HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2026-09-22Informal discussion among Trustees and staff concerning agenda items or other Town
matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 4:45 p.m.
Town Board of Trustees Study Session
Tuesday, September 22, 2026, from 5:00 p.m. –
6:45 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. Click on
the following link for more information on Digital Accessibility.
Public Comment
Public comments are not typically heard at Study Sessions, but may be allowed by the
Mayor with agreement of a majority of the Board.
Agenda
5:00 p.m. Annexation of Enclaves Follow Up
Presented by Senior Planner Hornbeck
5:30 p.m. Feather Flag Sign Code Review
Presented by Director Careccia
6:00 p.m. Break for Dinner
6:05 p.m. Black Canyon Water Treatment Plant Property
Presented by Town Administrator Machalek
6:35 p.m. Trustee and Administrator Comments and Questions
6:40 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items
6:45 p.m. Adjourn for the Town Board Meeting
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: Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner
Department: Community Development
Date: September 22, 2026
Subject: Annexation of Enclaves Follow Up
Purpose of Study Session Item:
Discuss potential annexation of county enclaves.
Town Board Direction Requested:
Staff requests Town Board provide direction regarding annexation of enclaves.
Present Situation:
At the March 24, 2026 study session, staff presented background information on the
process to annex county enclaves, provided an overview of two potential enclaves, and
reviewed potential impacts of annexation at a high-level. Town Board directed staff to
follow up with more information on potential costs/benefits to the Town and property
owners and to seek public input.
As a reminder, the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965 allows a municipality to annex an
enclave with or without property owner consent when an area has been completely
surrounded, excluding right-of-way, by a municipality for a minimum of three years.
The Town’s annexation policy addresses enclave annexations as follows:
When an unincorporated area has been completely surrounded by a
municipality for a minimum of three years, the municipality may annex the area
by ordinance, with or without the consent of the affected property owners.
Annexation of enclaves promotes the efficient delivery of government services
and coordinated land use planning. It also helps avoid a fragmented approach
that can occur when multiple jurisdictions govern a small area. A single
governing authority is typically more effective and responsive than a patchwork
of agencies. The Town will evaluate involuntary enclave annexations on a
case-by-case basis.
At the previous study session, it was discussed that there is a potential gap in the Town
Boundary around the Fawn Valley enclave. Staff has since confirmed the presence of
this gap and therefore the area does not qualify as an enclave. The gap is caused by an
“orphaned” strip of land separated from the adjoining properties on either side of the
river that was never annexed and has no apparent ownership. A possible explanation
for this situation is if previous legal descriptions of adjacent properties referred to the
bank or centerline of the river, which subsequently shifted course.
If Town Board wants to pursue annexation of this area, the gap would first need to be
annexed. To do so, the owner would need to be identified and they would need to
voluntarily agree to pursue annexation. The Town would likely need to hire a title
company to establish chain of title to the piece of property to determine the current
owner. If successful in determining ownership, the Town could then approach the owner
to request they voluntarily agree to annex the land in question. If that land is annexed,
after three years, the enclave would be eligible for annexation by the Town.
The Highway 7 area does appear fully eligible for annexation as an enclave. Per Town
Board’s desire for public input, staff mailed letters (Attachment 1) to owners of all 19
properties (18 separate owners) within the Highway 7 enclave to explain potential
impacts of annexation and solicit their input. As of this writing, four email responses
(Attachment 2) were received, with three property owners expressing opposition to
annexation and one expressing support.
Town Board also wanted more detailed information on potential financial impacts of
annexation. A one-time cost to the Town would be hiring a consultant to create the
annexation map and legal description for the annexation. Staff has sought estimates
from consulting firms on this work, but thus far, have been unsuccessful in getting
responses. A rough estimate by staff, however, is for a cost around $50,000.
Other potential financial impacts of annexation, both to property owners and to the
Town, are provided below, based on best available data. These are high level estimates
and should not be taken as expected outcomes but are meant to provide a basis for
discussion.
Item Impact Potential Net
Impact to Town
Finances
Town Sales
Tax spending for Town residents is at $11,000 for
online purchases and $6,000 for vehicle
purchases. Applying the Town’s 5% sales tax, this
equates to approximately $850 annually in sales
tax per household.
(15 households x
$850)
Property
Tax
residential property valued at $1,000,000 would
have an additional tax burden of $120 annually.
