns, parking, and licensing feasibility.
The test fit demonstrated that the property may support a licensed childcare program
subject to further design, code review, and operational analysis. See Appendix C.
6.2 Site Evaluation Summary
Detailed site report cards were prepared for all evaluated properties and assessed
conditions related to accessibility, parking, circulation, licensing feasibility, outdoor play
areas, utilities, ownership, expansion potential, and redevelopment readiness. The report
cards were used to identify the three facility development models advanced in this
Master Plan.
Development
Model Example Readiness Priority
Expansion Mountaintop High Near-Term
Re-Development
Presbyterian
Community Church
of the Rockies
Moderate Medium-Term
New Construction Dry Gulch Moderate Long-Term
Full report cards are included in Appendix B.
7. Policy and Funding Strategy
7.1 Policy Recommendations
At this stage of the Childcare Facility Master Plan, the Town of Estes Park should prioritize
policy actions that directly reduce barriers to facility development, clarify the Town’s
role, and create a board ready pathway for implementation. The recommendations
below reflect the applicable best practices for Estes based on the current planning
process, including the need to validate facility gaps, identify priority sites and expansion
strategies, develop a feasible capital and phasing strategy, and define a sustainable
management model.
The Town should prioritize early and ongoing coordination between planning, building,
fire, childcare licensing, and health inspection partners to reduce unnecessary costs,
Last Updated June 2026 27
delays, and redesign during facility development. Creating a coordinated review process
would allow providers, developers, and public partners to understand requirements at the
beginning of a project, identify potential conflicts between codes or agency expectations,
and resolve issues before significant design or construction dollars are spent. This
alignment would support more predictable timelines, reduce duplicative review, and
improve the feasibility of bringing new or expanded childcare facilities in Estes Park. The
Town is currently undertaking a comprehensive evaluation and update of its
development code, with adoption anticipated in winter 2026. As part of that process,
many of the best practices and regulatory considerations identified in this plan may be
evaluated and incorporated, where appropriate.
Recommendation 1: Adopt a Childcare Friendly Land Use and Zoning Framework
The Town should adopt targeted zoning and land use reforms that make childcare easier to
develop, expand, and operate in appropriate locations throughout Estes Park. Childcare is
essential community infrastructure and should be treated similarly to other civic,
educational, workforce, and economic development uses. A childcare friendly land use
framework would help reduce uncertainty for providers, developers, employers, and public
partners while allowing the Town to maintain appropriate health, safety, design, traffic, and
neighborhood compatibility standards.
As part of the Facility Master Plan, the Town should review its zoning code, development
review procedures, parking requirements, outdoor play area standards, use
permissions, and permitting processes to identify barriers that may unintentionally limit
childcare supply. The Town should consider allowing licensed childcare centers by right or
through an administrative review process in zones where schools, community facilities,
religious institutions, civic uses, multifamily housing, mixed use development, and
employment centers are already permitted. For smaller providers, including family
childcare homes, the Town should ensure local regulations do not create unnecessary
barriers beyond state licensing requirements.
This recommendation is especially applicable in Estes Park because the planning process
is already focused on facilities, land use, Town owned property analysis, and potential
mixed use development opportunities with employer partners. It also reflects local
government best practices for clearing the path for additional childcare development
through actions such as streamlining processes, supporting zoning practices, identifying
resources, and serving as a convener.
Last Updated June 2026 28
A childcare friendly zoning framework should include the following actions:
1.Identify childcare as a priority community infrastructure use. The Town should
formally recognize childcare facilities as essential infrastructure that supports
workforce stability, family economic security, early childhood development, and
local economic vitality.
2.Expand permitted locations for childcare. The Town should evaluate whether
childcare centers can be allowed in civic, institutional, commercial, mixed use,
residential, and public facility contexts where impacts can be managed.
3.Streamline review and permitting. The Town should create a clear, predictable
review pathway for childcare projects, including early coordination among planning,
building, fire, public health, licensing, and other required agencies.
4.Along with local requirements with state licensing and facility feasibility. Local
code requirements should be reviewed to ensure they protect safety and quality
without creating duplicative or excessive requirements that make childcare
projects financially or physically infeasible.
5.Use the facilities and land use analysis to identify priority sites. The Town
should apply a consistent site evaluation rubric to assess Town owned, publicly
owned, nonprofit owned, and private development sites for childcare suitability,
including square footage, access, outdoor space, infrastructure, cost, timing, and
alignment with family and employer needs.
This policy action would give the Town Board a concrete and near-term step to move
forward while the Master Plan continues to refine specific site, capital, and operating
recommendations. It also establishes the regulatory foundation needed for any future
facility strategy, whether the final approach involves a Town owned facility, adaptive reuse,
co-location with housing or civic uses, a public private partnership, or expansion of an
existing provider site.
Recommendation 2: Establish a Public Private Childcare Infrastructure Partnership
Strategy
The Town should adopt a formal public private childcare infrastructure partnership
strategy to coordinate facility development, capital funding, employer participation, and
long-term operations. Given the scale and cost of childcare facility development, it is
unlikely that a sustainable solution will be achieved through a single funding source,
single provider, or single public action.
Last Updated June 2026 29
The Town is well positioned to serve as a convener, catalyst, and infrastructure partner
while working with providers, employers, philanthropic partners, Larimer County partners,
early childhood organizations, and potential development partners.
This recommendation aligns strongly with the current Estes Park process. Workforce
stability and economic vitality have been identified as central concerns, along with the
importance of moving from reactive investments to a sustainable strategy. Local mixed-
use development with employer partners has also been identified as a potential
opportunity. The current stakeholder engagement process includes childcare providers,
the school district, housing partners, the recreation district, the Chamber of Commerce,
the Estes Park Economic Development and Workforce Council, philanthropic partners,
and other community stakeholders. This existing stakeholder base creates a strong
foundation for a structured partnership approach.
Best practice guidance for childcare facility development emphasizes the importance of
identifying and solidifying partnerships early, including government, nonprofit, private
sector, local employer, funder, contractor, and consultant partners. For Estes Park, this
should be translated into a formal policy direction from the Town Board authorizing staff
and project partners to develop a partnership and implementation framework.
A public private childcare infrastructure partnership strategy should include the following
actions:
1. Define the Town’s role. The Town should determine whether it is prepared to serve
as convener, land or facility contributor, grant applicant, capital partner, landlord,
master lease holder, project sponsor, or long-term governance participant. This
does not require the Town to operate childcare directly, but it does require clarity
about what role the Town is willing to play.
2. Develop a partnership framework. The Town should identify the roles of providers,
employers, public agencies, philanthropy, lenders, developers, and community
organizations. This framework should distinguish between capital development
roles, operating support roles, governance roles, and ongoing facility management
responsibilities.
3. Build a capital stack for facility development. The Town should direct staff and
partners to evaluate a blended capital strategy that may include local funds, state
resources, federal funds, philanthropic contributions, employer contributions, tax
credit tools, low-cost financing, and in-kind public assets such as land,
infrastructure, or fee reductions.
Last Updated June 2026 30
4.Create an employer partnership pathway. Because childcare is directly
connected to workforce attraction and retention, the Town should engage major
local employers in defining their potential participation. Employer roles may include
capital contributions, reserved slots, operating support, employee benefit
partnerships, land or facility participation, or participation in a shared governance
structure.
5.Advance a financially sustainable operating model. Facility development should
not proceed without a realistic operating model. The Town should require that any
recommended facility concept includes projected enrollment, age mix, staffing
assumptions, tuition or subsidy assumptions, operating costs, revenue sources,
management structure, and the level of ongoing public or private support required.
6.Document commitments before final project approval. Prior to committing to
construction, acquisition, or major renovation, the Town should seek written
commitments, term sheets, memoranda of understanding, or similar
documentation from core partners. This will help the Board evaluate whether a
proposed facility pathway is feasible, fundable, and operationally sustainable.
This recommendation gives the Town Board a practical framework for moving from
interest to implementation. It also reduces the risk that Estes Park advances a facility
concept without the partnerships, capital stack, and operating model needed for long
term success.
Recommended Board Direction
To move this work forward, the Town Board should consider directing staff and the project
team to advance these two policy recommendations as the initial strategic framework for
supporting childcare infrastructure in Estes Park:
1.Prepare childcare friendly zoning and development review recommendations
for Board consideration, including potential code updates, administrative process
improvements, and priority site criteria.
2.Develop a public private childcare infrastructure partnership framework that
identifies the Town’s potential role, priority partners, capital funding strategy,
employer engagement pathway, and operating model requirements.
Together, these recommendations position the Town to take action while preserving
flexibility. The zoning and land use recommendation addresses the regulatory conditions
necessary for any childcare facility project to succeed. The partnership and financing
recommendation addresses the governance, capital, and operational conditions
Last Updated June 2026 31
necessary for a facility project to be sustainable. Both are consistent with the current
scope of the Facility Master Plan and provide a clear basis for a Board vote to move the
next phase of implementation forward.
7.2 Local Funding Resources
The 6E Lodging Tax Extension has established a strong local funding foundation for
childcare investments. Since 2023, funding directed toward childcare initiatives has
increased significantly, supporting tuition assistance, workforce stabilization, facility
planning, and out-of-school programming. Additional funding from a county-wide 1B sales
tax also provides opportunity for capital and facility investment throughout the Estes
Valley.
Future facility investments may include:
• Capital contributions for facility acquisition or development.
• Site preparation and infrastructure improvements.
• Facility renovation or expansion grants.
• Matching funds for state and federal grant opportunities.
• Predevelopment funding for feasibility studies and design.
7.3 State and Federal Funding Opportunities
Potential funding opportunities may include:
• Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA)
• Colorado Department of Early Childhood (CDEC)
• State Childcare Infrastructure Programs
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs
• Federal infrastructure and workforce development grants
Funding opportunities should be evaluated as facility projects advance from concept
to implementation.
7.4 Public-Private Partnerships
Partnerships will likely play a critical role in future facility development efforts. Potential
partners may include:
• Childcare providers
• Employers
• Nonprofit organizations
• Educational institutions
• Housing organizations
Last Updated June 2026 32
•Philanthropic foundations
Public-private partnerships can help distribute development costs, reduce
operational risks, and improve long-term sustainability.
8. Town Role in Childcare Facilities
The Town of Estes Park is not expected to directly operate childcare programs. Instead,
the Town’s most appropriate role is to serve as a strategic infrastructure partner that
helps make childcare facility development feasible, fundable, and sustainable. This role
may vary by site and project type, but should generally focus on land, facilities, capital
coordination, partnership development, lease structures, and long-term stewardship
of public investment.
The Town’s participation should be structured around the principle that childcare is
essential community infrastructure. Similar to housing, transportation, utilities, and
workforce development, childcare access supports family economic stability, employer
retention, school readiness, and the long-term vitality of Estes Park. Because the
private market is unlikely to independently produce the amount and type of childcare
needed, especially for infants and toddlers, the Town has a clear role in helping reduce
development barriers and organize public private solutions.
The Town may participate in childcare facility development through the following roles.
Landowner
The Town can support childcare expansion by making publicly owned land available for
facility development where sites are suitable and aligned with community need. This role
is most relevant for Town owned properties such as Dry Gulch and Mountaintop, where
public ownership can reduce acquisition costs, improve project control, and create a
stronger platform for grants, philanthropy, and provider partnerships.
New Construction Model (Representative example: Dry Gulch) represents the clearest
long-term land-based opportunity. The site is Town owned, vacant, relatively flat, and
large enough to accommodate a purpose-built facility, outdoor play area, parking,
circulation, and future expansion. Because utilities are present and the site has
substantial development capacity, Dry Gulch could serve as a future childcare
infrastructure asset if the Town chooses to pursue new construction or a phased campus
model. This site may be especially appropriate for a larger, purpose-built facility or a mixed
Last Updated June 2026 33
public private project that allows the Town to retain land ownership while partnering with a
nonprofit provider, developer, or other community entity.
Expansion Model (representative example: Mountaintop Childcare), the Town’s
landowner role is more immediate and targeted. Because the property is already used for
childcare and is Town owned, the Town can help advance an expansion strategy focused
specifically on infant and toddler care. This may include site planning, capital
improvements, building upgrades, outdoor play area improvements, parking and
circulation upgrades, and lease terms that support provider stability.
Facility Developer
The Town may also act as a facility developer or development sponsor when a childcare
project requires public leadership to move from concept to implementation. This does not
mean the Town would operate the program. Rather, the Town could lead or coordinate
predevelopment activities such as site due diligence, architectural feasibility, cost
estimating, entitlement review, grant applications, capital stack development, and
procurement.
This role is most applicable to New Construction or Expansion Models. At Dry Gulch, the
Town may need to lead early feasibility work before a provider or partner can commit to the
project. At Mountaintop, the Town may need to help scope and fund improvements that
allow the existing provider to expand infant and toddler capacity. In both cases, Town
involvement can reduce risk for operating partners and make the project more
competitive for external funding.
Re-Development Model (Representative Model: Presbyterian Community Church of the
Rockies), the Town’s facility developer role would likely be more limited unless a formal
partnership is established. Because the property is not Town owned, the Town may be
better positioned as a capital partner, lease partner, convener, or grant partner rather
than the primary developer. However, if the church and Town identify a shared use or
long-term lease opportunity, the Town could support feasibility analysis, licensing review,
renovation planning, and funding strategy.
Facility Owner
Facility ownership may be appropriate when the Town invests significant public resources
into a childcare facility or where long-term public control is necessary to preserve
community benefit. A Town-owned, provider operated model may be appropriate for
Last Updated June 2026 34
sites such as Dry Gulch or Mountaintop if the Town retains ownership of the land and
improvements while leasing the space to a qualified operator.
Town ownership can help ensure that a facility remains dedicated to childcare use over
time. It can also allow the Town to establish affordability expectations, priority
populations, maintenance standards, reporting requirements, and reinvestment
practices through a lease or operating agreement. However, ownership also creates long
term responsibilities for maintenance, capital replacement, insurance, compliance,
and asset management. For this reason, ownership should be paired with a clear
management, and operations plan before the Town commits to construction or major
renovation.
Lease Partner
The Town may serve as a lease partner by leasing Town-owned space to a nonprofit
childcare provider or by supporting a lease agreement between a nonprofit provider and a
third-party property owner. Lease partnerships are especially important for
redevelopment opportunities, shared-use facilities, and nonprofit or faith-based
properties. Prioritizing partnerships with nonprofit providers can help advance
community-serving childcare goals while leveraging the operational expertise and
mission-driven focus of established organizations.
For Expansion Model (Representative Model: Mountaintop), a lease structure should
support the provider’s ability to expand infant and toddler care while protecting the
Town’s long term facility interest. Lease terms may include reduced rent, phased rent,
maintenance responsibilities, required use of the facility for licensed childcare,
performance reporting, insurance requirements, and provisions for capital improvements.
For Re-Development Model (Representative Model: Presbyterian Community Church of the
Rockies), the Town could help facilitate a lease or shared use agreement between the
church and a qualified provider. This could be one of the most promising near-term
strategies because the site has strong physical attributes, including substantial building
area, ample parking, favorable circulation, and room for childcare use. The Town’s role
could include helping evaluate code, licensing, renovation, and operating requirements,
then supporting the provider and property owner in structuring a sustainable agreement.
Last Updated June 2026 35
Financial Partner
The Town should expect to remain a financial partner in childcare infrastructure,
particularly where projects address the highest priority needs, such as infancy and
toddler care, affordability, and workforce access. Financial participation may include.
•capital grants,
•matching funds,
•predevelopment funding,
•infrastructure support,
•fee reductions,
•lease subsidies,
•maintenance reserves, or
•operating support tied to public benefit.
Financial support should be targeted and performance based. Priority should be given
to projects that.
•Expand infant and toddler slots.
•Stabilize existing providers.
•Serve working families.
•Improve affordability.
•Demonstrate long term operational feasibility.
Based on current facility analysis, the strongest candidates for near term or phased
financial partnership are:
•Expansion model, because it builds on an existing childcare site and can directly
address infant and toddler capacity.
•Re-Development Model, because it offers a strong re-development or shared use
opportunity with significant building area, parking, circulation, and potential
capacity.
•New Construction, because it offers the strongest long-term Town-owned land
opportunity for a purpose-built childcare facility or phased development model.
The Town should not advance any major facility investment without confirming operating
assumptions, provider commitments, capital costs, licensing feasibility,
maintenance responsibilities, and the level of ongoing subsidy required.
Last Updated June 2026 36
9. Management and Operations Plan
9.1 Facility Ownership Models
Several ownership models may be appropriate depending on the site.
Town Owned, Provider Operated
The Town-Owned, Provider-Operated structure is most applicable to the Expansion and
New Construction facility development models. Under this structure, the Town retains
ownership of the land and facility, while a qualified provider operates the childcare
program through a lease, license, or operating agreement.
This model is especially appropriate where the Town contributes land, capital funds, or
major facility improvements. It allows the Town to establish clear expectations for
childcare use, define public benefit requirements, and ensure long-term stewardship
of public assets. It also provides childcare providers with greater facility stability and
predictability than a short-term private lease arrangement.
For Mountaintop, this model could support a focused expansion of infant and toddler
care.
The Town would continue to own the facility and work with the operator to identify
improvements needed for licensing, accessibility, outdoor play, parking, circulation,
and classroom use.
For Dry Gulch, this model could support a future purpose-built facility. The Town could
own the land and improvements, while selecting a qualified nonprofit or private provider to
operate the program.
Nonprofit or Faith Based Owned, Provider Operated
This model may be most relevant for re-development model (Representative model:
Presbyterian Community Church of the Rockies). The church would retain ownership of
the property, while a childcare provider operates within leased or shared space. The
Town’s role could include funding support, technical assistance, partnership
coordination, grant support, or limited capital investment in exchange for defined
community benefits.
This model may offer a faster and lower cost pathway than new construction if renovation,
licensing, and operating requirements are feasible. It also aligns with stakeholder interest
Last Updated June 2026 37
in expanding capacity through existing community assets rather than relying only on large
new facilities.
Public Private Partnership
A public private partnership model may be appropriate where multiple parties contribute
to a facility solution. Partners may include the Town, childcare providers, employers,
philanthropic organizations, Larimer County partners, early childhood organizations,
churches, housing partners, or developers.
This model may be especially relevant for new construction (Representative model: Dry
Gulch) if the site is developed as part of a broader community infrastructure strategy, or for
re-development (representative model: Presbyterian Community Church) if the facility
requires shared funding and governance. In all cases, the partnership should clearly
define.
•Ownership
•Capital contributions.
•Operating responsibilities
•Maintenance obligations
•Affordability expectations
•Reporting requirements
•Decision-making authority
Ownership Model Most Applicable
Model Town Role Complexity
Town-Owned,
Provider-Operated
New Construction,
Expansion Owner/Landlord Moderate
Nonprofit/Faith-Based
Owned Re-development Partner/Funder Low-
Moderate
Public-Private
Partnership
New Construction, Re-
development
Convener/Capital
Partner High
Last Updated June 2026 38
9.2 Leasing Framework
For Town owned or Town supported facilities, the lease should be structured to balance
provider’s affordability with public accountability. The lease should be simple enough to
support provider stability, but strong enough to protect the Town’s investment.
A recommended leasing framework should include the following elements:
• Permitted use. The facility should be used primarily for licensed childcare, with
priority for infants and toddler care where feasible.
• Term. The lease should provide enough duration for the provider to operate
sustainably and justify investments in staffing, licensing, classroom materials, and
program development. A longer initial term with renewal options is preferred over a
short annual lease.
• Rent structure. Rent may be reduced, phased, or nominal where the provider
delivers defined public benefits, such as infant and toddler slots, subsidy
participation, extended hours, or service to local workforce families.
• Maintenance responsibilities. The lease should clearly distinguish between
operator’s responsibilities and owner’s responsibilities. The provider should
generally be responsible for routine cleaning, minor maintenance, classroom
equipment, and program related wear. The owner should generally be responsible
for major building systems, structural elements, roof, utilities infrastructure, and
long-term capital replacement unless otherwise negotiated.