(19 properties x
$100 (estimated
average property
tax))
Road Marys Lake Road within the enclave area would
cost approximately $280,000 but is not likely to be
needed for 20 or more years. Routine maintenance
(snow plowing, signage, striping, etc.) could likely
be absorbed by Public Works with minimal impact.
-$11,200 upon
reconstruction
annualized over
25 year lifespan
Ridge Court Works would likely fully reconstruct the roadway to
meet Town standards, with an estimated cost of
$60,000.
annualized over
25 year road
lifespan.
Water Rates fee of $67.67 outside Town. Therefore, an annexed
customer would see an annual decrease in of the
base fee of $240 (note there are four existing water
customers in the enclave). The full impact of
savings would depend on actual water usage. In
(4 customers x
$275 (estimated
average savings)
general, some customers rarely exceed 2,000
gallons per month and would see little change
beyond the base fee. A higher use customer, using
5,000 gallons per month as an example, would see
an annual savings of $118 in addition to the base
fee savings.
Homes Highway 7 enclave according to Larimer County
data. However, vacation homes within Town pay
5% sales tax. According to data from Visit Estes
Park, the average daily rate of short-term rentals in
2025 was $335 and average occupancy rate was
33%. Using those figures, the average vacation
home would contribute $2017 annually in Town
sales tax.
Proposal:
If Town Board desires to annex the Highway 7 enclave, staff would initiate proceedings
according the Municipal Annexation Act. The following steps would need to occur:
1. Consultant prepares legal description and map
2. Town publishes notice for four successive weeks in the newspaper and
notify County and taxing districts
3. Town Board considers ordinance to complete annexation
If Town Board wants to pursue annexation of the Fawn Valley area, a first step to
potential annexation would be for staff to retain the services of a title company to
determine land ownership.
Advantages:
• Allow residents to vote in Town elections
• Allow more responsive/ efficient delivery of government services
Disadvantages:
• Minor increase in burden on Town services and finances
• Increase in tax burden to property owners
• The Town will need to hire a surveyor to create legal description and map of
areas to be annexed
Finance/Resource Impact:
Annexation would generate increased demand on Town resources. This increased
burden would be partially, or perhaps fully, offset by increased tax revenue.
Level of Public Interest:
Staff anticipates low interest among the wider community, but moderate to high interest
by affected property owners.
Attachments:
1. Letter to affected property owners
2. Comments from affected property owners
170 MACGREGOR AVE.
P.O. BOX 1200
ESTES PARK, CO, 80517
WWW.ESTES.ORG
Dear Property Owner,
Larimer County public records indicate that you own property within an enclave of unincorporated
Larimer County along the Highway 7 corridor, shown in the map below.
The Town Board of Trustees will discuss the potential annexation of this enclave at a study session
on Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2026. A study session is a discussion only, with no formal action taken. No
annexation hearing has been proposed or scheduled at this time.
If you would like the Town Board to consider your comments, please email planning@estes.org by
Sunday, Sept. 13, 2026. Meeting details will be posted at estes.org/boardsandmeetings.
The reverse of this letter explains how annexation works and what would and would not change for
property owners. If you have questions, please call the Planning Division at 970-577-3721 or email
planning@estes.org.
Attachment 1
2
About enclaves and annexation
• Enclaves are properties in unincorporated Larimer County that are completely surrounded
by the Town of Estes Park municipal boundary. State statute allows a municipality to annex
an enclave without property owners’ consent once the enclave has been surrounded by the
municipality for three or more years.
• Annexation brings an area into the jurisdiction of the Town of Estes Park. It can happen
reactively, in response to development activity, or proactively, in response to identified
needs, goals and plans.
What would change upon annexation?
• Law enforcement would transfer from the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office jurisdiction to
the Estes Park Police Department.
• Zoning and building permits would be administered by the Town’s Community
Development Department.
• Property taxes would include the Town’s property tax mill levy of 1.822 mills. For a home
valued at $700,000, this would be about $78 per year.
• Town sales and use tax of 5% would apply to motor vehicles registered at your address
and to purchases delivered to your address. You already pay this tax on purchases you
make in person at businesses inside Town limits.
• Water customers would qualify for reduced water rates available to Town residents.
• Registered voters would be eligible to vote in Town elections.
What would stay the same with annexation?
• Sanitary sewer customers would continue to be served by the Upper Thompson Sanitation
District.
• Fire protection would continue to be provided by the Estes Valley Fire Protection District.
• Electric service would continue to be provided by the Town of Estes Park Power &
Communications Department.
• Public roads in the area are already maintained by the Town of Estes Park, and by CDOT in
the case of Highway 7.
Hwy 7 Enclave
1 message
'Bill Almond' via Planning Forward <planforward@estes.org>Mon, Aug 31, 2026 at 11:30 AM
Reply-To: Bill Almond <bayell55@yahoo.com>
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>
Good morning:
Thank you for the notice regarding the Town Board's upcoming discussion about annexing the Highway 7 enclave. The
notice was well written and answered the majority of our questions.
Based on the information provided, we see no apparent benefit to being annexed by the Town and are opposed to the
idea. We are currently supporting all the tax districts involving our property and to our knowledge we are not adding a
burden to the Town and its residents.
Wishing you the best.
Sincerely,
William K and Nancy H Almond
551 Pawnee Drive
Estes Park
970.215.4004
Attachment 2
Highway 7 Enclave - Parcel 3402100014
1 message
Stacy Ferree <stferree@gmail.com>Sun, Sep 13, 2026 at 8:07 PM
To: Planning commdev <planning@estes.org>
Cc: Frank Ferree <frankferree3@gmail.com>
Town of Estes Park Planning Department:
We oppose the proposed involuntary annexation of 2636 S. Saint Vrain Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado, Parcel
3402100014.
As previously noted, our property is served by a private well and septic system, and our driveway connects directly to
Highway 7. We have no objection to remaining under the jurisdiction of the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office, and we are
not concerned about being ineligible to vote in Town elections.
With these factors in mind, we are not clear on how annexation would improve the level of government services provided
to our property. It also appears that the annexation would increase the financial burden on our property..
Before the Town proceeds further, please provide:
1.A map showing the entire proposed Highway 7 Enclave and its relationship to Parcel 3402100014.
2.A clear explanation of why Parcel 3402100014 is considered part of the proposed enclave, including the legal basis for
that determination.
3.The current Town boundary lines surrounding the proposed enclave, including the area around Highway 7.
4.An explanation of what additional services or benefits the Town believes annexation would provide specifically to
Parcel 3402100014.
We appreciate the opportunity to raise these questions during the work session and would like to better understand the
Town’s reasoning before any further action is considered.
Sincerely,
Frank & Stacy Ferree
potential annexation of Highway 7 enclave
1 message
bobach1024@aol.com <bobach1024@aol.com>Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 8:07 PM
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>
Dear Planning Division of Estes Park:
Thank you for your letter about the potential annexation of the enclave of unincorporated Larimar
County along the Highway 7 corridor. My husband and I own undeveloped property in the Highway
7 enclave. We support this opportunity to annex properties in the enclave into the Town of Estes
Park. Annexation would help us make decisions about the future of our property.
We believe it is critical to be able to receive emergency services from Estes Park that are not
available to residents in the enclave. Town water would be important, too.
My parents Ted and Mary Okamoto lived within the enclave on Bluebird Lane for almost 30
years. Two serious incidents when my parents could not get emergency services from Estes Park
could have ended tragically. The first was when I called Estes Park police, thinking the police
could check on my elderly parents whom we had not heard from for weeks while they were building
their home without telephone, electricity or water at the project in progress. Eight hours later my
dad called from Safeway to tell me the Larimar County sheriff had checked on them. The second
serious incident was when my dad’s appendix ruptured and he also went into cardiac arrest. They
called 911 for an ambulance to go to the medical center, but an ambulance never came. They did
not realize they lived in an enclave. Luckily a neighbor drove the patient to the emergency medical
center.
When we learned what it meant that our property was not within Estes Park city limits, we
suspended plans to develop our property. We very much support annexation and look forward to
news about the deliberations.
Thank you for giving us an opportunity for input.
Sincerely,
Barbara Okamoto Bach and Mark Bach
9/11/26, 9:13 AM Town of Estes Park Mail - potential annexation of Highway 7 enclave
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ik=e618d5d1b3&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1875999378011703042&simpl=msg-f:1875999378011703042 1/1
Highway 7 enclave discussed for potential annexation
1 message
Suzanne Russell <sjruss@sbcglobal.net>Sun, Sep 13, 2026 at 12:19 AM
To: planning@estes.org
As property owners in the area for proposed annexation we are not in favor of this proposal.