• Capital improvements. Any capital improvements funded by the Town should be
documented in the lease or a separate improvement agreement. The agreement
should specify ownership of improvements, procurement requirements,
maintenance obligations, and what happens if the provider leaves the facility.
• Licensing and compliance. The operator should be responsible for maintaining all
childcare licenses, staff qualifications, background checks, health and safety
practices, and program compliance. The Town should not assume responsibility for
childcare licensing operations unless explicitly required by law or agreement.
• Performance reporting. The provider should submit annual reports documenting
enrollment, age groups served, infant and toddler capacity, subsidy participation,
waitlist trends, staffing levels, affordability measures, and facility issues.
• Public benefit commitments. Where the Town provides below market rent, capital
funding, or other support, the lease should define expected public benefits. These
may include a minimum number of infant and toddler slots, participation in tuition
assistance programs, service to Estes Valley residents or workers, or collaboration
with local referral systems.
Last Updated June 2026 39
9.3 Financial Model
Expanding childcare capacity in the Estes Valley will require significant capital
investment regardless of the development approach pursued. Financial modeling and
conceptual facility planning conducted as part of this Master Plan demonstrate that
childcare facilities involve costs that extend well beyond building construction and should
be evaluated as long-term community infrastructure investments.
To better understand potential investment requirements, planning-level financial models
were developed for representative facility concepts associated with the development
models evaluated in this Master Plan. These models are intended to illustrate the relative
scale of capital investment, operating considerations, and financial risks associated
with different approaches to expanding childcare capacity. They should not be interpreted
as final project budgets or commitments to specific facilities.
To better understand the relative financial implications of different childcare facility
development approaches, planning-level financial models were developed for
representative facility concepts associated with the facility development models
evaluated in this Master Plan.
The table below summarizes key operating assumptions and projected financial
performance for representative expansion and new construction concepts. These
examples are intended to illustrate the scale of investment and ongoing operating
considerations associated with future childcare facility development opportunities. See
Appendix D for additional assumptions.
Model Type Expansion New Construction
Target Enrollment 49 children 98 children
Capital Costs Approx. $3.5M - $5.5M Approx. $7.5M - $13.7M
Annual Revenue Approx. $860K–$1.0M Approx. $1.6M–$2.4M
Annual Expenses Approx. $800K–$860K Approx. $1.3M–$1.6M
Net Profit
Approx. ($150,000) annual
profit assuming $100K
contribution YOY from 1B
+ 6E funding
Approx. ($102,000) annual
profit assuming $150K
contribution YOY from 1B
+ 6E funds
All financial models can bee seen in Appendix D.
Last Updated June 2026 40
These planning-level projections suggest that both facility concepts would likely require
ongoing operating support, particularly if the community wishes to prioritize infant and
toddler care while maintaining affordability for families. While the larger new
construction concept requires substantially greater upfront capital investment, it
generates a smaller projected operating deficit due to increased enrollment capacity
and economies of scale.
These findings reinforce a key theme throughout this Master Plan: expanding childcare
capacity requires both capital investment and a long-term strategy for operational
sustainability. Future facility development efforts should evaluate not only construction
costs, but also staffing requirements, enrollment assumptions, affordability goals,
funding partnerships, and ongoing operating support needs.
The financial analysis supports three primary facility development models identified
through the planning process:
Re-Development of Existing Community and Institutional Buildings
This model explores the conversion of existing buildings, such as churches, schools, and
community facilities, into licensed childcare spaces. Re-development can provide
opportunities to leverage existing structures, parking areas, and utility infrastructure while
reducing some site development costs.
As part of this planning effort, Presbyterian Community Church of the Rockies was
evaluated as a representative example of this model. The assessment focused on
determining whether the existing facility could reasonably support licensed childcare use.
During the evaluation, significant concerns were identified related to accessibility,
egress, fire-life safety requirements, and childcare licensing standards, particularly
within basement-level spaces.
Because these constraints substantially affected the feasibility of childcare operations,
the site did not advance to facility programming, enrollment projections, capital cost
estimating, or operating modeling. As a result, no financial model was developed for this
facility concept. Although Presbyterian Community Church of the Rockies was not
advanced into financial modeling due to identified facility constraints, it remains a useful
representative example of the Re-Development development model because it
illustrates both the opportunities and challenges associated with converting existing
institutional buildings to childcare use.
While re-development remains a potentially viable strategy in other circumstances, the
Presbyterian evaluation highlights the importance of conducting early feasibility
screening before investing significant resources in design or financial planning. Future re-
Last Updated June 2026 41
development opportunities should prioritize facilities that can reasonably accommodate
childcare licensing requirements with limited structural modification.
Expansion of Previously Operating Childcare Facilities
This model focuses on renovating, modernizing, and expanding facilities with an
established history of serving children and families. Because these facilities often contain
existing childcare infrastructure and community familiarity, they may present fewer
implementation barriers than entirely new facilities.
The following financial analysis is intended to illustrate the economics of the
development model and should not be interpreted as a project-specific budget.
Mountaintop Childcare was evaluated as a representative example of this development
model. The planning concept assumes approximately 5,557 square feet of childcare
space serving up to 84 children across multiple age groups.
Planning-level financial analysis estimates approximately $5.9 million in facility startup
costs and approximately $6.2 million in total startup expenses. These costs include
building improvements, code compliance upgrades, outdoor play areas, furniture and
equipment, professional services, contingencies, and startup expenses.
The operating model suggests that a facility of this scale would likely require ongoing
operating support, particularly if the community wishes to prioritize infant and toddler
care while maintaining affordability for families. Under the planning assumptions used in
the model, annual operating expenses exceed projected revenues by approximately
$500,000 at stabilized enrollment.
These findings suggest that expansion of existing childcare facilities may provide a lower-
cost pathway to increasing capacity than new construction, but operating sustainability
remains a critical consideration.
New Construction Opportunities
This model focuses on purpose-built childcare facilities designed specifically to meet
current licensing requirements, community needs, and long-term capacity goals.
Dry Gulch represents the clearest long-term land-based opportunity following
financial analysis is intended to illustrate the economics of the development model
and should not be interpreted as a project-specific budget.
The Dry Gulch concept was evaluated as a representative example of this approach. The
planning concept assumes approximately 15,005 square feet serving up to 98 children,
with a strong emphasis on infant and toddler capacity.
Last Updated June 2026 42
Planning-level financial analysis estimates approximately $13.7 million in facility startup
costs and approximately $14.0 million in total startup expenses. These costs include
site development, utility infrastructure, building construction, playground development,
furniture and equipment, professional services, contingencies, and startup expenses.
While new construction requires the highest upfront capital investment, it also provides
the greatest flexibility to design facilities specifically for childcare operations and future
community needs.
The operating model indicates that a facility of this size would likely require ongoing
operating support as well. Under the planning assumptions used in the model, annual
operating expenses exceed projected revenues by approximately $50,000 at stabilized
enrollment.
Community Return on Investment
The financial models indicate that future childcare facilities are unlikely to operate without
some level of ongoing subsidy or community support. This finding is consistent with
childcare systems throughout Colorado and across the country, particularly when
communities prioritize infant and toddler care and seek to maintain affordability for
families.
For this reason, childcare facilities should not be evaluated solely by their ability to
generate operating profit. Instead, they should be viewed as community infrastructure
investments that generate broader economic, workforce, and social benefits.
Expanding childcare capacity allows more parents and caregivers to participate in the
workforce, supports local employers struggling with recruitment and retention, reduces
employee absenteeism, and strengthens the long-term economic vitality of the Estes
Valley. Childcare investments also support school readiness, family stability, and
community sustainability.
Using the representative facility concepts evaluated in this Master Plan:
•An expansion model serving approximately 49 children could support dozens of
parents or caregivers in maintaining employment or increasing work hours.
•A larger new construction facility serving approximately 98 children could
significantly increase infant and toddler capacity while supporting workforce
participation across multiple sectors of the local economy.
•A community building redevelopment model serving approximately 69 children
could provide a cost effective middle path between small scale expansion and new
Last Updated June 2026 43
construction. By adapting an existing community, faith based, or nonprofit facility,
this model could increase infant and toddler capacity more quickly, reduce land
and construction costs, and support working families while making better use of
underutilized buildings already embedded in the community.
•Both models help address one of the most frequently cited barriers to workforce
recruitment and retention identified during stakeholder engagement.
Viewed through this lens, the annual operating gap reflected in the financial models
represents an investment in workforce infrastructure rather than a traditional operating
loss. Future funding decisions should therefore consider both the direct financial
performance of a facility and the broader community benefits generated through
increased childcare access.
Key Financial Findings
Several important findings emerge from the financial analysis.
1.All facility development models require substantial upfront investment. Even
expansion and renovation projects require significant capital resources to address
licensing requirements, accessibility improvements, facility modernization, and
outdoor play space development.
2.Operating sustainability remains a greater challenge than facility development
alone. Both modeled facility concepts generate annual operating deficits under
planning assumptions, indicating that future childcare expansion will likely require
a combination of tuition revenue, public investment, grants, employer participation,
philanthropy, or other community-supported funding sources.
3.Infant and toddler care remains both the community's highest priority and the
most financially challenging service to provide. Lower staff-to-child ratios and
higher operating costs contribute significantly to operating deficits but remain
essential to addressing the greatest unmet childcare need identified through the
needs assessment and stakeholder engagement process.
4.No single facility model should be viewed as a standalone solution. Each model
offers distinct advantages and challenges related to cost, implementation timeline,
capacity, and long-term sustainability. Future investment decisions should
consider both capital feasibility and operating sustainability while remaining
responsive to evolving community needs and funding opportunities.
The financial information presented in this Master Plan is intended to support future
decision-making and prioritization. Additional due diligence, design development,
Last Updated June 2026 44
market analysis, and operating planning should be completed before advancing any
specific facility project.
9.4 Governance Structure
A clear governance structure is essential for any Town supported childcare facility.
Governance should distinguish between policy oversight, facility ownership, program
operations, and community partnership.
The Town should be responsible for public investment decisions, facility ownership
responsibilities where applicable, lease administration, capital planning, partner
coordination, and monitoring public benefit commitments. The Town should not be
responsible for day-to-day childcare operations unless a future Board direction
explicitly changes that role.
The childcare operator should be responsible for licensing, staffing, enrollment, family
communication, curriculum, daily operations, quality standards, program budgeting,
and compliance with all applicable childcare regulations.
Property owners should be responsible for owner obligations defined in the lease or shared
use agreement, including any agreed upon building systems, insurance, access,
maintenance, and capital responsibilities.
Community partners may support referral systems, family navigation, workforce
development, tuition assistance, subsidy alignment, fundraising, employer
engagement, and ongoing assessment of childcare needs.
For major Town supported projects, the Town should consider creating a project specific
governance agreement or memorandum of understanding before committing
significant funds. This agreement should define:
• Partner roles and responsibilities.
• Capital contributions.
• Operating commitments.
• Facility ownership and lease terms.
• Maintenance and replacement responsibilities.
• Affordability and access expectations.
• Reporting requirements.
• Decision making procedures.
• Exit or transition provisions.
Last Updated June 2026 45
This governance structure will help ensure that the Town’s role remains focused,
transparent, and sustainable while allowing experienced providers to operate
childcare programs.
10. Priority Projects and Facility Pipeline
The facility assessment identified multiple approaches for expanding childcare capacity in
the Estes Valley. While each development pathway offers potential benefits, the Town's
limited resources require a strategic approach that prioritizes projects based on
community need, feasibility, readiness, cost, and long-term sustainability.
This section establishes a framework for evaluating future facility opportunities and
identifies an initial pipeline of priority projects that warrant further exploration and
investment.
10.1 Community Childcare Priorities
The facility assessment, landscape analysis, and stakeholder engagement process
consistently identified infant and toddler care as the most significant unmet need
within the Estes Valley childcare system.
Current estimates in Larimer County indicate that licensed infant capacity serves
approximately 17 percent of the estimated infant population, compared to 37 percent
for toddlers and 106 percent for preschool-aged children. While preschool capacity
generally exceeds estimated demand, access to care for children under three years of
age remains limited. These findings were reinforced through stakeholder interviews, which
consistently identified infant and toddler care as the highest priority for future
investment and expansion efforts.
One additional pathway for expanding infant and toddler care is for the Town to explore the
purchase and ownership of residential homes that can be converted into licensed family
childcare homes. Family childcare is a preferred model for many parents, particularly
those seeking smaller, more intimate settings for infants and toddlers, stronger caregiver
relationships, mixed age environments, and care that may better reflect family culture,
language, and schedules.
This model may also align well with operator potential in the Estes Valley, where some
prospective providers may be more interested in operating a small home-based program
than managing a larger center-based facility. Town owned homes could reduce one of the
largest barriers to entry for new providers by separating the cost of housing or facility
ownership from the business of providing care.
Last Updated June 2026 46
Under this approach, the Town could own the home and lease it to a qualified licensed
family childcare operator under terms that preserve the property for childcare use and
support affordability for families. This strategy may be especially valuable in residential
areas where families with young children live and where smaller scale care can be more
easily integrated into the neighborhood fabric. As a lower cost and more flexible alternative
to larger facility development, Town supported family childcare homes could create new
infant and toddler slots while building local provider capacity and expanding parent
choice.
As a result, future facility investments should prioritize opportunities that increase infant
and toddler capacity, particularly for children under 18 months of age. Facility expansion
efforts should also consider geographic access, provider sustainability, workforce
needs, and long-term operational feasibility.
Community Capacity Goal
Over the next five years, the Town and its partners should seek opportunities to create
approximately 5 to 10 additional infant childcare spaces through facility expansion,
renovation, adaptive reuse, and partnership opportunities. This target would meaningfully
increase access to infant care while reflecting current population estimates, existing
licensed capacity, and the community's demonstrated need for additional infant care
options. Future projects should be evaluated based on their ability to contribute toward
this goal while maintaining high-quality care environments and financially sustainable
operations.
The purpose of this target is not to establish a fixed development requirement, but rather to
provide a measurable benchmark that can guide future investment decisions and help
evaluate progress toward addressing the community's most significant childcare gap.
Age Group Estimated
Population
Estimated
Capacity
Estimated
Capacity as a % of
Population
Infants (0–18 months) ~60 5 8%
Toddlers (18–36 months) 138 15 11%
Preschool (3–5 years) 218 154 71%
Last Updated June 2026 47
Sources: Colorado Child Care Facilities Report as of February 2026; 2024 Childcare needs Assessment and
Strategic Plan
Data Note: Family childcare home capacity is estimated by allocating a portion of home slots to each age
group. Homes are assumed to contribute approximately 25% of infant and toddler capacity and 50% of
preschool capacity, reflecting typical enrollment patterns in mixed-age home settings.
10.1 Three development pathways
The facility assessment identified three development pathways that communities
commonly used to expand childcare infrastructure.
Approach Benefits Challenges
New Construction
maximum design
flexibility, long-term
capacity potential,
significant predevelopment
requirements
Re-development
conditions, accessibility
concerns as building codes have
improved, and licensing
constraints
Expansion of Childcare
Facilities
Existing community
familiarity, potential
licensing history,
lower implementation
upgrades may be required
No single pathway is appropriate for every opportunity. Future investments should be
evaluated based on site-specific conditions, provider interest, community need, funding
availability, and the goals for short- and long-term community planning.
10.2 Project Evaluation Criteria
Future childcare facilities should be evaluated using a consistent set of criteria to ensure
investments align with community priorities.
•Community Need: Projects should demonstrate the ability to address documented
service gaps, particularly infant and toddler care capacity.
•Site Readiness: Projects should be evaluated based on site control, zoning
compatibility, utility availability, access, parking, and development constraints.
Last Updated June 2026 48
• Operational Sustainability: Projects should demonstrate a viable operating model,
qualified provider interest, workforce availability, and long-term financial
sustainability.
• Public Benefit: Projects should support community goals related to affordability,
workforce participation, family access, and long-term childcare capacity.
• Partnership Readiness: Projects should demonstrate alignment among providers,
property owners, employers, nonprofit organizations, and public agencies.
10.3 Facility Development Model Pipeline
Based on the facility assessment, stakeholder input, and property evaluation process,
three facility development models emerged as the most viable pathways for
expanding childcare capacity in the Estes Valley. Rather than prioritizing specific sites,
this Master Plan recommends maintaining flexibility by advancing multiple
development models that can be applied as opportunities arise. The conceptual test-fit
analyses completed during this planning process illustrate how each model could be
implemented within the community.
Priority Model Representative Example Time
Horizon
Near-Term Expansion of Existing
Childcare Facilities Mountaintop 0–5 years
Medium-
Term
Re-Development of
Community Facilities
Presbyterian Community
Church of the Rockies 2–7 years
Long-Term New Construction Dry Gulch 5+ years
Model 1: Expansion of Previously Operating Childcare Spaces
This model focuses on renovating, modernizing, and potentially expanding facilities
that have historically served as childcare centers. These sites often benefit from existing
community familiarity, established locations, and infrastructure that may already
support childcare operations.
The Mountaintop Childcare test demonstrates how this model could be used to increase
licensed capacity, particularly for infants and toddlers, while building upon an existing
childcare location.
• Implementation Horizon: Near-Term
Last Updated June 2026 49
• Potential Town Role: Property owner, capital partner, lease partner
• Primary Objective: Expand capacity through strategic reinvestment in existing
childcare facilities.
• Conceptual Example: Mountaintop Child Care Test Fit
Model 2: Re-Development of Existing Community and Institutional Buildings
This model focuses on converting existing community-serving buildings into childcare
facilities. Re-development can provide opportunities to leverage existing structures,
parking, utilities, and community infrastructure while reducing the need for new
construction.
The Presbyterian Community Church of the Rockies test fit demonstrates how an
institutional facility could potentially be adapted to support childcare operations, subject
to further evaluation of licensing requirements, accessibility, building systems, and
renovation costs.
• Implementation Horizon: Medium-Term
• Potential Town Role: Convener, lease partner, grant partner, capital partner
• Primary Objective: Expand capacity through strategic partnerships and re-
development opportunities.
• Conceptual Example: Presbyterian Community Church of the Rockies Test Fit
Model 3: New Construction and Purpose-Built Childcare Facilities
This model focuses on developing new childcare facilities designed specifically to meet
current and future community needs. While requiring the greatest level of investment
and planning, purpose-built facilities offer the highest degree of flexibility and long-term
expansion potential.
The Dry Gulch test demonstrates how a Town-owned property could support a future
childcare facility as part of a broader community development strategy.
• Implementation Horizon: Long-Term
• Potential Town Role: Landowner, developer partner, facility owner
• Primary Objective: Preserve opportunities for future childcare infrastructure
development and long-term capacity expansion.
• Conceptual Example: Dry Gulch Test Fit
Last Updated June 2026 50
Together, these three models provide a flexible facility pipeline that can respond to
changing community needs, funding opportunities, provider interest, and site availability.
As future opportunities emerge, the Town can evaluate projects using the criteria
established in this Master Plan and determine which development model best aligns
with community priorities and implementation readiness.
10.4 Facility Pipeline Management
The Town should maintain an active facility pipeline rather than focusing exclusively on a
single project. Childcare opportunities often emerge unexpectedly through property
availability, funding opportunities, provider expansion plans, or partnership discussions.
Maintaining a pipeline approach allows the Town to remain flexible and responsive while
continuing to prioritize projects that best address community need and implementation
readiness.
Projects should be periodically reevaluated based on changing community conditions,
provider interest, funding availability, and facility feasibility findings.
11. Implementation Plan
The Childcare Facility Master Plan is intended to guide action over time rather than
identify a single development project. Implementation will require ongoing collaboration
among the Town, childcare providers, employers, nonprofit organizations, property
owners, regional partners, and funding agencies.
The recommendations contained in this plan are intended to create a phased pathway for
expanding childcare capacity while maintaining flexibility as opportunities emerge.