1) Our property taxes have more than doubled since we moved here in 2015. The assessed value of our property has
almost doubled in that time period. The town’s mill levy would add over $100 additional to our property tax bill.
2) Both of our vehicles are eleven years old. The average cost of a new motor vehicle in 2026 is $49,000-50,000. The
5% town sales tax on $50,000 is $2500, not a trivial sum.
3) We are both senior citizens on a fixed income. As you are aware, the cost of living has been increasing significantly.
The benefits of reduced water rates and voting in town elections do not outweigh the increased costs of annexation for us.
Our question to the town board is “Why do you wish to annex this area at this time?” We hope you will provide an answer
to this question.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Russell
Martin Cavanaugh
175 Chalet Ridge Ct
Estes Park
sjruss@sbcglobal.net
Sent from my iPadTo the Town of Estes Park Board
Planning commdev <planning@estes.org>
547 Pawnee Dr
1 message
Susan Fereday <susan.fereday.ggvw@statefarm.com>Fri, Sep 18, 2026 at 2:31 PM
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>
I have big concerns on the potential annex of my property. I currently have a 10-acre parcel of land
where my home is located. I currently have horses on this property and it is designed for a horse property
with a barn and pastures and an arena. I would not like this to affect my current use of my property.
Susan Fereday
547 Pawnee Dr
Estes Park, Co 80517
Public Comment Received 9/18/2026
We are committed to providing equitable access to our services. If you need any assistance, please email digitalaccessibility@estes.org.
Annexation of County
Enclaves
We are committed to providing equitable access to our services. If you need any assistance, please email digitalaccessibility@estes.org.
Town Board Study Session
September 22, 2026
P r e s e n t a t i o n P r o v i d e d a t M e e t i n g 2 0 2 6 - 0 9 - 2 2
Present Situation
•March 24, 2026 study session
•Municipal Annexation Act of 1965 allows enclave annexation
•Town annexation policy – evaluate enclaves case-by-case
2
Fawn Valley 3
Gap in Town
Boundary
•Not an enclave
•Orphaned strip of land,
unknown ownership
•Enclave annexation
would require
determining owner,
followed by voluntary
annexation
Highway 7 Enclave 4
•Appears fully eligible
as enclave
•19 properties
•1 undeveloped
commercial
•15 single-family
•3 undeveloped
residential
Potential Financial Impacts of Annexation
Item Cost Net Annual Impact
Town Sales Tax 5% - $850 per household $12,750
Town Property Tax 1.822 mills = $120 for $1 million for
residential property $1,900
Marys Lake Road $280,000 full reconstruction
$0 initially
-$11,200 upon reconstruction
annualized over 25 years
Chalet Ridge Court $60,000 full reconstruction -$2,400 annualized over 25 years
Residential Water Rates Base Fee -$240, other savings
dependent on usage -$1,100
Vacation Home Taxes 5% Town sales tax $0
5
Public Interest
•Letters mailed to property owners within Highway 7 enclave
•Four responses expressing opposition to annexation
•One response in favor of annexation
6
Proposal
•If Town Board desires to annex the Highway 7 enclave, staff would initiate
proceedings according the Municipal Annexation Act. The following steps
would need to occur:
•Consultant prepares legal description and map
•Town publishes notice for four successive weeks in the newspaper and notify
County and taxing districts
•Town Board considers ordinance to complete annexation
•If Town Board wants to pursue annexation of the Fawn Valley area, a first
step to potential annexation would be for staff to retain the services of a
title company to determine land ownership.
7
Advantages
•Allow residents to vote in Town elections
•Allow more responsive/ efficient delivery of government services
8
Disadvantages
•Minor increase in burden on Town services and finances
•Increase in tax burden to property owners
•The Town will need to hire a surveyor to create legal description and
map of areas to be annexed
9
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: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director
Department: Community Development
Date: September 22, 2026
Subject: Feather Flag Sign Code Review
Purpose of Study Session Item:
Review the temporary allowance of feather flag signs.
Town Board Direction Requested:
Whether to extend the temporary allowance for feather flags, allow it to expire, or allow
feather flags as a permitted sign type.
Present Situation:
As a wind sign, feather flags are prohibited by current sign regulations. The Town Board
discussed whether to allow feather flags (wind signs) at a public meeting held on August
12, 2025, (see packet pgs. 179-184 and minutes).