11.1 Phase One: Policy and Partnership Development (0–2 Years)
The first phase focuses on creating the conditions necessary for successful facility
development.
Actions
•Adopt childcare-friendly land use and zoning policies.
•Establish a public-private childcare infrastructure partnership framework.
•Develop priority project evaluation criteria.
•Continue coordination with providers, employers, and community partners.
Last Updated June 2026 51
• Identify grant and funding opportunities.
• Advance due diligence activities for Mountaintop and Presbyterian Community
Church.
Lead Parties
• Town of Estes Park
• Larimer County/NOCO Kids Thrive
• Childcare providers
• EPIC and community partners
• Larimer County and regional agencies
Expected Outcomes
• Reduced regulatory barriers.
• Increased project readiness
• Stronger community partnerships
• Improved funding competitiveness
11.2 Phase Two: Facility Advancement (1-3 Years)2
The second phase focuses on advancing projects capable of increasing childcare
capacity in the near and medium term.
Actions
• Pursuing improvements and expansion opportunities at Mountaintop and other
Town owned facilities.
• Evaluate re-development feasibility for the Presbyterian Community Church of the
Rockies model.
• Secure funding commitments and partnership agreements.
• Develop operating pro formas and facility management plans.
• Advance infant and toddler capacity expansion opportunities.
Lead Parties
• Town of Estes Park
• Facility operators
• Property owners
2 Estimated timelines are intended as planning assumptions and may be influenced by funding availability,
local approval processes, development requirements, and community decision-making timelines.
Accelerated implementation may be possible where resources, approvals, and project coordination are
prioritized.
Last Updated June 2026 52
•Funding partners
Expected Outcomes
•Increased childcare capacity.
•Additional infant and toddler slots
•Expanded provider stability
•Stronger Public-private partnerships
11.3 Phase Three: Long-Term Infrastructure Development (5+ Years)
The third phase focuses on preserving and advancing strategic long-term facility
opportunities.
Actions
•Maintain the Dry Gulch model as a strategic childcare development opportunity for
future planned residential and mixed use development.
•Complete additional engineering and feasibility work.
•Pursue long-term capital funding opportunities.
•Evaluate opportunities for mixed-use and partnership based developments
regardlesss of town facility ownership.
•Monitoring community demand and adjusting facility priorities as needed.
Lead Parties
•Town of Estes Park
•Future development partners
•Childcare operators
•Funding agencies
Expected Outcomes
•Long-term childcare infrastructure capacity
•Future development readiness
•Greater system resilience and flexibility
11.4 Monitoring and Evaluation
Implementation progress should be reviewed annually to ensure investments continue to
align with community needs and changing market conditions.
Key performance indicators may include:
•Number of licensed childcare slots created.
Last Updated June 2026 53
•Number of infants and toddler slots created.
•Childcare affordability measures
•Provider participation and sustainability
•Public and private funding leveraged.
•Facility projects are advanced or completed.
•Geographic distribution of childcare services
Annual evaluation will allow the Town to refine priorities, adjust investments, and respond
to emerging opportunities while maintaining focus on long-term community goals.
12.Financial Strategy
12.1 Financial Strategy Principles
The Town should evaluate childcare facility investments using the following financial
principles.
•Prioritize infant and toddler capacity. Public dollars should be directed first
toward projects that address the largest documented gap in the local childcare
system. The Master Plan identifies infant and toddler care as the most pressing
supply challenge, with infant capacity meeting only a portion of local need.
•Invest in feasible, scalable projects. Given Estes Valley’s limited land availability,
high construction costs, and mountain geography, the Town should avoid
overcommitting to large scale facilities without confirmed partners, funding, and
operating assumptions. Targeted and phased approaches are better aligned with
local conditions.
•Separate capital feasibility from operating feasibility. A project may be fundable
from a construction standpoint but still unsustainable once it is open. Each priority
project should include a capital budget, operating pro forma, subsidy estimate, and
long-term maintenance plan before final approval.
•Leverage public assets to reduce project costs. Town owned land and facilities
can reduce acquisition costs, improve competitiveness for grants, and give the
Town greater control over long term community benefit. This is especially relevant
for Dry Gulch and Mountaintop, both of which are Town owned properties.
•Use public funding to secure public benefit. Where the Town provides land,
capital, reduced rent, or operating support, agreements should define expected
outcomes, such as infant and toddler slots, affordability commitments, subsidy
participation, workforce access, reporting requirements, and continued childcare
use.
Last Updated June 2026 54
12.2 Capital Costs
Capital costs will vary significantly by development pathway. The three priority models for
evaluation, expansion of existing childcare facilities, re-development of community
facilities and new construction models each carry different cost profiles. See Appendix
C for information on capital costs.
Expansion of Childcare Facility:
Representative Example: Mountaintop Expansion
Mountaintop should be treated as a near-term capital investment opportunity focused on
expanding or improving infant and toddler care. The property is Town owned, currently
identified as an expansion opportunity, and childcare is allowed by right. However, the
report card identifies several facility issues, including no loading zone, complicated
parking layout, lack of ADA stalls or accessible route, poor accessibility, noncompliant
kitchen and restrooms, low capacity, and likely building system modifications.
Likely capital cost categories include:
•Predevelopment and design: Architectural feasibility, licensing review, civil
engineering, cost estimating, accessibility review, and fire and life safety review.
•Building improvements: Restroom upgrades, kitchen upgrades, classroom
modifications, accessibility improvements, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing
upgrades, and code compliance improvements.
•Site improvements: Drop off and loading zone improvements, parking
reconfiguration, ADA parking and accessible routes, playground surfacing, fencing,
shade, equipment, and outdoor infant toddler play area improvements.
•Program startup costs: Furniture, fixtures, equipment, cribs, classroom materials,
food service equipment, security systems, and licensing related supplies.
Mountaintop is likely the most actionable near-term project, but its capital budget
should be carefully scoped to determine whether the site can meaningfully expand infant
and toddler capacity or whether investment would primarily stabilize existing operations.
Re-Development of Community Facilities
Representative Example: Presbyterian Community Church
Presbyterian Community Church of the Rockies should be evaluated as a high priority re-
development and partnership opportunity. The property report card identifies strong site
conditions, including ample playground space, ideal loading zone potential, parking that
appears to exceed childcare needs, adequate area to expand, utilities present, a large
Last Updated June 2026 55
building, and high potential capacity, though accessibility, adaptive use, and building
systems require further investigation.
Likely capital cost categories include:
•Due diligence: Lease feasibility, building inspection, licensing review, fire and life
safety review, accessibility assessment, environmental review, and shared use
analysis.
•Re-development improvements: Classroom conversions, restroom upgrades,
child height fixtures, secure entry, interior circulation improvements, kitchen or
food preparation improvements, staff areas, storage, and possible separation
between church and childcare uses.
•Site and playground improvements: Playground design, surfacing, fencing, age
separated outdoor play areas, accessible routes, signage, lighting, and drop off
improvements.
•Building systems: Mechanical, electrical, plumbing, ventilation, fire alarm,
sprinkler, security, and technology upgrades as required.
Because this site is not Town owned, the Town should avoid major capital investment
unless the lease or partnership agreement protects public benefit over a sufficient term.
Any Town contribution should be tied to defined childcare use, affordability goals, infant
and toddler capacity, and repayment or recapture provisions if the use ends early.
New Construction
Representative Example: Dry Gulch
Dry Gulch should be treated as the strongest long term Town owned land opportunity.
The property is vacant, Town owned, 4.08 acres, relatively flat, and has water, power, and
gas utilities present. It scored strongly for playground, parking, build or expand capacity,
and infrastructure, although right of way and grading complexities were noted.
Likely capital cost categories include:
•Predevelopment: Site planning, survey, geotechnical analysis, civil engineering,
environmental review, traffic analysis, utility confirmation, schematic design, cost
estimating, and entitlement review.
•Site development: Grading, drainage, access, internal circulation, parking,
sidewalks, lighting, utility extensions, stormwater infrastructure, landscaping,
fencing, and playground development.
Last Updated June 2026 56
•Building construction: Purpose built classrooms, infant and toddler rooms,
preschool rooms if included, kitchen, staff areas, administrative space, storage,
restrooms, laundry, mechanical rooms, and family entry areas.
•Outdoor play: Age separated play yards, accessible surfacing, shade, equipment,
storage, and fencing.
•Soft costs and contingency: Architecture, engineering, permitting, legal,
inspection, project management, insurance, financing costs, escalation, and
contingency.
Dry Gulch will likely require the largest capital commitment and longest timeline. It should
proceed only if the Town confirms a provider partner, a sustainable operating model, a
viable capital stack, and long-term maintenance obligations.
12.3 Operating Subsidies
Operating subsidies will be necessary if the Town wants to expand care for infants and
toddlers while preserving affordability for families. Tuition alone is unlikely to cover the
full cost of care for the highest need age groups, especially in a high-cost community
where staffing, housing, and facility costs are significant barriers.
The operating subsidy strategy should include four primary categories.
•Affordability subsidies. These funds reduce the cost of care for families and may
be administered through tuition assistance, scholarships, CCCAP alignment, or
local 6E supported programs. The Master Plan notes that 6E funding has already
expanded tuition assistance and helped serve more families.
•Workforce stabilization subsidies. These funds support wages, retention,
benefits, recruitment, training, and staff continuity. Workforce support is essential
because staffing shortages and educator retention are major constraints on
expansion.
•Facility operating subsidies. These funds help offset rent, utilities, insurance,
routine maintenance, custodial costs, and other facility related expenses. This may
be especially important for provider operated facilities in Town owned or partner
owned buildings.
•Infant and toddler classroom subsidies. These funds directly support the higher
cost of operating infant and toddler rooms. Subsidies may be structured as per slot
payments, classroom stabilization payments, or annual operating grants tied to
minimum enrollment and quality expectations.
Last Updated June 2026 57
For Town supported facilities, operating subsidy agreements should define the expected
number of infant and toddler slots, tuition assistance participation, local workforce
access, reporting requirements, and annual review process.
12.4 Funding Sources
The Town should pursue a blended funding strategy rather than relying on a single source.
Potential sources include:
• Town capital investment: Local capital funds may be needed for predevelopment,
matching funds, site improvements, facility upgrades, or direct construction costs.
Town capital investment should be prioritized for projects with clear public benefit
and long-term childcare use.
• 6E childcare funds: The 6E Lodging Tax Extension is already a major local funding
source for childcare, with support for tuition assistance, workforce stabilization,
facility expansion, and out of school programming. The Master Plan identifies 6E as
a critical foundation for continued childcare investment.
• Larimer County Ballot Measure 1B funds through Northern Colorado Kids
Thrive: Larimer County Ballot Measure 1B established a countywide 0.25% sales
and use tax for early childhood care and education beginning January 1, 2026. The
measure is intended to expand access to affordable, high-quality childcare and
preschool across Larimer County, with revenue expected to support family
affordability, early childhood workforce stabilization, provider capacity, targeted
capital improvements, program administration, and evaluation. Northern Colorado
Kids Thrive is expected to play a central implementation role, with application
processes, funding priorities, distribution structures, and local alignment
mechanisms still being developed for 2026 and beyond. Estes Park should closely
monitor the rollout of 1B funding and position priority projects for eligibility,
particularly those that expand infant and toddler care, strengthen existing
providers, improve facility capacity, and align with the measure’s intended uses.
These funds may be especially important for matching local 6E dollars, supporting
provider expansion into shared spaces, funding targeted facility improvements, and
helping close operating or affordability gaps that cannot be addressed through
capital funding alone.
• State childcare infrastructure funds: State grants may support facility planning,
renovation, construction, licensing improvements, or capacity expansion. Projects
with strong readiness, site control, local match, and demonstrated infant toddler
impact should be prioritized for applications.
Last Updated June 2026 58
• Federal grants: Federal resources may be available through community
development, economic development, workforce, early childhood, housing, or
infrastructure programs. Federal funds often require strong compliance systems,
matching funds, and longer timelines.
• Philanthropy: Local and regional foundations, private donors, and family
foundations may support capital campaigns, startup costs, classroom equipment,
outdoor play areas, affordability funds, or workforce supports.
• Employer contributions: Employers may participate through capital contributions,
reserved slots, employee childcare benefits, operating support, or partnership
agreements. Because childcare affects workforce recruitment and retention,
employer participation should be a core part of the funding strategy.
• Faith based or nonprofit property partnerships: For faith-based institution
owners, the property owner may contribute value through below market rent,
shared space, in kind facility access, or participation in capital fundraising.
• Private financing or low-cost loans: Debt should be used cautiously because
childcare operating margins are narrow. Financing may be appropriate only when
repayment is supported by a stable revenue stream, public subsidy, or long-term
lease structure.
• In kind public support: The Town may reduce project costs through land
contribution, infrastructure support, fee reductions, permitting coordination, grant
administration, technical assistance, or long-term lease support.
12.5 Funding Gaps
Several likely funding gaps should be anticipated before the Town advances any facility
project.
• Capital gap. Construction, renovation, accessibility upgrades, playground
improvements, and building systems work may exceed available grant and local
funds. This gap is most likely to be largest for new construction sites.
• Predevelopment gap. Early costs such as feasibility studies, design, legal work,
cost estimating, surveys, and due diligence often occur before grants or capital
commitments are secured. The Town may need to fund this stage directly to make
projects shovel ready.
• Operating gap. Infant and toddler classrooms may require ongoing subsidy
because staffing ratios limit revenue potential. This gap should be calculated before
committing to any expansion.
Last Updated June 2026 59
• Affordability gap. Even when childcare slots are available, many families cannot
afford the full cost of care. Local tuition assistance and subsidy alignment will
remain necessary.
• Workforce gap. Facility expansion will not succeed without adequate staffing.
Wage support, recruitment, training, and retention funding should be considered
part of the financial strategy.
• Maintenance and replacement gap. Town supported facilities will require long
term capital reserves for roof replacement, mechanical systems, plumbing,
electrical systems, playground replacement, flooring, accessibility improvements,
and other lifecycle costs.
• Partnership gap. Projects may stall if provider, employer, property owner,
philanthropic, or public agency commitments are not secured in writing. Before
major Town investment, the Town should require documented commitments from
key partners.
13. Recommendations
13.1 Recommended Financial Approach by Priority Project
Facility Model Primary Cost Focus Funding Strategy
Expansion
Near term Town
capital and
facility support
•
expansion
• Accessibility
• Playground
• Parking
• Building
• Town
• 6E Lodging Tax
• 1B Sales Tax
• State grants
• Philanthropy
Re-
Development
Re-
development
partnership
support
•
• Renovation
• Licensing
• Code upgrades
• Playground
• Building
• Shared lease
model
• Town contribution
• Philanthropy
• Employer support
• Grants
New
Construction
Long term Town
owned
development
opportunity
•
construction
• Site work
• Utilities
• Parking
• Playground
• Capital campaign.
• Town land
contribution
• State and federal
grants
Last Updated June 2026 60
•
management
•
philanthropic
13.2 Recommended Next Steps
The Town should take the following steps before finalizing any facility investment.
1.Review and refine planning-level capital cost estimates for the representative
facility concepts: Mountaintop Childcare (Expansion Model), Presbyterian
Community Church of the Rockies (Re-Development Model), and the Dry Gulch
Property (New Construction Model).
2.Develop and update operating pro formas for each concept, including
enrollment, staffing, tuition, subsidy revenue, operating expenses, and projected
funding gaps, to assess long-term sustainability.
3.Distinguish one-time capital costs from ongoing operating, maintenance, and
capital replacement expenses for each facility concept.
4.Develop a funding matrix identifying potential funding sources, eligible uses,
application timelines, match requirements, and funding potential for Mountaintop,
Presbyterian Community Church, and Dry Gulch.
5.Secure written commitments from operating partners, property owners,
employers, philanthropic organizations, and funding partners before advancing
construction, acquisition, expansion, or major renovations.
6.Establish maintenance reserve and capital replacement policies for any Town-
owned or Town-supported childcare facility to ensure long-term financial
sustainability.
The Town is not being asked to select a specific childcare facility project through this
Master Plan. Rather, the plan establishes a framework for evaluating and advancing
childcare facility opportunities as they emerge. The three development models provide a
flexible roadmap that allows the Town to respond to changing community needs,
partnership opportunities, funding availability, and site conditions over time.
Mountaintop Childcare, Presbyterian Community Church, and the Dry Gulch Property
serve as representative examples that illustrate the opportunities and challenges
associated with each development model. Future childcare investments should be
evaluated within this framework to ensure that decisions remain aligned with community
priorities, financial sustainability, and long-term childcare capacity goals.
Last Updated June 2026 61
14. Appendices
A. Child Care Facility Inventory
• Full 17-site inventory
• Scoring Methodology
• Evaluation Criteria
Childcare Facility Property Inventory (1).xlsx
B. Full Report Cards
• Individual property report cards
• Maps
• Photographs
• Site assessments
2026 0415 - PROPERTY REPORT CARDS.pdf
C. Conceptual Test Fit Analyses
• Mountaintop Test Fit
• Presbyterian Community Church of the Rockies Test Fit
• Dry Gulch Test Fit
Exhibit A - Property Site Assessments sm.pdf
D. Landscape Assessment
• Supporting data
• Demographic analysis
Estes Park Landscape Assessment.pdf
E. Stakeholder Engagement Materials
• Interview template
• Stakeholder lists
2026 Stakeholder Contacts (1).xlsx
Interview Template (2).docx
D. Financial Model Assumptions
The planning-level financial models were developed using assumptions intended to reflect
current childcare operating conditions in the Estes Valley. These assumptions are
designed to illustrate the scale of investment and operational requirements associated
with expanding childcare capacity and should be viewed as planning estimates rather than
Last Updated June 2026 62
forecasts.
Primary Reference will be ‘Self-Run P & L” Tab for run rate assumptions:
First Level Commercial – Property 1 (Dry Gulch)
Infant Toddler Expansion – Property 2 (Mountaintop)
Re-Development of Community Buildings – Property 3 (Presbyterian Community Church of
the Rockies)
Program Operations Assumptions
The models assume a year-round childcare program operating Monday through Friday
from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., with three professional development closure days annually.
Additional program assumptions include:
• Classroom ratios are based on Colorado childcare licensing requirements and
recommended staff-to-child ratios.
• Facilities operate as a Colorado Shines Level 1 or Level 2 program.
• Approximately 20% of enrolled children are assumed to be eligible for the Colorado
Child Care Assistance Program (CCCAP).
• Staffing plans include classroom teachers, assistant teachers, administrative
leadership, and support personnel necessary to maintain licensing compliance and
program quality.
• Enrollment is assumed to ramp up over multiple years before reaching stabilized
operations at approximately 85%–95% of licensed capacity.
Revenue Assumptions
Revenue projections are based primarily on tuition and enrollment assumptions.
• Tuition rates reflect current market conditions in the Estes Valley and vary by age
group.
• Infant care generates the highest tuition revenue, averaging approximately $23,000
annually per child, while preschool care generates approximately $17,000 annually
per child.
• Revenue projections assume tuition is the primary source of operating income and
do not include future grants, philanthropic contributions, employer investments, or
ongoing public operating subsidies unless specifically noted.
• At stabilized enrollment, annual operating revenue is estimated at approximately
$1.8 million to $2.0 million for the expansion model and approximately $2.2 million
to $2.4 million for the new construction model.
Last Updated June 2026 63
Operating Expense Assumptions
Personnel expenses represent the largest cost driver in both facility concepts.
•Personnel costs, including wages, payroll taxes, and benefits, are estimated to
account for approximately 65%–75% of total operating expenses.
•Employee benefits are assumed to equal approximately 28.1% of wages and
include health insurance, retirement contributions, payroll taxes, and other
employer-paid benefits.
•Infant and toddler classrooms require lower teacher-to-child ratios than preschool
classrooms, resulting in higher operating costs per child.
•Operating expenses include staffing, occupancy costs, programming supplies, food
service, insurance, administration, technology, and facility maintenance.
•Annual operating expenses are estimated at approximately $850K to $2.5 million for
the expansion model and approximately $1.3 million to $2.7 million for the new
construction model.
Because actual enrollment, staffing levels, tuition rates, labor costs, and operating
conditions may vary over time, these assumptions should be considered planning
estimates rather than forecasts. Additional due diligence and financial analysis should be
completed before advancing any specific childcare facility project.
Exhibit A
Estes Park
Childcare Facility Property Assessments
The Neenan Company
Attachment 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3 Dry Gulch - Property Assessment
5 Dry Gulch - Site Plan
6 Dry Gulch - Floor Plan
7 Dry Gulch - Building Program
8 Dry Gulch - Scope Narrative and Concept Construction Budget
16 Mountaintop – Property Assessment
18 Mountaintop - Site Plan
19 Mountaintop - Floor Plan
20 Mountaintop - Building Program
21 Mountaintop - Scope Narrative and Concept Construction Budget
29 Presbyterian Church – Property Assessment
31 Presbyterian Church - Site Plan
32 Presbyterian Church - Floor Plan
2
Dry Gulch
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT
PROPERTY INFO DOCS PROVIDED
Parcel #:2520309903 CCF Use:Conditional ☒ Site plan
Location:Lone Pines Acres SD Zoning:E (Estate) ☐ Floor plan
Status:Vacant ☐ Photos
Type:Town-owned Yr Built:N/A
Site area:4.08-acres Building area:N/A
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
•Infant age spaces are required to have two accessible egress paths out of the building
•Childcare use under 2 ½ years (occupancy group I-4) are required to be located on the level of exit
discharge (ground floor)
•Childcare space for children ages 2 ½ + years considered E (Education occupancy)
•Direct playground access from classroom required for toddler-age children (12M-36M)
•Loading zones required
•Accessible parking and path to building entry required
•Infants do not have restroom facility requirements. Toddler-age children are required to have direct
access to restrooms, while pre-school age children need them, but are not required to have direct
access
•Infants, toddlers and preschool-age children are required to have playgrounds, while infants and toddlers
are required to have direct access. See programs for information on area and shade required
SITE SPECIFIC COSTRAINTS
•Building setbacks: front: 25 ft. side: 10 ft. rear 15 ft.
•Max building height 30 ft.
•Parking: 1 space per 6-person capacity
•Off-street loading group 2
o Building < 10k sf = 20ft queue length
o Building > 10k sf = 35 ft queue length
•Access: Day care centers in the E, E-1, and RE residential zoning districts shall be adjacent to an arterial
street
CONSTRUCTIBILITY
SITE: The site exhibits a significant topographic change of approximately 20 feet across its narrower East-West
axis according to plans provided by the county. Primary access from Wildfire Road to the north offers the most
efficient grading profile, though the viability of this entry point remains to be confirmed. While access via Dry Gulch
to the east is a feasible alternative, it would necessitate extensive grading/retaining and likely constrain the
3
available parking footprint. Furthermore, the presence of subsurface rock remains an unknown variable that may
impact excavation.
BUILDING: Under the zoning district E height restrictions, the structure is limited to a maximum of two stories.
However, the site’s existing topography presents an opportunity for a daylight lower level along the street frontage,
potentially increasing the total allowable square footage. This lower level could be used for other occupancy
types. Per building code, the childcare program must be situated on the level of exit discharge to ensure direct,
grade-level egress for all occupants, limiting the ability to use basement or 2nd floor level space.
The attached building program outlines a two-round childcare facility serving infants through age five. Space
requirements for areas, napping zones, restrooms, and playgrounds vary significantly by age group, directly
influencing spatial dimensions and adjacencies. While infants do not require restroom facilities, toddlers need
direct access to both restrooms and playgrounds. Preschoolers require access to these amenities as well, though
direct adjacency is not mandatory, albeit convenient.
VERIFICATION CHECKLIST
Items to investigate prior to proceeding with a project at this location:
• ALTA survey
• Geo-technical Report
• Civil engineering assessment to confirm building and parking pad extents
• Confirmation of site access availability
• Design team field survey of conditions
• Drainage study
• Phase I ESA
• Traffic study
4
7520
7540
7560
TRUE
NORTH 5
DRY GULCH ROAD
7520
7540
7560
DRY GULCH PROPERTY
ESTEST PARK, CO
CHILDCARE FACILITY
SITE PLAN
TRU
NORN100'0'50'100'
TODDLER AND
INFANT
PLAYGROUND
PRE-SCHOOL
PLAYGROUND
BUILDING
60 PARKIN
G
S
P
A
C
E
S
+
A
D
A
LOADING
Z
O
N
E
LOADING
Z
O
N
E
PLAYGROUND
DRY GULCH PROPERTY
ESTES PARK, CO
CHILDCARE FACILITY
SITE PLAN
100'0'50'100'TRU
NORN
16 PARKIN
GSPACES +
A
D
A
LOADING
Z
O
N
E
LOADING
Z
O
N
E
BUILDING
JAN
RR
RR
STAFFRR
RR
STO
KITCHEN
RR
STO
RR
RECEPT.
CLINIC
OFFICE OFFICE
OFFICEWORK
UTILITY
RRRR
STAFFRR
RR
STO
STAFFBR
RR
RR
STO
INDOOR
PLAY
6
DRY GULCH PROPERTY
ESTES PARK, CO
CHILDCARE FACILITY
FLOOR PLAN
15,005 SF
TRU
NORN
POTENTIAL ROOM USE LEGEND
INFANT
TODDLER
PRE-SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATION
SUPPORT
0'20'10'20'
CLASSROOM CLASSROOM
CLASSRO
O
M
CLASSRO
O
M
CLASSRO
O
M
CLASSRO
O
M
CLASSRO
O
M
CLASSRO
O
M
CHILDCARE FACILITY - DRY GULCH
SPACE TOTAL
CHILDREN
CHILDREN /
RM
SF / CHILD
RQMT.
ROOM SIZE ROOM QTY TOTAL SF NOTES
CHILDCARE SPACES 98 5,580
CLASSROOM 20 10 60 600 2 1,200 Handwash sink.
CLASSROOM 20 10 60 600 2 1,200 Handwash sink
RESTROOM : WC + LAV 70 2
CLASSROOM 28 14 50 700 2 1,400 Handwash sink
RESTROOM : WC + LAV 70 2 140
CLASSROOM 15 15 50 750 1 750 Handwash sink
RESTROOM : WC + LAV 70 1 70
CLASSROOM 15 15 50 750 1 750 Handwash sink
RESTROOM : WC + LAV 70 1 70
SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION & SUPPORT 5,535
RECEPTION 535 1 535
OFFICES 150 3 450
STAFF WORK 200 1 200
STAFF BREAK 330 1 330
STORAGE 100 3 300
KITCHEN 750 1 750
STAFF TOILET 70 1 70
CLINIC W/ TOILET RM 200 1 200
INDOOR PLAY 2,700 1 2,700
BUILDING PROGRAM SUMMARY 15,005
TOTAL STUDENTS 98
TOTAL NET SF 11,115
CIRCULATION & SUPPORT SPACES - 35%3,890
TOTAL GROSS SF 15,005
SF PER STUDENT 153
PLAYGROUND PROGRAM 6,250
INFANT 20 400 1 400
TODDLER 48 75 3,600 1 3,600 (1) 300 sf sunshade structure
PRESCHOOL 30 75 2,250 1 2,250
TOTAL GROSS SF 98 6,250
PARKING PROGRAM
PARKNG SPACES 98 - 16 - 20x10 spaces + ADA
7
June 2026
Estes Park Daycare – Dry Gulch
Scope Clarifications for Schematic Design
Project #3596
Project Description
The proposed project: A new 15,005 sf building to be located on Dry Gulch Road in Estes Park, CO. The primary structure will be
single story, steel framed with a flat roof. Exterior cladding will primarily be brick and stucco. The building is designed as a daycare
center with eight classrooms and supporting restrooms, an admin. suite with reception and private offices, a breakroom, an indoor
play area and a full production kitchen. The site will have a fenced playground, landscaped areas, and required parking. A trash
enclosure is included. Below are the assumed conditions and anticipated finishes.
Division 1 – General Requirements
Clarifications:
1) General supervision and management of the construction project.
2) Travel & lodging expenses.
3) Printing/reproduction and electronic drawing management.
4) Quality control.
5) Temporary toilets & sanitation stations.
6) Construction signage.
7) Construction cleaning and waste management.
8) Final clean.
9) Health safety management, signage & supplies.
10) Anticipated full-time staff: Project Manager, Superintendent, and Field Engineer (on site for 12 months).
11) Parking for trades will be accomplished on site or within close proximity to the site.
12) On Site Construction office trailer and two conex storage containers.
13) Perimeter construction fence.
14) Temporary heating allowance ($60,000).
15) Weather conditions allowance ($25,000).
Exclusions:
1) Schedule/manpower acceleration costs may be required as the scope and schedule are further defined and
developed. No Neenan manpower acceleration costs are included in the current budget.
2) Tap fees
3) FF&E
Division 2 – Existing Conditions
Clarifications:
1) Site clearing.
Exclusions:
1) None
Division 3 - Concrete
Clarifications:
1) Spread footings for perimeter of building.
8
June 2026
2) Perimeter concrete stem walls.
3) Column pad footings.
4) Interior slab-on-grade.
5) Concrete reinforcing.
6) Concrete pump, placing, and finishing.
Exclusions:
1) Colored concrete.
Division 4 - Masonry
Clarifications:
1) Brick Veneer for approximately 60% of the building enclosure.
2) CMU block for three-sided trash enclosure.
Exclusions:
1) None
Division 5 - Steel
Clarifications:
1) Anchor bolts.
2) Structural steel - building.
3) Structural steel – entry canopies.
4) Steel lintels, ledgers & supports
5) Trash enclosure gates.
6) Misc. metals.
Exclusions:
1) None
Division 6 – Wood, Plastics and Composites
Clarifications:
1) Installation of doors, frames, & hardware.
2) Wood blocking.
3) Parapet sheathing and cap blocking.
4) Standard base cabinets with solid surface countertops and upper cabinets. Approximately 14 lf in each classroom,
breakroom, clinic, and admin workroom.
5) One tall casework cabinet in each classroom.
6) 15 small cubbies with coat hooks in each classroom.
7) Allowance for reception desk and supporting millwork.
8) Synthetic stone windowsills.
Exclusions:
1) None
Division 7 – Thermal & Moisture
Clarifications:
1) Waterproofing and insulation board at foundation stem walls.
2) Wall and roof thermal insulation.
9
June 2026
3) Continuous building weather barrier.
4) 60 mil EPDM membrane roofing.
5) Two roof access hatches.
6) Stucco for approximately 40% of the building enclosure.
7) Flashings, sealants & caulking.
Exclusions:
1) None
Division 8 – Openings
Clarifications:
1) Hollow metal exterior & interior door frames.
2) Hollow metal exterior doors.
3) Interior wood doors (species TBD).
4) Sidelights at classrooms.
5) Exterior storefront windows (800 sf).
6) Door hardware.
7) Auto openers at main entry (2 each).
Exclusions:
1) Access control software system and computer control hardware.
Division 9 – Framing/ Drywall
Clarifications:
1) Steel stud framing with “Dens-Glas” sheathing for exterior enclosure.
2) Drywall on light gage metal framing for interior partitions.
3) Level 4 finish throughout.
4) Sound insulation included on all interior partitions.
5) Fire-safing where required.
Exclusions:
Division 9 – Ceiling Finishes
Clarifications:
1) 2x4 flat non-directional fissured acoustical ceiling tile in standard 15/16” grid in classrooms, corridors, and office
area.
2) 2x4 flat vinyl coated acoustical ceiling tile in standard 15/16” grid in kitchen & clinic.
3) Gyp board ceilings in restroom.
4) Painting of all drywall ceilings.
5) Painted exposed ceiling structure for indoor play area.
Exclusions:
1)
Division 9 – Floor Finishes
Clarifications:
1) Ceramic or porcelain floor tile in restrooms.
2) Tile base in restroom.
3) Sealed concrete floors in mechanical rooms and storage rooms.
10
June 2026
4) Luxury vinyl tile (LVT) in classrooms, breakroom, clinic, & corridors.
5) Carpeting throughout the office area.
6) Seamless epoxy flooring with integral cove base in kitchen.
7) Standard 4” rubber base on all other drywall partitions within office area.
8) Moisture mitigation of floor slab.
9) Entry mats at all exterior doors.
10) “Sport court flooring” in indoor play room.
11) Floor moisture tests will be taken at areas of sensitive flooring installation and information provided to owner.
Exclusions:
1) Epoxy grout.
Division 9 – Wall Finishes
Clarifications:
1) Interior painting of drywall partitions.
2) Painting of all hollow-metal door & sidelight frames.
3) Painting of hollow-metal doors.
4) Paint/stain wood doors.
5) Ceramic tile as required on wet walls in restroom.
6) Accent tile, not to exceed 10%.
7) Painting steel bollards.
8) Misc. exterior painting: lintels, flashing, etc.
9) Painting trash enclosure gates.
10) FRP wall paneling in kitchen.
Exclusions:
1) Site elements painting other than noted above.
2) Epoxy grout.
Division 10 – Specialties
Clarifications:
1) Fabric tackboards in each classroom (approx. size 4’x 8’)
2) Marker boards in each classroom (approx. size 4’x 8’)
3) Standard interior code required signage.
4) Exterior address numbers.
5) Corner guards where required.
6) Toilet accessories included in new restrooms:
a) Electric hand dryers.
b) Soap dispenser.
c) Coat hooks.
d) Toilet paper dispenser.
e) Toilet seat dispenser.
f) Paper towel/trash combo.
g) Feminine napkin receptacle.
h) Framed mirror.
i) Grab bars.
7) Paper towel dispensers at all sinks.
8) Knox box.
9) Fire extinguishers & cabinets
11
June 2026
10) Exterior shade structure for playground.
Exclusions:
1) Metal lockers.
Division 11 – Equipment
Clarifications:
1) Food service equipment.
2) Playground equipment allowance $120,000
Exclusions:
1) None.
Division 12 – Furnishings
Clarifications:
1) Window treatments for exterior windows.
Exclusions:
1) Black-out shades.
Division 13 – Special Construction
Clarifications:
1) None
Exclusions:
1) None.
Division 21 – Fire Suppression
Clarifications:
1) A fire sprinkler system is included.
2) Ansul system for kitchen hood.
Exclusions:
1) None.
Division 22 – Plumbing
Clarifications:
1) Water closets (12).
2) Urinal (0).
3) Under counter lavs (12).
4) Classroom sinks (10).
5) Breakroom sink w/disposal (1).
6) Clinic sink (1).
7) Washer connection box (1).
8) Drinking fountains (2).
9) Mop sinks (2).
10) 100 gallon water heater for kitchen.
11) Floor sinks (3).
12
June 2026
12) On demand water heaters for classrooms (3).
13) Internal piped roof drains (7).
14) Sanitary waste, vent and domestic water.
15) Floor drains where required.
16) Cleanouts.
17) Sanitary waste/vent (PVC).
18) Hot & cold water piping (PEX).
19) Domestic water backflow preventer.
20) Specialties & insulation.
21) Natural gas piping.
22) 1,500 gallon grease interceptor.
Exclusions:
1) Water meter pit.
2) Eye-wash station.
Division 23 – HVAC
Clarifications:
1) Roof top units (11).
2) VVT zone system & controls.
3) Restroom exhaust fans.
4) Kitchen exhaust.
5) Eight foot long, class one kitchen hood.
6) Galvanized sheet metal ductwork.
7) Diffusers, registers and grills.
8) Hangers, insulation, flexes, and misc.
9) Startup and one year warranty.
10) Plenum return air system.
Exclusions:
1)Commissioning agent.
Division 26 – Electrical
Clarifications:
1) New service & panels.
2) Lighting and controls.
3) Wiring devices & outlets.
4) Exterior building lighting.
5) Parking lot lighting.
6) Mechanical power wiring and connections.
7) EV charging station.
Exclusions:
1) Electric, telephone and internet utility company development fees or service charges.
2) Energy management system and wiring.
3) Lightning protection.
4) Painting of conduits.
5) Traffic control.
6) Warranty of owner supplied equipment.
13
June 2026
Division 27 – Communications
Clarifications:
1) Phone/data rough-in.
2) Access control wiring and devices.
3) Fire alarm wiring & devices.
4) Security wiring & devices.
5) Phone/data wiring & terminations.
Exclusions:
1) Audio-video systems.
2) Distributed antenna systems.
3) Clock systems.
4) UPS system or installation of owner provided UPS system.
5) Phone/data devices & equipment.
Division 31 – Earthwork
Clarifications:
1) Clear & grub site required for new building.
2) Cut & fill site, strive for a balanced site.
3) Excavating & backfill for building foundation.
4) Grading & compaction for concrete and asphalt paving.
5) Grading for playground and landscape areas.
6) Allowance for storm drainage with on-site “open” detention.
7) Import base materials for paving subgrade.
8) Erosion control.
Exclusions:
1) Disposing of contaminated soil.
2) Importing or exporting soil (intent is to balance on site).
Division 32 – Exterior Improvements
Clarifications:
1) Traffic control signs.
2) Asphalt paving.
3) Concrete curb & gutter.
4) Concrete sidewalks.
5) Light pole bases (6).
6) Parking lot striping & HC markings.
7) Playground surface.
8) Chain link fence surrounding playground area (approx. 600 lf).
9) Trash enclosure with metal gates.
10) Site furnishings; Bike rack, bench, & trash receptacle (2 ea).
11) Landscaping.
12) 1 Year landscape maintenance.
13) Dryland seeding.
Exclusions:
1) Site retaining walls.
14
June 2026
Division 33 – Utilities
1) Allowed for 50’ new 1” waterline.
2) Allowed for 775’ new fire-line service loop.
3) Fire hydrants (2).
4) Allowed for 150’ new sanitary sewer line.
5) Storm Water Conveyance:
a) Catch Basin (1).
b) Manhole (2).
c) Curb Inlet (4).
d) Back of curb subdrain (950’).
e) Flarred end section (3).
f) Storm detention area (6,000 sf).
6) Allowed for 250’ natural gas service.
7) Allowed for 50’ new electrical service.
Exclusions:
1) Utility tap fees.
2) Natural gas service fees.
3) Electrical service fees, assume new transformer will be placed within 50’ of the building electrical entry.
General Clarifications
1) All design, engineering, and preconstruction services are included.
2) General liability and builder’s risk insurance included.
3) Building permit & plan review fees included.
4) Sales and use tax are excluded.
5) Payment and performance bond are included.
6) Costs for utility usage during construction are included (water, electric, gas).
7) Development and tap fees, by owner. (anticipated costs)
a) Water- $10,000
b) Sewer- $20,000
c) Electrical development fee ?
d) Natural Gas ?
8) Testing / 3rd party inspections by owner.
9) Traffic study by owner.
10) Hazardous materials study/report provided by owner.
11) ALTA survey and land survey provided by owner.
12) Geotechnical and hydrology study provided by owner.
13) Furniture, furniture coordination, fixtures and equipment by owner.
14) We have not included land costs or financing.
15) The following pricing is deemed reliable for approximately 180 days. Escalation and inflation factors should be
applied for projecting anticipated construction costs beyond the end of 2026.
Construction Budget
-We anticipate the price range for all design and construction scopes of work as listed above for this project.
$12,900,000 to $13,700,000
-If a prevailing wage determination is required for this project, we would anticipate a price increase of $1,100,000.
-The breakout price (included above) for the sitework and utilities for this specific site are $1,900,000 to $2,100,000.
15
Mountaintop Property
PROPERTY ANALYSIS
PROPERTY INFO DOCS PROVIDED
Parcel #: 2530407914 CCF Use: By Right ☒ Site plan
Location: 1250 Woodstock Zoning: CO (Commercial) ☒ Floor plan
Status: Expansion Opportunity ☒ Photos
Type: Town-owned Yr Built: 1985
Site area: 0.87-acres Building area: 1,870 SF
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
• Infant age spaces are required to have two accessible egress paths out of the building
• Childcare use under 2 ½ years (occupancy group I-4) are required to be located on the level of exit
discharge (ground floor)
• Childcare space for children ages 2 ½ + years considered E (Education occupancy)
• Direct playground access from classroom required for toddler-age children (12M-36M)
• Loading zones required
• Accessible parking and path to building entry required
• Infants do not have restroom facility requirements. Toddler-age children are required to have direct
access to restrooms, while pre-school age children need them, but are not required to have direct
access
• Infants, toddlers and preschool-age children are required to have playgrounds, while infants and toddlers
are required to have direct access. See programs for information on area and shade required
SITE SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS
• Building setbacks: front: 25 ft. side: 50 ft. rear 15 ft.
• 65% lot coverage max
• Max building height 30 ft
• Parking: 1 space per 6-person capacity
• Off-street loading group 2
o Building < 10k sf = 20ft queue length
CONSTRUCTIBILITY & CONDITON
SITE: The site appears to be relatively flat, allowing for additional building and parking spaces on site. The
configuration of the building and parking on site creates difficulty with the vehicle traffic flow and limits the
potential for reconfiguration options of new parking and building additions. The property does not currently have an
accessible loading zone, or ADA parking spaces and accessible path to the building.
The current playground has limited ability to serve a childcare population and is not accessible. There is ample site
area to create an appropriate playground for the existing building, as well as a substantial addition.
16
BUILDING:
Accessibility: Kitchen space is not ADA compliant, as it does not offer front approach to the sink. The space
appears to be a dead-end galley kitchen without proper turn-round space for wheelchairs or clear space for
appliances. Countertops heights are presumed to be too high to meet commercial ADA standards, as residential
dishwashers typically are too tall. Range controls are out of ADA reach range.
The children’s restroom appears to have non-compliant toilets and grab bars, hand sinks and clearances. Staff
restroom has non-compliant door, sink and toilet access. Based on sheer number of non-complaint items, full
remodel is recommended for both restrooms.
Quality & Conditions: The building is of residential style with wood construction, asphalt sloped roofs and wood
siding. Siding, doors and trim need painting, caulking and repair. Interior space is primarily drywall walls, vinyl
plank flooring and ACT ceiling. Crawlspace has a dirt floor with no vapor barrier. The residential kitchen cabinets
are past their useful life. The building presumed to have ACMs (asbestos containing materials) throughout, in
drywall and ceiling tile systems according to the Phase 1 environmental report. Systems are currently in good
condition and not friable but could create complications for remodeling the space. Based on Radon mapping, the
property is presumed to be considered in EPA Zone 1, which has the highest potential of having radon present.
Program Adaptability: Small, dedicated spaces don’t offer the opportunity for easy modification/rearrangement.
With a potential addition, non-compliant spaces could be re-built in addition, while less demanding spaces
relocating to the existing building.
MEP: Furnace and water heater are of residential quality with limited ability for modifications to current heating
and cooling standards of a commercial childcare facility. General lighting appears to be fluorescent tube lights.
Capacity: The existing building has limited capacity to service as a childcare space. It’s in a single open room with
a temporary partition to create an infant sleeping area. An expansion of the facility would offer the ability of an
expanded program. See building program, floor plan and site plan for more information.
VERIFICATION CHECKLIST
Items to investigate prior to proceeding with a project at this location:
• ALTA survey
• Geo-technical Report
• Design team field survey of conditions
• Traffic study (if required by planning)
17
18
MOUNTAINTOP
PROPERTY ESTES
PARK, CO
CHILDCARE FACILITY
SITE PLAN
100'0'50'100'
EXISTING BUILDING
UT
I
L
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
UTI
L
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
TRNON
MOUNTAINTOP PROPERTY
ESTES PARK, CO
CHILDCARE FACILITY
SITE PLAN
EXISTING BUILDING
UT
I
L
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
UTI
L
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
TR
U
NO
R
N
30'0'15'30'
PLAYGROUND
LO
A
D
I
N
G
Z
O
N
E
13 PAR
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
S
5,557 S
F
BUILDI
N
G
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
RECEPTION MECH/ELEC/JANLOBBY
CLASSROOM
CLASSROOM
KITCHEN
CLASSROOM
RR
RR
CLASSROOMSTO
RR
RR
RR
CLASSROOM
RR
RR
STO
19
MOUNTAINTOP PROPERTY
ESTES PARK, CO
CHILDCARE FACILITY
FLOOR PLAN
5,557 SF
POTENTIAL ROOM USE LEGEND
INFANT
TODDLER
PRE-SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATION
SUPPORT
TR
U
NO
R
N
0'10'5'10'
CHILDCARE FACILITY - MOUNTAINTOP
SPACE TOTAL
CHILDREN
CHILDREN /
RM
SF / CHILD
RQMT.
ROOM SIZE ROOM QTY TOTAL SF NOTES
CHILDCARE SPACES 84 3,620
CLASSROOM 10 10 60 600 1 600 Handwash sink
CLASSROOM 15 15 45 675 1 675 Handwash sink
CLASSROOM 15 15 45 675 1 675 Handwash sink
RESTROOM : WC + LAV 70 1 70
CLASSROOM 24 24 30 720 1 720 Handwash sink
RESTROOM : WC + LAV 70 2 140
CLASSROOM 20 20 30 600 1 600 Handwash sink
RESTROOM : WC + LAV 70 2 140
SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION & SUPPORT 790
RECEPTION 150 1 150
LOBBY 100 1 100
KITCHEN 400 1 400
STORAGE 70 1 70
STAFF TOILET 70 1 70
BUILDING PROGRAM SUMMARY 5,557
TOTAL STUDENTS 84
TOTAL NET SF 4,410
CIRCULATION & SUPPORT SPACES - 26%1,147
TOTAL GROSS SF 5,557
SF PER STUDENT 66
PLAYGROUND PROGRAM 5,950
INFANT 10 400 1 400
TODDLER 30 75 2,250 1 2,250 (1) 300 sf sunshade structure
PRESCHOOL 44 75 3,300 1 3,300
TOTAL GROSS SF 5,950
PARKING PROGRAM
PARKING SPACES 84 - 14 - 24' drive aises, 20x10 spaces + ADA
20
June 2026
Estes Park Daycare - Mountaintop
Scope Clarifications for Schematic Design
Project #3596
Project Description
The proposed project: Addition and remodel of the existing building noted as “Mountaintop” at 1250 Woodstock Dr. in Estes Park,
CO. The existing structure is a single story, wood framed building with a pitched shingled roof and wood siding. The proposed
addition will match the existing structure and enclosure. All existing mechanical and electrical systems will be replaced along with
interior construction and finishes. The new/remodeled building is designed as a daycare center with five classrooms and supporting
restrooms, an admin. suite with reception and private offices, and a full production kitchen. Total building will be 5,557 sf. The site
will have a fenced playground, landscaped areas, and required parking. A trash enclosure is included. Below are the assumed
conditions and anticipated finishes.
Division 1 – General Requirements
Clarifications:
1) General supervision and management of the construction project.
2) Travel & lodging expenses.
3) Printing/reproduction and electronic drawing management.
4) Quality control.
5) Temporary toilets & sanitation stations.
6) Construction signage.
7) Construction cleaning and waste management.
8) Final clean.
9) Health safety management, signage & supplies.
10) Anticipated full-time staff: Project Manager and Superintendent (on site for 10 months).
11) Parking for trades will be accomplished on site or within close proximity to the site.
12) On Site Construction office trailer and one conex storage containers.
13) Perimeter construction fence.
14) Temporary heating allowance ($40,000).
15) Weather conditions allowance ($20,000).
Exclusions:
1) Schedule/manpower acceleration costs may be required as the scope and schedule are further defined and
developed. No Neenan manpower acceleration costs are included in the current budget.
2) Tap fees
3) FF&E
Division 2 – Existing Conditions
Clarifications:
1) Site clearing.
2) Interior demolition.
Exclusions:
1) None
21
June 2026
Division 3 - Concrete
Clarifications:
1) Spread footings for perimeter of building addition.
2) Perimeter concrete stem walls.
3) Column pad footings.
4) Interior slab-on-grade.
5) Concrete reinforcing.
6) Concrete pump, placing, and finishing.
Exclusions:
1) Colored concrete.
Division 4 - Masonry
Clarifications:
1) CMU block for three-sided trash enclosure.
Exclusions:
1) None
Division 5 - Steel
Clarifications:
1) Anchor bolts.
2) Structural steel – columns & beams to support wood structure.
3) Trash enclosure gates.
4) Misc. metals.
Exclusions:
1) None
Division 6 – Wood, Plastics and Composites
Clarifications:
1) Installation of doors, frames, & hardware.
2) Wood blocking.
3) Wood frame trusses and plywood roof sheathing.
4) Standard base cabinets with solid surface countertops and upper cabinets. Approximately 14 lf in each classroom
and admin workroom.
5) One tall casework cabinet in each classroom.
6) 15 small cubbies with coat hooks in each classroom.
7) Allowance for reception desk and supporting millwork.
8) Synthetic stone windowsills.
Exclusions:
1) None
Division 7 – Thermal & Moisture
Clarifications:
1) Waterproofing and insulation board at foundation stem walls.
2) Wall and roof thermal insulation.
22
June 2026
3) Continuous building weather barrier.
4) Asphalt shingle roofing.
5) Continuous sheet-metal gutters.
6) Corrugated metal downspouts.
7) Flashings, sealants & caulking.
Exclusions:
1) None
Division 8 – Openings
Clarifications:
1) Hollow metal exterior & interior door frames.
2) Hollow metal exterior doors.
3) Interior wood doors (species TBD).
4) Sidelights at classrooms.
5) Exterior storefront windows.
6) Door hardware.
7) Auto openers at main entry (1 each).
Exclusions:
1) Access control software system and computer control hardware.
Division 9 – Framing/ Drywall
Clarifications:
1) Steel stud framing with “Dens-Glas” sheathing for exterior enclosure.
2) Drywall on light gage metal framing for interior partitions.
3) Level 4 finish throughout.
4) Sound insulation included on all interior partitions.
5) Fire-safing where required.
Exclusions:
Division 9 – Ceiling Finishes
Clarifications:
1) 2x4 flat non-directional fissured acoustical ceiling tile in standard 15/16” grid in classrooms, corridors, and office
area.
2) 2x4 flat vinyl coated acoustical ceiling tile in standard 15/16” grid in kitchen.
3) Gyp board ceilings in restrooms.
4) Painting of all drywall ceilings.
Exclusions:
1)
Division 9 – Floor Finishes
Clarifications:
1) Ceramic or porcelain floor tile in restrooms.
2) Tile base in restroom.
3) Sealed concrete floors in mechanical rooms and storage rooms.
4) Luxury vinyl tile (LVT) in classrooms & corridors.
23
June 2026
5) Carpeting throughout the office area.
6) Seamless epoxy flooring with integral cove base in kitchen.
7) Standard 4” rubber base on all other drywall partitions within office area.
8) Moisture mitigation of floor slab.
9) Entry mats at all exterior doors.
10) Floor moisture tests will be taken at areas of sensitive flooring installation and information provided to owner.
Exclusions:
1) Epoxy grout.
Division 9 – Wall Finishes
Clarifications:
1) Interior painting of drywall partitions.
2) Painting of all hollow-metal door & sidelight frames.
3) Painting of hollow-metal doors.
4) Paint/stain wood doors.
5) Ceramic tile as required on wet walls in restroom.
6) Accent tile, not to exceed 10%.
7) Painting steel bollards.
8) Exterior painting: siding, lintels, flashing, etc.
9) Painting trash enclosure gates.
10) FRP wall paneling in kitchen.
Exclusions:
1) Site elements painting other than noted above.
2) Epoxy grout.
Division 10 – Specialties
Clarifications:
1) Fabric tackboards in each classroom (approx. size 4’x 8’)
2) Marker boards in each classroom (approx. size 4’x 8’)
3) Standard interior code required signage.
4) Exterior address numbers.
5) Corner guards where required.
6) Toilet accessories included in new restrooms:
a) Electric hand dryers.
b) Soap dispenser.
c) Coat hooks.
d) Toilet paper dispenser.
e) Toilet seat dispenser.
f) Paper towel/trash combo.
g) Feminine napkin receptacle.
h) Framed mirror.
i) Grab bars.
7) Paper towel dispensers at all sinks.
8) Knox box.
9) Fire extinguishers & cabinets
10) Exterior shade structure for playground.
24
June 2026
Exclusions:
1) Metal lockers.
Division 11 – Equipment
Clarifications:
1) Food service equipment.
2) Playground equipment allowance $80,000
Exclusions:
1) None.
Division 12 – Furnishings
Clarifications:
1) Window treatments for exterior windows.
Exclusions:
1) Black-out shades.
Division 13 – Special Construction
Clarifications:
1) None
Exclusions:
1) None.
Division 21 – Fire Suppression
Clarifications:
1) A fire sprinkler system is included.
2) Ansul system for kitchen hood.
Exclusions:
1) None.
Division 22 – Plumbing
Clarifications:
1) Water closets (7).
2) Urinal (0).
3) Under counter lavs (7).
4) Classroom sinks (5).
5) Washer connection box (1).
6) Drinking fountains (2).
7) Mop sinks (1).
8) 100 gallon water heater for kitchen.
9) Floor sinks (3).
10) On demand water heaters for classrooms (2).
11) Sanitary waste, vent and domestic water.
12) Floor drains where required.
13) Cleanouts.
25
June 2026
14) Sanitary waste/vent (PVC).
15) Hot & cold water piping (PEX).
16) Domestic water backflow preventer.
17) Specialties & insulation.
18) Natural gas piping.
19) 1,500 gallon grease interceptor.
Exclusions:
1) Water meter pit.
2) Eye-wash station.
Division 23 – HVAC
Clarifications:
1) Ground mount HVAC units (4).
2) VVT zone system & controls.
3) Restroom exhaust fans.
4) Kitchen exhaust.
5) Eight foot long, class one kitchen hood.
6) Galvanized sheet metal ductwork.
7) Diffusers, registers and grills.
8) Hangers, insulation, flexes, and misc.
9) Startup and one year warranty.
10) Return air system.
Exclusions:
1) Commissioning agent.
Division 26 – Electrical
Clarifications:
1) New service & panels.
2) Lighting and controls.
3) Wiring devices & outlets.
4) Exterior building lighting.
5) Parking lot lighting.
6) Mechanical power wiring and connections.
7) EV charging station.
Exclusions:
1) Electric, telephone and internet utility company development fees or service charges.
2) Energy management system and wiring.
3) Lightning protection.
4) Painting of conduits.
5) Traffic control.
6) Warranty of owner supplied equipment.
Division 27 – Communications
Clarifications:
1) Phone/data rough-in.
2) Access control wiring and devices.
26
June 2026
3) Fire alarm wiring & devices.
4) Security wiring & devices.
5) Phone/data wiring & terminations.
Exclusions:
1) Audio-video systems.
2) Distributed antenna systems.
3) Clock systems.
4) UPS system or installation of owner provided UPS system.
5) Phone/data devices & equipment.
Division 31 – Earthwork
Clarifications:
1) Clear & grub site required for building addition and site.
2) Cut & fill site, strive for a balanced site.
3) Excavating & backfill for building foundation.
4) Grading & compaction for concrete and asphalt paving.
5) Grading for playground and landscape areas.
6) Allowance for storm drainage with on-site “open” detention.
7) Import base materials for paving subgrade.
8) Erosion control.
Exclusions:
1) Disposing of contaminated soil.
2) Importing or exporting soil (intent is to balance on site).
Division 32 – Exterior Improvements
Clarifications:
1) Traffic control signs.
2) Asphalt paving.
3) Concrete curb & gutter.
4) Concrete sidewalks.
5) Light pole bases (2).
6) Parking lot striping & HC markings.
7) Playground surface.
8) Chain link fence surrounding playground area (approx. 1,000 lf).
9) Trash enclosure with metal gates.
10) Site furnishings; Bike rack, bench, & trash receptacle (1 ea).
11) Landscaping.
12) 1 Year landscape maintenance.
Exclusions:
1) Site retaining walls.
Division 33 – Utilities
1) Utilize existing building utility connections for domestic water, sanitary sewer, gas & electric.
2) Allowed for 415’ new fire-line service loop.
3) Fire hydrants (2).
4) Storm Water Conveyance:
27
June 2026
a) Catch Basin (1).
b) Manhole (1).
c) Curb Inlet (2).
Exclusions:
1) Utility tap fees.
2) Natural gas service fees.
3) Electrical service fees.
General Clarifications
1) All design, engineering, and preconstruction services are included.
2) General liability and builder’s risk insurance included.
3) Building permit & plan review fees included.
4) Sales and use tax are excluded.
5) Payment and performance bond are included.
6) Costs for utility usage during construction are included (water, electric, gas).
7) Development and tap fees, by owner. (assume existing utility services are sufficient for the larger building)
8) Testing / 3rd party inspections by owner.
9) Traffic study by owner.
10) Hazardous materials study/report provided by owner.
11) ALTA survey and land survey provided by owner.
12) Geotechnical and hydrology study provided by owner.
13) Furniture, furniture coordination, fixtures and equipment by owner.
14) We have not included land costs or financing.
15) The following pricing is deemed reliable for approximately 180 days. Escalation and inflation factors should be
applied for projecting anticipated construction costs beyond the end of 2026.
Construction Budget
-We anticipate the price range for all design and construction scopes of work as listed above for this project.
$5,500,000 to $5,900,000
-If a prevailing wage determination is required for this project, we would anticipate a price increase of $400,000.
28
Presbyterian Church
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT
PROPERTY INFO DOCS PROVIDED
Parcel #:2529300913 CCF Use:By Right ☒ Site plan
Location:1700 Brodie Ave Zoning:RM (multi-family) ☒ Floor plan
Status:Re-development ☐ Photos
Type:Residential Yr Built:1982
Site area:8.33-acres Building area:17,682 SF
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
•Infant-age spaces are required to have two accessible egress paths out of the building
•Childcare use under 2 ½ years (occupancy group I-4) are required to be located on the level of exit
discharge (ground floor)
•Childcare space for children ages 2 ½ + years considered E (Education occupancy)
•Direct playground access from classroom required for toddler-age children (12M-36M)
•Loading zones required
•Accessible parking and path to building entry required
•Infants do not have restroom facility requirements. Toddler-age children are required to have direct
access to restrooms, while pre-school age children need them, but are not required to have direct
access
•Infants, toddlers and preschool-age children are required to have playgrounds, while infants and toddlers
are required to have direct access.
SITE SPECIFIC COSTRAINTS
•Building setbacks: front: 25 ft. side: 10 ft. rear 10 ft.
•Max building height 30 ft.
•Parking: 1 space per 6-person capacity
•Off-street loading group 2
o Building < 10k sf = 20ft queue length
o Building > 10k sf = 35 ft queue length
•See floorplan diagram for code and licensing related conditions specific to this building. The noted
requirements are applicable to all childcare opportunities.
CONSTRUCTIBILITY
SITE: The site features substantial parking capacity, likely engineered for peak weekend assembly, which provides
significant surplus during weekday childcare hours. While parking is conveniently dispersed to allow multiple
building access points, the compliance of the current ADA-accessible paths—specifically regarding slope and
grading—requires further field verification.
The existing dedicated loading zone appears sufficient for student drop-off and pick-up, subject to an accessibility
audit. Additionally, the site offers ample footprint for playground development. However, significant grading and
29
retaining structures will likely be necessary to achieve ADA accessibility. Direct "classroom-to-playground"
egress is constrained by the building elevation and configuration and would need to accommodate licensing in an
unconventional approach.
BUILDING: The basement level spaces present a significant redevelopment challenge due to egress constraints.
Currently, the floor lacks a direct, accessible path to the exterior and is not situated on the level of exit discharge.
Under the International Building Code (IBC), these factors preclude the use of the space for children under the age
of 2½.
Furthermore, per the local fire marshal's assessment, the structure lacks both a fire sprinkler system and the fire-
rated assembly required for mixed-occupancy separation. Converting this area into a Group E occupancy would
necessitate a substantial capital investment, including the installation of a full-building sprinkler system and the
construction of code-compliant fire barriers to separate the basement from the levels above.
VERIFICATION CHECKLIST
Items to investigate prior to proceeding with a project at this location:
•Design & Construction team site walk to access existing conditions of the following
o Site grading assessment at potential playground areas
o Site assessment at loading zone and ADA parking
o Building assessment of ADA, egress, construction type, occupancy type and general condition
of spaces and their ability to be used for childcare.
30
PRESBYTERIAN
CHURCH PROPERTY
ESTES PARK, CO
CHILDCARE FACILITY
SITE PLAN
TR
U
NO
R
N
Potential Playground area
ADA Parking
Loading zone
100'0'50'100'
Existing
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
31
DOWN
973 SF
CLASSROOM STORAGE
STORAGEJAN / WORK
RR
RR
MECH
ELEC
STAIR
465 SF
CLASSROOM
403 SF
CLASSROOM
396 SF
CLASSROOM
433 SF
CLASSROOM
399 SF
CLASSROOM
STAGE
RR
MAINT.
PRESBYTERIAN
CHURCH BASEMENT
ESTES PARK, CO
FLOOR PLAN
TRU
NORN
0'20'10'20'
LEGEND
CLASSROOM SPACE
SUPPORT SPACE
GATHERING SPACE
NON-ACCESIBLE EGRESS ROUTES.
STAIR TO REACH PUBLIC WAY AT BOTH EXITS.
- CLASSROOMS ONLY HAVE ONE EXIT
- CLASSROOMS NOT AT THE LEVEL OF DISCHARGE
- DIRECT ACCESS TO PLAYGROUND NOT FEASIBLE
- CLASSROOM DO NOT HAVE ACESSIBLE RRs
OCCUPANY SEPARATION: FIRE RATING BETWEEN
UPPER FLOOR AND BASEMENT UNKNOWN
FIRE SPRINKLER CONDITION: UNKNOWN
USE OF STAGE SPACE: UNKNOWN
32
ESTES PARK CHILD CARE FACILITY
PROPERTY REPORT CARDS
CRITERIA
16 candidate properties were evaluated to determine their suitability for a childcare facility. Each site
was assessed using available data and scored on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = lowest, 5 = highest) across the
following categories.
SITE BUILDING
Playground
Can the site physically accommodate the required
accessible playground area?
Circulation
Are there sufficient space and safe loading space for
parent drop-off and pick up? Is the drop-off area
conveniently and accessibly connected to the
building?
Parking
Is there adequate on-site parking for staff and
visitors? Does the car park provide accessible routes
to the building entrance?
Build / Expand
Can the site accommodate any unmet program
needs? Is the terrain suitable for development, or
would slopes require significant grading and increase
construction costs?
Infrastructure
Are essential utilities (power, water, sewer, and
stormwater systems) available on-site?
Accessibility
Does the building provide the required level of
accessibility for its intended use? Criteria include
accessible doorways, paths, plumbing fixture
approaches, and restrooms.
Capacity
What is the maximum number of classrooms the building
can accommodate? Capacity is categorized as follows:
low (1 room), medium (2–3 rooms), and high (4 or more
rooms).
Quality / Condition
What is the overall condition of the building and what
level of effort would be required to bring it to a usable
standard?
Adapt / Use
Can the building be used largely as-is, or does it require
significant reconfiguration? Does the structural layout
support efficient and flexible reconfiguration?
Building Systems
What is the condition and capacity of the mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing systems? Are upgrades needed
to support the new use?
Attachment 4
SITE 1: DRY GULCH
PROPERTY INFO DOCS PROVIDED
Parcel #: 2529300913 CCF Use: Conditional ☐ Site plan
Location: Lone Pines Acres SD Zoning: E (Estate) ☒ Floor plan
Status: Vacant ☐ Photos
Type: Town-owned Yr Built: N/A
Site area: 4.08-acres Building area: N/A
ANALYSIS
SCORE CAETGORY NOTES
4 Playground Large site, relatively flat. Some grading complexities for ROW
3 Circulation Large site, relatively flat. Some grading complexities for ROW
4 Parking Large site, relatively flat. Some grading complexities for ROW
5 Build / Expand Large site, relatively flat. Some grading complexities
5 Infrastructure Utilities present: water, power, gas
SITE 2: MOUNTAINTOP
PROPERTY INFO DOCS PROVIDED
Parcel #: 2530407914 CCF Use: By Right ☒ Site plan
Location: 1250 Woodstock Zoning: Co (Commercial) ☒ Floor plan
Status: Expansion Opportunity ☒ Photos
Type: Town-owned Yr Built: 1985
Site area: 0.87-acres Building area: 1,870 SF
ANALYSIS
SCORE CAETGORY NOTES
3 Playground Existing playground lacks proper ground materials, equipment, ADA
1 Circulation No loading zone
3 Parking Complicated layout, no ADA stalls or route to building
5 Build / Expand Site is flat, good redevelopment infill site
5 Infrastructure Utilities present: water, power, gas
1 Accessibility Poor. Kitchen and all RRs non-compliant
2 Capacity Low capacity
2 Quality/Condition Average to below average. RISK: ACM likely, Radon EPA zone 1
2 Adapt/Use Difficult. Many non-compliant spaces, Building location on-site poor
2 Building Systems Residential MEPs, modifications needed to suit needs
SITE 3: FISH HATCHERY
PROPERTY INFO DOCS PROVIDED
Parcel #:3516000938 CCF Use:Conditional ☐ Site plan
Location:1754 Fish Hatchery Zoning:RM (multi-family) ☐ Floor plan
Status:Under-utilized ☐ Photos
Type:Town-owned Yr Built:1906
Site area:75.47-acres Building area:1,146 SF
ANALYSIS
SCORE CAETGORY NOTES
3 Playground Large site, but grading complexities
3 Circulation Large site, but grading complexities
3 Parking Large site, but grading complexities
4 Build / Expand Large site, but grading complexities.
4 Infrastructure Utilities present to small residence: water, power, gas
SITE 4: PROSPECTOR APARTMENTS
PROPERTY INFO DOCS PROVIDED
Parcel #:2531120001 CCF Use:Conditional ☒ Site plan
Location:1041 S. St. Vrain Zoning:RM (multi-family) ☐ Floor plan
Status:Re-development Opp. ☐ Photos
Type:Residential Yr Built:1985
Site area:5.76 -acres Building area:1,291 SF
Notes:Data is for full site. Cabin area of site much smaller. Reference site map
ANALYSIS
SCORE CAETGORY NOTES
3 Playground Adequate playground space for size of facility
1 Circulation No loading zone, tight turn-a-round space
2 Parking Adequate quantity, difficult circulation
3 Build / Expand Area available on site for possible for addition
5 Infrastructure Utilities present: water, power, gas
- Accessibility Unknown
2 Capacity Low capacity
- Quality/Condition Unknown
- Adapt/Use Unknown
- Building Systems Unknown
SITE 5: VERT COWORKING
PROPERTY INFO DOCS PROVIDED
Parcel #: 2519406001 CCF Use: By Right ☐ Site plan
Location: 1230 Big Thompson Ave Zoning: Co (Commercial) ☐ Floor plan
Status: For Lease ☐ Photos
Type: Commercial Yr Built: 1983, 1996 Remodel
Site area: 1.41-acres Building area: 14,776 SF
ANALYSIS
SCORE CAETGORY NOTES
4 Playground Site area for potential playground renovation available via GIS data
5 Circulation Space available. Loading zone striping needed
5 Parking 50+- spaces. Adequate parking available
1 Build / Expand Limited site space available beyond new playground
4 Infrastructure Utilities present
- Accessibility Unknown
4 Capacity Building area suggests high capacity
4 Quality/Condition Public images suggest above average quality
- Adapt/Use Unknown
- Building Systems Unknown
SITE 6: EAST SIDE MARKET
PROPERTY INFO DOCS PROVIDED
Parcel #: 2530305039 CCF Use: By Right ☒ Site plan
Location: 381 S. St. Vrain Zoning: Co (Commercial) ☒ Floor plan
Status: Re-development opp. ☐ Photos
Type: Commercial Yr Built: 1949
Site area: 1.52-acres Building area: 2,997 SF
ANALYSIS
SCORE CAETGORY NOTES
1 Playground Demolition of adjacent housing units may be required for playground
1 Circulation No loading zone space
2 Parking 15+- spaces. Adequate, but removal for loading zone needed.
1 Build / Expand Limited opportunity
4 Infrastructure Utilities present
- Accessibility Unknown
3 Capacity Medium capacity; up to 30 children
2 Quality/Condition Below average quality based on Streetview images
- Adapt/Use Unknown, restrooms not located on main floor
- Building Systems Unknown
SITE 7: FALL RIVER VILLAGE
PROPERTY INFO DOCS PROVIDED
Parcel #:3525271901 CCF Use:Conditional ☐ Site plan
Location:274 Sunny Acres Ct Zoning:PUD ☒ Floor plan
Status:For lease ☐ Photos
Type:EPHA-owned Yr Built:1997
Site area:3.80-acres Building area:1,814 SF
ANALYSIS
SCORE CAETGORY NOTES
1 Playground Limited ability, steep yard
2 Circulation Adequate for residential use, but some areas gravel
3 Parking Adequate for residential use, but some areas gravel
2 Build / Expand Steep site, neighboring tenant complexities
4 Infrastructure Existing utilities present to residence (water, power, gas)
- Accessibility Unknown
2 Capacity Limited
4 Quality/Condition Average to above average
4 Adapt/Use To be used as is
- Building Systems Unknown
SITE 8: 179 STANLEY
PROPERTY INFO DOCS PROVIDED
Parcel #:2530213920 CCF Use:Conditional ☐ Site plan
Location:179 Stanley Circle Drive Zoning:E (estate) ☐ Floor plan
Status:Re-development ☐ Photos
Type:Town-owned Yr Built:1938
Site area:0.76-acres Building area:2,024 SF
ANALYSIS
SCORE CAETGORY NOTES
4 Playground Adequate space for playground at scale of existing building capacity
3 Circulation Inadequate, gravel drive only
3 Parking Inadequate, gravel drive only
3 Build / Expand Large expansion unlikely, new build could create site efficiencies
3 Infrastructure Utilities present to small residence: water, power, gas
- Accessibility Unknown
2 Capacity Limited, more information needed for full analysis
- Quality/Condition Unknown
- Adapt/Use Unknown
- Building Systems Unknown
SITE 9: OLD RANGER ROAD
PROPERTY INFO DOCS PROVIDED
Parcel #: 3526109901 CCF Use: Conditional ☐ Site plan
Location: Elkhorn Club Estates SD Zoning: E (Estate) ☐ Floor plan
Status: Vacant ☐ Photos
Type: Town-owned Yr Built: N/A
Site area: 1.5-acres Building area: N/A
ANALYSIS
SCORE CAETGORY NOTES
- Playground Unknown, grading complexities apparent from Streetview
- Circulation Unknown, grading complexities apparent from Streetview
- Parking Unknown, grading complexities apparent from Streetview
- Build / Expand Unknown, grading complexities apparent from Streetview
- Infrastructure Unknown; manhole and power apparent from Streetview
SITE 10: SANBORN WATER TANK
PROPERTY INFO DOCS PROVIDED
Parcel #: 3401305932 CCF Use: Conditional ☐ Site plan
Location: 621 Sanborn Drive Zoning: E-1 (Estate) ☐ Floor plan
Status: Under-utilized ☐ Photos
Type: Town-owned Yr Built: N/A
Site area: 1.16-acres Building area: N/A
ANALYSIS
SCORE CAETGORY NOTES
3 Playground Appears adequate for low-capacity opportunity
3 Circulation Appears adequate for low-capacity opportunity
3 Parking Appears adequate for low-capacity opportunity
3 Build / Expand Appears adequate for low-capacity opportunity
- Infrastructure Unknown
SITE 11: ELM AND MORAINE
PROPERTY INFO DOCS PROVIDED
Parcel #:3526411901 CCF Use:By Right ☐ Site plan
Location:Elm Road Zoning:CO (commercial) ☐ Floor plan
Status:Vacant ☐ Photos
Type:Town-owned Yr Built:N/A
Site area:1.99-acres Building area:N/A
ANALYSIS
SCORE CAETGORY NOTES
3 Playground Adequate for medium-size opp.
3 Circulation Grading concerns, access from Elm likely.
3 Parking Adequate for medium-size opp.
3 Build / Expand Adequate for medium-size opp.
- Infrastructure Unknown
SITE 12: CURRY DRIVE
PROPERTY INFO DOCS PROVIDED
Parcel #: 3536408902 CCF Use: Conditional ☐ Site plan
Location: Prospect Mountain PUD Zoning: E (estate) ☐ Floor plan
Status: Vacant ☐ Photos
Type: Town-owned Yr Built: N/A
Site area: 3.44-acres Building area: N/A
ANALYSIS
SCORE CAETGORY NOTES
1 Playground Steep site
1 Circulation Steep site, access only from gravel road
1 Parking Steep site
2 Build / Expand Steep site
- Infrastructure Unknown; utilities do not seem to be present
SITE 13: MASONIC LODGE
PROPERTY INFO DOCS PROVIDED
Parcel #:2531316901 CCF Use:Conditional ☐ Site plan
Location:1820 S. St. Vrain Zoning:R-2 (residential)☐ Floor plan
Status:Under-utilized ☐ Photos
Type:Town-owned Yr Built:1950
Site area:2.78-acres Building area:5,566 SF
ANALYSIS
SCORE CAETGORY NOTES
5 Playground Site is flat and appears to have ample space for a playground
3 Circulation Sufficient space for loading zone, site parking is currently gravel.
3 Parking Parking space is gravel, space available for re-development
5 Build / Expand No signification constraints apparent.
- Infrastructure Existing utilities
- Accessibility Unknown
- Capacity Low, more information needed for full analysis
3 Quality/Condition Unknown, Streetview shows average quality building.
- Adapt/Use Unknown
- Building Systems Unknown
SITE 14: SUMMIT CHURCH
PROPERTY INFO DOCS PROVIDED
Parcel #: 2530206907 CCF Use: By Right ☐ Site plan
Location: 156 1st Street Zoning: CO (commercial) ☐ Floor plan
Status: For lease ☐ Photos
Type: Commercial Yr Built: 1940, 1971 remodel
Site area: 1.42-acres Building area: 8,561 SF
ANALYSIS
SCORE CAETGORY NOTES
1 Playground None, parking spaces would need to be vacated
1 Circulation None, parking spaces would need to be vacated
2 Parking 40+ spaces, but spaces needed for load and playground will impact
1 Build / Expand No signification constraints apparent.
4 Infrastructure Existing utilities
- Accessibility Unknown
3 Capacity Low, more information needed for full analysis
3 Quality/Condition Unknown, Streetview shows average quality building.
- Adapt/Use Unknown
- Building Systems Unknown
SITE 15: ST. BARTHOLEMEW’S CHURCH
PROPERTY INFO DOCS PROVIDED
Parcel #:3524406901 CCF Use:By Right ☐ Site plan
Location:880 MacGregor Ave Zoning:CO (commercial) ☐ Floor plan
Status:Re-development ☐ Photos
Type:Residential Yr Built:1958, 1991 remodel
Site area:1.42-acres Building area:8,615 SF
ANALYSIS
SCORE CAETGORY NOTES
2 Playground Limited space available, grading undetermined
3 Circulation Parking rework needed to provide loading zone
4 Parking 40+ spaces, ADA unknown, most spaces far from building
1 Build / Expand Limited ability to expand
1 Infrastructure Utilities present
- Accessibility Unknown
- Capacity Medium, further investigation needed to determine
3 Quality/Condition Average to good quality based on public images
- Adapt/Use Unknown
- Building Systems Unknown
SITE 16: ST. PRESBYTERIAN COMMUNITY CHURCH
PROPERTY INFO DOCS PROVIDED
Parcel #: 2529300913 CCF Use: By Right ☐ Site plan
Location: 1700 Brodie Ave Zoning: RM (multi-family) ☐ Floor plan
Status: Re-development ☐ Photos
Type: Residential Yr Built: 1982
Site area: 8.33-acres Building area: 17,682 SF
ANALYSIS
SCORE CAETGORY NOTES
4 Playground Ample space available, grading undetermined
5 Circulation Loading zone appear ideal
5 Parking Parking appears to exceed the needs of daycare use
4 Build / Expand Adequate size area to expand, what is already a large facility
- Infrastructure Utilities present; more investigation needed for full determination
- Accessibility Unknown
- Capacity High, further investigation needed to determine capacity
3 Quality/Condition Wood framed, average to good quality determined by county assessor
- Adapt/Use Unknown
- Building Systems Unknown
Landscape Assessment
Child Care Facility Master Plan
April 2026
Attachment 5
2
Purpose of Landscape Overview
This landscape overview examines child care supply, demand, affordability, and access across Estes Valley. It provides a
data-driven understanding of how well the current child care system meets the needs of local families, employers, and
the broader community.
Key Questions to Explore
•How does child care supply compare to demand across age groups in Estes
Valley?
•How affordable is care for families across income levels?
•Where are the biggest gaps and opportunities to improve access to child
care?
3
Child Care Challenges & Solutions:
What Communities Need to Thrive
Affordability
Workforce &
Economic Impact
Access
•Providers are concentrated in central Estes Park, while areas with the most young children have
fewer nearby options
•Severe shortages of infant and toddler care
•Limited participation in CCCAP restricts access for subsidized families
•Child care costs are ~10–11% of median household income
•~30% of families earn under $75K, making care especially difficult to afford
•Families report cost as a primary barrier to accessing care
•The Town expanded tuition assistance to include middle -income working families, making households
up to ~100–110% AMI eligible for support Local funds (6E) have also been used to backfill gaps from the
state CCAP freeze (2024), ensuring continued access for families who would otherwise qualify
•High workforce participation among parents increases demand for care
•Child care shortages contribute to reduced workforce participation and productivity
•Estimated $110M+ annual economic impact in Larimer County
Taxpayers
~$13.6M
Reduced tax revenue &
increased public costs
4
Child Care Challenges Cost Larimer
County Over $110 Million Annually
Source: Ready Nation Council for a Strong American “Want to Grow Colorado’s Economy? Fix the Child Care Crisis”; EPIC Analysis
~ $110.8 million lost annually in Larimer County
Families
~$60.4 M
Lost earnings & reduced
workforce participation
Employers
~$34.3 M
Lost productivity &
workforce disruptions
5
Contents
•Estes Park Child Care Landscape Assessment
•Estes Valley Deep Dive
•Recommendations
5
6
Fewer Young Children, More Older
Adults in Estes Park
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; Town of Estes Park, 2025
1,773 1,679
462 427
2010 2020
Child Population Changes, 2010 to 2020: Estes Park School
District
Children under 18 Children under 5
-8%
-0.4%
-10%
-10%
16%
Percent Change in Population by Age Group in the Estes
Park School District, 2010 to 2020
55 years and older
18 to 54 years
13 to 17 years
Under 5 years
5 to 12 years(-8%)
(-5%)
Under 5 saw the
steepest decline
Only the 55+
population grew
(+16%); all other age
groups declined
Enrollment has declined
~18% (~200 students)
since COVID, confirming
continued population
decline
7
High Workforce Participation Among
Parents Increases Childcare Needs
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates, Table DP03.
*Data for children under 6 were suppressed for the Town of Estes Park due to a large margin of error
62%66%
90%
81%
72%
Town of Estes Park Estes Valley Larimer County
Percent of Children With All Available Parents in the Labor Force, 2018 - 2022
Children under 6 Children ages 6 to 17
•Most children live in households
where all parents work
•62% of young children (under 6)
in Estes Valley
•81% of school-age children (6–
17)
•Rates are similar to or higher
than Larimer County
8
Family Incomes Are Relatively High but
Vary Widely
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
$92,100
$108,491 $112,985
Town of Estes Park Estes Valley Larmier County
Median Family Income
15%
18%
19%
20%
12%
8%
2%
3%
1%
2%
$200,000 or more
$150,000 to $199,999
$100,000 to $149,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$15,000 to $24,999
$10,000 to $14,000
Less than $10,000
Income Distribution Among Families in the Estes Park
School District
Estes Valley incomes are
similar to Larimer County
~30% of families earn
under $75K
Income variation impacts families’ ability to afford child care.
•The US Department of Health and Human
Services recommends that families spend
<7% of their household income on child
care.
•In Estes Valley, the cost of care for one
child is approximately 10–11% of median
household income, exceeding the
affordability threshold.
•Even at lower-than-average prices,
families report that child care remains
difficult to afford.
9
$108,491Median Household Income
Child Care Costs Exceed Affordability
Threshold in Both Counties
11%
10%
11%
Infant Toddler Preschool
Cost of Care for One Child as a Percent of Meidan Family Income in Estes
Valley
Cost Affordable Threshold
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 -2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Estes Valley Child Care Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan
10
Limited CCCAP Participation Reduces
Access to Affordable Child Care
Source: Colorado Facilities Report as of February 2026
The Town of Estes Park has 13 child care providers in total. Of these, seven are resident camps and are not included in the d ata above.
CCCAP participation is concentrated
among a small number of providers,
with just one-third accepting
subsidies but accounting for about
54% of total capacity.
Family Child
Care Home
50% (3)
Child Care
Center
33% (2)
Preschool
Program
17% (1)
Child Care Providers by Type
Total Providers: 6
Total Capacity: 174
Do Not Accept
67% (4)
Accept CCCAP
33% (2)
Providers that Accept Colorado Child Care Program
Assistance Funds (CCCAP)
CCCAP has been frozen since Feb 2024,
limiting access to subsidies.
The Town has used 6E funds to backfill
gaps, serving eligible families through
EVICS tuition assistance
11
6E Investments Are Rapidly Expanding
Child Care Access in Estes Valley
Source: 2025 Impact Report
Funding Overview
~$6.0M in total 6E revenue in 2025
~$1.2M invested in child care
Funds support:
•Tuition assistance
•Workforce stabilization
•Facilities & expansion
•Out-of-school programming
$1.2M
$678K
$597K
2025
2024
2023
Child Care Investment Growth
What This Enables
•Expanded tuition assistance to
include middle-income families (up
to ~110% AMI)
•Over 50% of children in care now
receive assistance (up from 21%)
•Stabilized childcare workforce
through wage and retention
supports
•Increased out-of-school
programming capacity across
providers
Child care funding
has nearly doubled
since 2023
Local funding is filling gaps left by state programs
12
Key Challenges Facing Child Care in
Estes Valley
Limited Supply for Young Children
•Estes Park faces severe shortages of infant and toddler care , while
preschool capacity exceeds demand
•The youngest children have the least access to licensed care
Access Is Uneven Across the Community
•Providers are clustered in central Estes Park
•Southern areas have limited nearby options
Child Care Is Unaffordable for Many Families
•Care costs are ~10–11% of median income, exceeding the 7%
affordability benchmark
•Income variation means many families, especially those earning under
$75K, face significant barriers
Child Care Constraints Impact the Workforce and
Economy
•Most children live in households where all parents work, increasing
demand for care
•Limited access contributes to workforce challenges and an estimated
$110M+ annual economic impact in Larimer County
Child care challenges in Estes Valley are driven by gaps in supply, affordability, and geographic access; particularly
for working families with young children.
13
Contents
•Estes Park Child Care Landscape Assessment
•Estes Valley Deep Dive
•Recommendations
13
Re
14
Child Care Providers
Are Not Located
Where Many Young
Children Live
Total Number of Young Children, Estes Park Facility
Locations and Child Care Providers
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2024 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey table S0101;
Colorado Child Care Facilities Report as of February 2026
Three of the child care providers are family child care home providers. Their locations are
approximate
211 young children live in
the southern tract, with few
nearby provider
Most providers are clustered in central
Estes Park, while the largest
concentration of young children is in
southern areas with limited access.
Several potential facility locations are
closer to areas with higher concentrations
of young children, suggesting
opportunities to better align child care
supply with where families live
Child Care Provider
15
Demographic and Economic Conditions
in Estes Valley
Source: U.S Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Indicators suggest elevated economic and
language access needs in the southern census
tract.
Areas with higher poverty rates also show higher
concentrations of children speaking a language
other than English.
Existing providers are clustered near the
population center, highlighting opportunities to
assess accessibility across tracts.
16
Estes Park Faces Severe Infant and
Toddler Child Care Shortages
789
1,762
7,115
4,749 4,699
6,708
Infant (0 - 18 months)Toddlers (18-26 months)Preschoolers (36-72 months)
Larimer County
Population and Access to Licensed Child Care by Age Group
5 15
154
19 21
44
Infant (0 - 18 months)Toddlers (18-26 months)Preschoolers (36-72 months)
Town of Estes Park
Estimated capacity
as a % of population 26%73%351%37%106%17%
Sources: Colorado Child Care Facilities Report as of February 2026; Colorado Demography Office; American Community Survey 5 -year Estimates Table S0101; CDEC Annual Licensed Capacity Maps
Data Note: Estimates based on U.S. Census ACS 5-year population for Estes Park and age distribution from the Colorado State Demo graphy Office for Larimer County.
Family child care home capacity is estimated by allocating a portion of home slots to each age group. Homes are assumed to co ntribute approximately 25% of infant and toddler capacity and 50% of preschool capacity, reflecting typical
enrollment patterns in mixed-age home settings.
17
Child Care Provider Supply Has
Remained Stable Since 2024
Source: Colorado Child Care Facilities Report February 2024 and February 2026
Provider Status (February 2024 – February 2026)
Status # Providers Provider Type Breakdown Provider Type Breakdown
Unchanged 5
2 Child Care Centers
2 Family Child Care Home
1 Preschool Program
•Mountain Top Childcare
Park
•Place Preschool
•Jodi Rasmussen
•YMCA of the Rockies
Bennett
•Preschool Veronica Roja
Opened 1 1 Family Child Care Home •Erin Gilliam
Closed 1 1 Family Child Care Home •Anna Perm
6 Providers in 2024 6 Providers in 2026
Despite one provider opening and one closing, the
total number of licensed child care providers has
remained unchanged..
18
More Workers Commute Into Larimer
County & Estes Park Than Leave
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies, LEHD, OnTheMap Application; Northern Colorado
Live outside,
work in
Larimer
County
Live in Larimer
County work
outside
96,245
live and work in
Larimer County
71,20065,307
Live outside,
work in Estes
park
2,664
Live in Estes
Park, work
outside
1,487
1,391
live and work in
Estes Park
Larimer County Town of Estes Park
Major Employers in Larimer County:
•University of CO Health: 5,740
•Hewlett Packard: 1,490
•Banner Health: 1,340
•Avago Technologies: 1,300
•Woodward: 1,230
Major Employers in Town of Estes Park:
•Tourism & Hospitality (The Standly Hotel)
•Government & Public Sector (Rocky
Mountain National Park, Town of Estes
Park)
•Service & Retail
8%
8%
8%
8%
11%
15%
15%
16%
5%
6%
10%
7%
10%
25%
Other Services
Finance & Real Estes
Manufacturing
Construction
Retail trade
Professional & Admin
Tourism & Hospitality
Education & Health
Percent of the Civilian Employed Population 16 Years and Over Employed in Each Industry
Larimer County Estes Valley
19
Estes Valley Workforce Is Concentrated
in Industries with full time, in person workforces
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2028-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Estes Valley has a higher concentration
of tourism & hospitality related jobs
(15% vs. 10% in Larimer County)
→ Highest concentrations over many
industries show greater reliance on
evening, weekend, and seasonal work
Finance & Real Estate
20
Contents
•Estes Park Child Care Landscape Assessment
•Estes Valley Deep Dive
•Recommendations
20
21
Recommendations
Prioritize financially and operationally feasible sites for infant and toddler care expansion
•Identify and prioritize locations that can support infant and toddler capacity
•Ensure priority sites are suitable for licensing requirements (indoor/outdoor space, safety, access)
Align Site Selection with Where Families Live
•Prioritize sites in southern Estes Valley and other underserved areas
•Improve alignment between child population and facility locations
Evaluate adaptive reuse, co -location, and publicly owned assets to reduce capital development costs
and improve project feasibility
•Evaluate publicly owned or community serving sites
•Identify opportunities for co-location or shared use models
Ensure Sites Support Workforce Needs
•Prioritize locations that are accessible to major employment areas and commuting patterns
•Consider proximity to employers and year round workforce demand
22
Feasibility of Expanding ECE Capacity
in Estes Valley
Market Demand Site & Capital Feasibility Workforce & Operations Funding & Partnerships
•Strong unmet demand for
infant and toddler care
•Limited child population
growth requires careful
sizing of future facilities
•Sustainable models may
require mixed-age
enrollment
•Limited land availability
and high mountain
construction costs
constrain development
•Viable sites must support
licensing, outdoor space,
parking, and year-round
access
•Adaptive reuse and co-
location may be more
feasible than ground-up
construction
•Staffing shortages remain a
major operational
challenge
•Housing affordability
impacts educator
recruitment and retention
•Long-term sustainability
may require ongoing wage
supports, tuition
assistance, or operational
subsidies
•6E investments
demonstrate strong local
commitment
•Future expansion may
require layered funding
and public-private
partnerships
•Employer, philanthropic,
and public investment may
all play a role
23
Next Steps
1.Synthesize recommendations for facilities with local data and stakeholders
2.Develop operating budgets and configuration scenarios for 3 priority facilities
3.Incorporate meetings with towns and county teams into assumptions
4.Develop DOLA aligned implementation strategy to facilitate current and future development
5.Conduct preliminary facility feasibility analysis, including capital costs, operating sustainability,
licensing considerations, and potential financing pathways for priority development sites.
2424
Appendix
Child Care Providers Are Not Located
Where Many Young Children Live
25
Total Number of Young Children, Estes Park Facility Locations and Child Care Providers
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2024 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey table S0101; Colorado Child
Care Facilities Report as of February 2026
*Property locations are approximate
Three of the child care providers are family child care home providers. Their locations are approximate
Most providers are clustered in central
Estes Park, while the largest
concentration of young children is in
southern areas with limited access.
Several potential facility locations are
closer to areas with higher concentrations
of young children, suggesting
opportunities to better align child care
supply with where families live
Child Care Provider
211 young children live in
the southern tract, with few
nearby provider
26
Early Childhood Education is Both
Unaffordable and Inaccessible in the US
(*) A child care desert is any census tract with >50 children under age 5 that contains either no child care providers or >3x as many children as licensed child care slots.
Source(s): Annie E Casey Foundation, Kids Count Data Book
Affordability: Cost of care has almost tripled since
1990
These affordability and accessibility challenges impact the workforce and the ability of employers to attract,
engage and retain staff needed for their business to thrive.
Accessibility: 51% of Americans live in child
care deserts*
27
Estes Valley Has Far Fewer Children
Than Larimer County
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census
3%
4%
5%
11%
11%
15%
15%
14%
27%
20%
21%
24%
51%
51%
30%
Town of Estes Park
Estes Valley
Larimer County
Age Breakdown Across Larimer County, Estes Valley, and Estes Park
Under 5 5 to 17 18 to 34 35 to 54 55 and older
•Children under 18: 14% in
Estes Valley vs. 20% in Larimer
County
•Adults 55+: 51% in Estes
Valley vs. ~30% in Larimer
County
•Population is significantly older
overall
Financial Modeling
Model 2: Mountaintop Expansion
The Mountaintop infant and toddler care expansion financial model is designed to help the Town
evaluate the operating conditions, subsidy requirements, and startup investment needed to
expand high quality care for Estes Park’s youngest children. The workbook includes three core
tabs: Key Inputs, Self Operating P & L, and Start Up P & L. Together, these tabs outline the
assumptions, projected revenues, staffing and operating costs, startup expenses, and subsidy
placeholders needed to assess financial feasibility. The model also incorporates assumptions
from the accompanying facility development documents, including estimated capacity,
classroom configuration, development costs, and operating conditions associated with the
proposed expansion.
Because infant and toddler care is the most expensive age group to serve, the model
emphasizes the need for targeted subsidy in order to achieve a sustainable profit margin while
keeping care accessible for working families. Placeholders are included for local and county
funding streams, including sources that may be determined by the Town as funding decisions,
grant applications, and implementation timing become clearer. The model is intentionally flexible
and can be adjusted to reflect current terms, confirmed facility costs, updated staffing
assumptions, tuition policy, public funding commitments, or other conditions if and when the
Town chooses to pursue the Mountaintop expansion. This allows the financial model to function
as both a planning tool and a decision support document for future infant and toddler capacity
investment.
Attachment 6
Program overview
Days operating per year 245 Year-round all weekdays (no holidays) is 260
Professional learning days per year 3 These are days where children will not attend, but staff will work. It's typical to have 2-5 of these per year
Opening time 7:30 AM
Closing time 5:30:00 PM
Total hours per day 10:00:00
Year 5 Program enrollment
Max allowed #
children/room
(CO licensing)
High-quality max
# children/room
(NAEYC)
Planned #
children/room # rooms
Target
enrollment Vacancy rate
Enrolled
children
Infant (6 wk-18 mo)10 8 10 1 10 5%10
Toddler (12 mo-24/36 mo)10 10 10 1 10 5%10
Toddler 2 (24 mo-36 mo)14 12 14 1 14 10%13
Preschool (36 mo-48 mo)20 18 15 1 15 20%12
Pre-K (4-5)24 20 20 0 0 20%0
School aged children (5+)30 0 0
Mixed age (30 mo-6 yr)20 0 0
Total 4 49 11%44
LEGEND
Yellow Cell for input. These are the only cells you should adjust!
Green Output cell - do not adjust
Blue Cell is linked from a previous location - do not adjust
Gray Reference information to support your inputs in yellow
This tab assumes that the employer operates the center and program and owns the entire P&L
REVENUE
$Notes
Enrollment-based revenue $859,049
Non-enrollment based revenue $0
6E + 1B Funding $100,000 https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/employer-provided-childcare-credit#qualified-childcare-facility-expenditures
CACFP funding (meals)$66,991 Y Indicate Y or N if planning to serve and be reimbursed for meals and ensure inputs in Tuition tab are accurate
Grand total revenues $1,026,040
Revenue per target enrollment $20,940
Revenue per enrolled child $23,533
EXPENSES
Staffing $Cost/driver Driver
% of total
expenses
Cost/target
enrollment
Cost/enrolled
child Notes
Wages & Benefits $696,968 n/a # staf 80% $14,224 $15,985 See staffing tab
Facility
Facilities costs $2,380 n/a Square footage 0% $49 $55 See facility tab
Parking/permits $0 n/a n/a 0% $0 $0 Add parking or other ongoing facility-related costs here
Supplies & equipment Many cost estimates are from HHS Provider Cost of Quality Care Calculator (PCQC)
Children's food $8,355 $1 actual enrollment 1%$171 $192 $1 per child older than infant aged per day for snacks
Classroom/education supplies & equipm $8,720 $200 actual enrollment 1%$178 $200 LISC estimate is $150 per child per year; PCQC estimates $250/child
Staff technology $1,763 $150 # staf 0%$36 $40 If assuming 3 year replacement rate for technology and all staff get laptops, $300/staff/yr
Software $1,470 $30 target enrollment 0%$30 $34 Assumes $30/yr per slot for back end management and family communication based on Brightwheel email 12/13/23
Office supplies $4,796 $110 actual enrollment 1%$98 $110 $110/ enrolled child (per PCQC)
Business costs
Bad debt $5,521 1.00% actual enrollment 1%$113 $127 3% is industry standard target, may assume lower due to employer link
Credit card fees (tuition)$0 0.00% tuition 0%$0 $0 Recommend accepting ACH transfers only or passing along credit card fees to families
Insurance (non-facility)$7,880 $120 target enrollment 1%$161 $181 Assume $120/child/yr per PCQC for liability; D&O and other insurance of $2,000
Staff background checks $353 $100 # staf 0%$7 $8 Assumes $100/person with 30% turnover
Administration/back office infrastructur $120,000 n/a n/a 14% $2,449 $2,752 This could include the "chargeback" rate for using your organizational payroll, IT, etc if you plan to include that to create a "fully loaded" P&L
Professional services $10,000 n/a n/a 1%$204 $229 Could include audit, legal, outsourced payroll, accounting, IT functions, teacher/leader coaching, etc.
Staff professional development $2,350 $200 # staf 0%$48 $54
Culture building/staff engagement $1,175 $100 # staf 0%$24 $27
Family engagement $1,308 $30 actual enrollment 0%$27 $30
Operating expenses $873,037 100% $17,817 $20,024
Operating & capital reserve contribution $0 include in order to build a reserve
Net profit $153,004
COST OF CARE PER ENROLLED CHILD
Age group Classroom staff Center staff Facility All other Total cost/child
% of cost that is
staffing
Tuition, public
funding, other
revenue/child
Difference
between cost of
care and per
child revenue
Subsidy by age
group
Infant (6 wk-18 mo) $15,649 $2,692 $55 $3,792 $22,188 83% $22,306 $118 $1,118
Toddler (12 mo-24/36 mo) $15,649 $2,692 $55 $4,037 $22,433 82% $22,412 -$21 -$201
Toddler 2 (24 mo-36 mo) $11,799 $2,030 $55 $4,037 $17,920 77% $21,812 $3,891 $49,032
Preschool (36 mo-48 mo) $12,389 $2,131 $55 $4,037 $18,612 78% $18,866 $255 $3,055
Pre-K (4-5) n/a n/a n/a n/a $0 0% #VALUE! #VALUE!
School aged children (5+) n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0% #VALUE! #VALUE!
Mixed age (24 mo-6 yr) n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0% #VALUE! #VALUE!
#VALUE! should say "true" when subsidy by age group sums to total net profit
This tab is for the start up period before the center is in operation
LEGEND
Yellow Cell for input. These are the only cells you should adjust!
Green Output cell - do not adjust
Blue Cell is linked from a previous location - do not adjus
Gray Reference information to support your inputs in yello
Revenue
For each of these grant options, you may need to do some research on the availability, areas funded, etc and adjust your likelihood accordingl
Individuals familiar with state/Federal grants may be helpful in this proces
Max
available/project
Max available
for this project % likelihood for this project Expected value Confirmed funding Source/EPIC notes
CDEC Employer-based Child Care Facility Grant $500,000 $500,000 100%$500,000 $500,000
(Through CDEC) remember your required match of 50% as a private business, 25% as non-profit or government.
https://cdec.colorado.gov/early-childhood-councils (see grants and other support tab)
CHAFA Direct Effect Grant $30,000 $30,000 50%$15,000 $0 Open to non-profits. https://www.chfainfo.com/community-partnerships/corporate-giving/direct-effect-award
Community Facilities Direct Loan and Grant
Program $0 $0
(Through USDA) This program provides affordable funding to develop essential community facilities in rural
areas with fewer than 20,000 people. An essential community facility is defined as a facility that provides an
essential service to the local community for the orderly development of the community in a primarily rural area,
Congressionally Directed Spending $0 $0
New cycle in fall/winter. CDS is a mechanism by which members of Congress can request funding for specific
projects in their home state that have been submitted for consideration by nonprofits, as well as state and local
government entities. https://www.hickenlooper.senate.gov/cdsr/
https://www.bennet.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/congressionally-directed-spending-requests Sample
projects/amounts from 2022
Community Development Block Grant $600,000 $0 $0
(Through DOLA)Not currently available (Federal funds administered through DOLA) Entities eligible to apply for
grants are limited to units of local governments, including counties. These entities may apply on behalf of
nonprofits. https://dlg.colorado.gov/community-development-block-grant-cdbg
Rural Economic Development Initiative $150,000 $0 $0
(Through DOLA) Not currently open. designed to help rural communities comprehensively diversify their local
economy and create a more resilient Colorado. All applications must create and retain jobs, either direct or
indirect. https://cdola.colorado.gov/funding-programs/rural-economic-development-initiative
Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance $1,000,000 $0 $0
municipalities, counties, school districts, special districts and other political subdivisions and state
agencies.DOLA’s intent in administering this grant program is to do as outlined in statute and promote
sustainable community development, increase livability and resilience of communities through
strategic investments in asset-building activities. https://cdola.colorado.gov/funding-
programs/energy/mineral-impact-assistance-fund-grant-eiaf
Other funding source 3 $0 $0
Other funding source 4 $0 $0
Total probability-weighted startup revenue $515,000
Total confirmed startup revenue $500,000
Expenses
Staffing/project support $Cost/driver Driver Notes
Operator partner launch suppor $30,000 Depends on length of planning/development and agreement with operator - est $5K every 3 months as starting poin
Project manager $75,000 Allocation of internal team member or external support. Costs var
Consulting support $5,000 May include local early childhood council, other coaches, etc.
Pre-launch staffing - Prog Directo $44,474 6 # months Could include 6 months salary + benefits - would vary based on operator relationship and experienc
Pre-launch staffing - Asst Director $0 0 # months Could include 3 months salary + benefits
Pre-launch staffing - Office Manage $15,248 3 # months Could include 2 months salary + benefits
Facility
New build $3,570,000
Playground (structures + play equipment)$25,000 Can vary significantly and can be inexpensive if no play structure included. Minimum $15,000. LISC offers things to conside
Signage $5,000
Furnishings
Classroom furnishings $49,000 $1,000 per target enrollment ($1k is LISC estimate)LISC estimate - increase over $1K if more younger children
Office furnishings $10,000
Equipment/toys $7,350 $150 per target enrollment ($150 is LISC estimat LISC estimate
Business costs
Licensing fees $500 approximate costs
Legal fees related to startup/LLC $2,000 cushion for potential cost of contract negotiation with operator partne
Marketing/communications for launch $8,000 estimated; amounts of investment here will var
Staffing
Teacher/leader culture buildin $3,962 $400 # staff members at launch
Teacher/leader professional developmen $3,962 $400 # staff members at launch
Staff technology $2,644 $225 # staff members about $1K if each staff member gets a computer, which is optional
Total startup expenses $3,857,140
Estes Valley Childcare Facility
Master Plan
Town Board Presentation
June 23, 2026
Attachment 7
2
Purpose of Today’s Presentation
✓Present primary elements of the Childcare Facility Master
Plan
✓Review recommended facility development pathways
✓Request Board acceptance of the plan
Adopt childcare friendly land use, zoning and development
standards that reduce barriers to childcare facility development
and expansion including overlay zones
Identify preferred near -term and long-term facility development
pathways based on community priorities, implementation
readiness, and available resources
Advance design, entitlement, licensing and implementation
activities for projects that demonstrate strong community benefit
and operational feasibility
3
Recommended Strategy Aligned with
DOLA Recommendations
Establish a public-private childcare partnership framework that
defines the Town’s role, partner commitments and funding
approach
Complete detailed due diligence and feasibility analysis for priority
facility opportunities
Develop a capital funding strategy that leverages local, state,
federal, philanthropy, employer and private investment sources
DOLA BEST PRATICE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
ADOPTION
Adopt a Childcare-Friendly Land Use and Zoning Framework
Streamline regulations and incorporate childcare into future land
use and development planning.
Establish a Public-Private Childcare Infrastructure Partnership
Strategy
Coordinate public, private, nonprofit, and philanthropic partners to
expand childcare capacity and investment.
RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES FOR OPTIMAL
IMPLEMENTATION
4
Closing the Infant & Toddler Care Gap
in Estes Valley
Sources: Colorado Child Care Facilities Report as of February 2026; 2024 Childcare Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan
Infant and toddler care is Estes Valley's most significant childcare gap
Age Group Estimated Population vs. Capacity Gap Level
Infants
(0-12 months)Severe Gap
Toddlers
(13-36 months)Severe Gap
Preschool
(3-5 years)Relatively
Aligned
Total Overall Gap: ~242
CURRENT NEEDS VS. LICENSED CAPACITY
Licensed Capacity, 154
Estimated Population, 218
Licensed Capacity, 15
Estimated Population, 138
Licensed Capacity, 5
Estimated Population, 60 55
GAP
64
GAP
123
GAP
Expand
Existing Providers
(2 Providers)
Redevelop
Childcare Facilities
(2 Facilities)
~170
New Infant &
Toddler Seats
within 5 years
5
Recommended Facility Model Pathway
Pathway 1:
Remodel + Expansion
Opportunity
Pathway 2:
Re-development
Pathway 3:
New Construction
Expand capacity within existing licensed facilities
Advantages
✓Fastest implementation
✓Lowest capital investment
✓Most immediate infant/toddler impact
Challenges
✓Facility upgrades may be required
Adapt community or underutilized buildings
Advantages
✓Moderate cost
✓Partnership opportunities
✓Increased capacity
Challenges
✓Accessibility and licensing considerations
Develop purpose-built childcare facilities
Advantages:
✓Highest long-term capacity
✓Flexible design
✓Future growth readiness
Challenges
✓Highest cost and longest timeline
6
Recommended Implementation
Roadmap
Phase 1
Expand Existing Providers
Near-Term Priority (0-2 years)
Phase 2
Pursue Partnerships/
Re-Development Opportunities
Mid-Term Opportunity (2-5 years)
Phase 3
Preserve Future New
Construction Options
Long-Term Opportunity (5+ years)
✓Increase infant and toddler capacity
quickly
✓Support expansion of existing providers
✓Address the most immediate childcare
shortages
✓Pursue facility redevelopment
opportunities
✓Establish public-private partnerships
✓Secure funding and advance project
planning
✓Protec sites for future childcare use
✓Integrate childcare into long -range
planning
✓Maintain flexibility for future growth
2. FUNDING STRATEGY
Public
Local (1B &6E)
State grants
Federal Grants
Philanthropic
Foundations
Community Giving
Individual Donors
Private
Employer Contributions
Public-Private Partnerships
Corporate Sponsors
Blend multiple funding sources to reduce local burden and improve
long-term sustainability
Ownership Models & Funding Strategy
7
1. OWNERSHIP MODELS
OWNERSHIP MODEL TOWN ROLE BEST FIT RECOMMENDED USE
Town-Owned,
Provider-Operated
Owner
•Own land and/or facility
•Lease to qualified operator
•Preserve long-term childcare use
Expansion & New Construction
Select projects where long -term
community control and asset ownership
are desired.
Nonprofit or Faith
based owned, Provider -
Operated
Partner
•Convene stakeholders
•Support partnership and shared -use agreements
•Provide TA and grant support
Re-Development Ideal for adapting existing community
buildings or underutilized facilities.
Public-Private
Partnership
Financial Partners
•Contribute capital funding
•Leverage grants and philanthropy
•Support employer participation
New Construction & Re -Development Best for large-scale projects and future
growth opportunities
3. FINANCIAL MODEL COMPARISON
Expansion New Construction
Children Served 49 98
Capital Costs ~ $3.5M - $5.5M ~ $7.5M - $13.7M
Annual Revenue ~$860K–$1.0M ~ $1.6M–$2.4M
Annual Expenses ~ $800K–$860K ~$1.3M–$1.6M
Annual Operating Gap ~$150K ~ ($102K)
*assuming $100K contribution YOY from 1B
+ 6E funding
*assuming $150K contribution YOY from 1B + 6E
funds
8
Board Recommendations
Accept Estes Valley Child Care Facility Master Plan.
RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES FOR OPTIMAL IMPLEMENTATION
Adopt childcare-friendly land use, zoning, and development standards that reduce barriers to childcare
facility development and expansion.
Establish a public-private childcare partnership framework that defines the Town's role, partner
commitments, and funding approach.
Identify preferred near-term and long-term facility development pathways that prioritize infant and toddler
supply expansion aligned with community priorities, implementation readiness, and available resources.
Complete detailed due diligence and feasibility analysis for priority facility opportunities.
Develop a capital funding strategy leveraging local, state, federal, philanthropic, employer, and private
investment sources.
Advance design, entitlement, licensing, and implementation activities for projects demonstrating strong
community benefit and operational feasibility.
Thank You!
Questions? Feedback?
EPIC:
Alethea@epicimpact.org
Project Management:
joe.zanone@zanonepm.com
Town of Estes:
cbangs@estes.org
Stay Up to Date on Related
Efforts!
EPIC News
10
Appendix
11
Conceptual Facility Feasibility
Examples
Note: These concepts are preliminary feasibility studies intended to evaluate opportunities and constraints, not final develo pment proposals.
Dry Gulch
New Development Opportunity
•Largest long-term capacity potential
•New purpose-built facility
•Significant grading/infrastructure
considerations
•Potential for phased expansion
Mountaintop
Expansion Opportunity
•Existing childcare use
•Moderate expansion potential
•More immediate implementation opportunity
•ADA and modernization upgrades needed
Presbyterian Church
Re-Development
•Existing large building footprint
•Strong parking availability
•Significant code and egress
limitations
•Higher redevelopment
complexity
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Jason Damweber, Deputy Town Administrator
Department: Town Administrator’s Office
Date: July 14, 2026
Subject: Request for Temporary Use of Lot 4 for Customer Parking at the Stanley
Objective:
Receive direction from the Town Board regarding a request received from a
representative of the Stanley Hotel to temporarily permit customer parking on the
portion of Lot 4 where construction staging and work crew parking is currently permitted
during construction.
Present Situation:
In 2014, Town residents voted to approve the sale of Lot 4 to Grand Heritage Hotel
Company subject to certain terms outlined in a Restrictive Use Covenant (Covenant).
The associated Ordinance and Covenant are attached for reference. The Covenant
states that use of Lot 4 is restricted to “either i) one or more facilities with integrated
programs and operations focused on promoting wellness through lifestyle changes,
physical fitness and training, nutrition and medical/personal care treatment
(“EMMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center”); or ii) open space reserved for common
use and enjoyment by the owners and occupants of Lot 4, which may include walkways
and unpaved natural or landscaped recreation areas, provided that no structure or other
improvements are constructed thereon.”
In 2024, the Town issued Permit #24-EP-GR001, a grading permit to the Stanley
Historic District which, in part, states that Lot 4 can be used as a “secondary temporary
dirt stockpile location” during construction of the Film Center subject to the following
provisions.
●Fencing and wattles shall be secured and maintained in good condition.
●Vehicle Tracking Pad shall be maintained in good working order.
●Dryland seeding is acceptable; however, application of water may also be
necessary to prevent windblown soil.
●For site disturbance greater than 1 acre, a Construction General Stormwater
Permit (COR400000) is required through CDPHE for Lot 4.
●This stockpile location is acknowledged as temporary. Site conditions shall be
restored to the satisfaction of Public Works at the conclusion of excavation work
prior to approval of a building permit for the Film Center.
●Use appropriate traffic control to maintain safe access for patrons of the Aspire
who will use the same entrance off Steamer Parkway.
The issuance of the permit was an oversight on the part of staff unaware of the
Covenant.
On May 26, 2026, the Town received a request from the construction contractor,
Saunders, requesting permission for temporary parking specifically for construction
crews, which was not previously permitted. Town staff approved the request based on
the fact that parking construction vehicles would likely be less impactful to site
physically and visually than stockpiling of construction material. The approval
emphasized that the approval only extended to construction crew vehicles and not to
hotel customers.
In late June, we received another request from a representative of the Stanley Hotel to
permit customer parking on Lot 4. Given the history and contention related to Lot 4 and
its allowable land uses, staff believes this rises to the level of a Town Board
discussion/policy decision.
Proposal:
Staff proposes that the Town Board provide direction on whether any of the restrictions
in the Covenant should be temporarily waived to allow customer parking. The existing
grading permit and permission to use the lot for stockpiling of materials and parking for
work crews during construction has already been granted, albeit in error. If the Town
Board desires to waive any of the restrictions of the Covenant, staff needs direction on
the following:
●Whether the waiver should permit only customer parking in addition to stockpiling
and work crew parking only, or are there other uses that should be permitted?
●Whether the waiver should be for the duration of the construction project?
●Whether it is acceptable for the Stanley to charge for customer parking on the lot.
●Whether the Town Board prefers to approve the language in the waiver
agreement at an upcoming Town Board meeting OR authorize the Town
Administrator to enter into such an agreement consistent with the Town Board’s
direction this evening.
If the Town Board permits a waiver, the Stanley would need to apply for a Temporary
Use Permit consistent with the waiver, which would need to be renewed every 30 days.
Advantages:
●Once complete, the construction underway is expected to be a boon to the local
economy.
●Displaced parking from the Stanley Hotel could make parking downtown more
challenging on days when the Town is particularly busy with visitors.
Disadvantages:
●Parking on Lot 4 arguably contradicts the existing Covenant directed by the
voters of the Town.
●Permitting customer parking temporarily on a parcel that was initially graded for
another purpose could establish an undesirable precedent for other commercial
establishments in the future.
Action Recommended:
That the Town Board provide direction to staff on whether to develop a limited waiver of
the existing Covenant.
Finance/Resource Impact:
Not applicable.
Level of Public Interest:
Medium
Attachments:
1. Resolution 05-14
2. Ordinance 01-14
3. Lot 4 Use Restriction Covenant
4. Grading Permit 24-EP-GR001 for Lot 1 and Lot 4
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Page | 1—Stanley Historic District 24-EP-GR001
2024 Public Works Development Review
Grading Permits in CommunityCore
Stanley Historic District
333 E Wonderview Ave (Lot 1) and 520 E Wonderview Ave (Lot 4)
24-EP-GR001
2/20/2024
This review is for site demolition and mass building excavation that will result in stockpiling material on the site
(Lot 1) and on an adjacent site (Lot 4). These drawings were submitted for a new grading permit application:
C-311 (originally 6/15/21); updated (2/5/24) – Sheet 1 of 4
Stanley Film Center Site Demolition Plan (2/5/24) – Sheet 2 of 4
Stanley Film Center Temporary Stockpile Location – South of Existing Pool (2/5/24) – Sheet 3 of 4
Stanley Film Center Secondary Temporary Stockpile Location – Lot 4 (originally 2/26/20); updated
(2/5/24) – Sheet 4 of 4
The original grading permit application was submitted on 9/17/21 based on C-311 and other sheets. Public Works
comments for approval of 21-EP-GR0009 on 10/5/21:
This submittal set includes four sheets prepared by MOA Architecture. The Site Grading & Mass
Building Excavation Plan is C-311 (6/15/21). Sheets 2 - 4 are aerial photos with comments
regarding erosion control and stockpiling (9/16/21).
C-311 is acceptable for building excavation (28,718 CY).
Sheet 2 of 4 is acceptable for tree removal (26 trees), construction fencing, and erosion control,
including straw wattles and vehicle tracking control.
Sheet 3 of 4 is acceptable as the only location for temporary stockpile of excavated material.
Construction fencing and erosion control measures are acceptable.
Sheet 4 of 4 is NOT approved. Lot 4 is shown on this sheet as a secondary temporary dirt stockpile
location, which is not acceptable. No additional material may be placed at this location unless a
current grading permit submittal is approved for Lot 4.
Since no work under 21-EP-GR0009 was performed, the permit was finally voided.
PUBLIC WORKS
Attachment 4
Page | 2—Stanley Historic District 24-EP-GR001
24-EP-GR001 is approved subject to the following comments and requirements:
C-311 is acceptable for building excavation (18,425 CY).
o This is about 10,000 CY less than the original permit based on 28,718 CY.
Sheet 2 of 4 is acceptable for tree removal (26 trees)
o Construction fencing on the original permit application did not block the parking lot north of the
concert hall. Since the current application excludes public use of this lot, use appropriate traffic
control to direct access to Overlook Ct. Contractor parking is acknowledged.
o Fencing and wattles shall be secured and maintained in good condition.
o Vehicle Tracking Pad shall be maintained in good working order.
Sheet 3 of 4 is acceptable as a location for temporary stockpile of excavated material.
o Fencing and wattles shall be secured and maintained in good condition.
o Vehicle Tracking Pad shall be maintained in good working order.
o Dryland seeding is acceptable; however, application of water may also be necessary to prevent
windblown soil.
o For site disturbance greater than 1 acre, a Construction General Stormwater Permit (COR400000) is
required through CDPHE for Lot 1.
o This stockpile location is acknowledged as temporary. Site conditions shall be restored to the
satisfaction of Public Works at the conclusion of excavation work prior to approval of a building
permit for the Film Center.
Sheet 4 of 4 showing Lot 4 as a secondary temporary dirt stockpile location is acceptable.
o Fencing and wattles shall be secured and maintained in good condition.
o Vehicle Tracking Pad shall be maintained in good working order.
o Dryland seeding is acceptable; however, application of water may also be necessary to prevent
windblown soil.
o For site disturbance greater than 1 acre, a Construction General Stormwater Permit (COR400000) is
required through CDPHE for Lot 4.
o This stockpile location is acknowledged as temporary. Site conditions shall be restored to the
satisfaction of Public Works at the conclusion of excavation work prior to approval of a building
permit for the Film Center.
o Contractor Staging Area is acknowledged. Use appropriate traffic control to maintain safe access
for patrons of the Aspire who will use the same entrance off Steamer Parkway.
1
7/15/2026
We are committed to providing equitable access to our services. If you need any assistance, please email digitalaccessibility@estes.org.
Request for Temporary Use of Lot 4 for
Customer Parking at the Stanley
July 14, 2026
We are committed to providing equitable access to our services. If you need any assistance, please email digitalaccessibility@estes.org.
Purpose
Receive direction from the Town Board regarding a request received by
a representative of the Stanley Hotel to temporarily permit customer
parking on the portion of Lot 4 where construction staging and work
crew parking is currently permitted during construction.
1
2
2
7/15/2026
2014 Vote to Approve sale of
Lot 4 subject to certain
terms –restricted uses are:
•i) one or more facilities with integrated programs and operations focused onpromoting wellness through lifestyle changes, physical fitness and training,nutrition and medical/personal caretreatment (“EMMC/Anschutz WellnessTraining Center”); or
•ii) open space reserved for common useand enjoyment by the owners and occupants of Lot 4, which may include walkways and unpaved natural orlandscaped recreation areas, provided that no structure or other improvements are constructed thereon.”
•2020: Permit initially issued, which
expired after a year of inactivity
•2024: New permit issued which
stated that Lot 4 could be used as
a “secondary temporary dirt
stockpile location” during
construction of the Film Center
subject to the following provisions
•Late May 2026: Permission granted
to allow construction vehicles to
park on the Lot during construction
•Late June: Request to permit
customer parking on Lot 4
3
4
3
7/15/2026
Town Board Direction
Needed
•Should restrictions in the Covenant be
temporarily waived to allow customer
parking?
•The existing grading permit and
permission to use the lot for
stockpiling of materials and parking
for work crews during construction
has already been granted, albeit in
error.
•If so…
•Whether the waiver should permit only
customer parking in addition to
stockpiling and work crew parking only, or
are there other uses that should be
permitted?
•Whether the waiver should be for the
duration of the construction project?
•Whether it is acceptable for the Stanley to
charge for customer parking on the lot.
•Whether the Town Board prefers to
approve the language in the waiver
agreement at an upcoming Town Board
meeting OR authorize the Town
Administrator to enter into such an
agreement consistent with the Town
Board’s direction this evening.
5
6
4
7/15/2026
If the Town Board permits a waiver, the Stanley would
need to apply for a Temporary Use Permit consistent
with the waiver, which would need to be renewed
every 30 days.
Questions?
7