At public hearings held on August 26, 2025, (see packet pgs. 169-177) and September
9, 2025 (see packet pgs. 49-52), the Town Board adopted/amended Ordinance No. 15-
25 temporarily allowing feather flags in certain areas of Town, subject to specific
requirements established in the ordinance. The temporary allowance ends January 6,
2027.
Proposal:
Ordinance No. 15-25, Section 7, states the temporary allowance for feather flags shall
be effective through January 6, 2027, unless earlier terminated or extended by the
Board. As such, staff seeks direction whether to extend the temporary allowance or
allow it to terminate. Or, the Board may direct staff to allow feather flags as a permitted
sign type, subject to regulations. If provided this direction, staff will incorporate feather
flag regulations into the Development Code update.
Advantages:
• Businesses would be provided with an additional advertising opportunity, at a
lower cost compared to permanent signage.
Disadvantages:
• Feather flags are prone to damage from the elements, especially wind, and thus
can quickly become visually unappealing. As such, aesthetics may become an
issue if these signs are not property maintained/replaced.
• Feather flags can be visually impactful and distracting.
• But criteria limiting the number of allowed signs, requiring those signs to be
located a certain distance from the public right-of-way, and prohibiting such signs
in residential and downtown areas can help mitigate such disadvantages.
Finance/Resource Impact:
There is no impact at this time. (the fee for a sign permit is $75)
Level of Public Interest:
The level of public interest is anticipated to be low.
Attachments:
None
Mayor, Trustees, Travis and Steve:
I am submitting this public comment on Ordinance 15-25 regarding feather flags for the
upcoming Study Session. I strongly urge the Town to make the allowance in Ordinance
15-25 permanent in the new Development Code Update.
Making this change permanent is a reasonable and practical way to continue supporting
businesses outside the downtown commercial district. As the owner of Bandit’s Bikes at
870 Moraine Avenue, I have found feather flags to be an effective tool for attracting
customers into the shop. That is consistent with why the Board temporarily suspended the
wind-sign prohibition: businesses can tell the difference on days the flag is up.
No permit fee.
I also strongly urge that no fee or tax be assessed for having a feather flag. Ordinance
15-25 already exempts feather flags from the sign-permit requirement in section
17.66.041(a) for the duration of the suspension. The Study Session packet lists a $75.00
sign-permit fee. If the allowance is made permanent, I ask the Town to confirm that it does
not intend to impose that $75 fee on a single, already-regulated feather flag. A new annual
charge would undercut the purpose of the ordinance—helping smaller businesses outside
downtown compete for visibility.
“Visually impactful and distracting.”
The packet lists as a disadvantage that feather flags “can be visually impactful and
distracting.” How is that determined, and what is the criteria? Ordinance 15-25 already
limits impact: one flag per lot; maximum height of 12 feet; a 12-foot setback from any
street, alley, or sidewalk; no use in residential districts or the Downtown Commercial
district; and inclusion of the flag in the property’s overall sign-area calculation. Those
standards are clear and enforceable. If staff believes additional criteria are needed, they
should be written as objective rules—size, number, location, and duration—not a
subjective judgment that a lawful flag is “distracting.” Just some observations to consider.
Permanent adoption of these rules would also show the Town’s focus on tools that support
local businesses outside the main downtown area, while the rest of the Development Code
Update continues.
Respectfully,
Brian Denning
Owner, Bandit’s Bikes
870 Moraine Avenue, Estes Park
Public Comment Received 9/18/2026
Mayor, Trustees, Travis, Steve, and Jackie:
I am writing to submit a public comment regarding Ordinance 15-25 and the upcoming
study session. I would like to strongly encourage the Town to make the allowance for
feather flags permanent as part of the new Development Code Update.
As a business owner in Estes Park, I believe this is a reasonable and effective way to
support small businesses located outside of the main downtown commercial district. I
own Scot’s Sporting Goods, located at 870 Moraine Ave., and I have personally noticed a
difference in the number of customers who stop by when our feather flag is displayed.
We have a high volume of traffic traveling along the highway, but it can be difficult to
capture the attention of those drivers and encourage them to stop. The feather flag has
proven to be a valuable and effective tool for visually attracting customers to our business
and letting them know that we are here and open for business.
I would also strongly encourage the Town not to impose any additional fee or tax on
businesses outside of the downtown commercial district for the use of feather flags.
Ordinance 15-25 currently exempts these flags from the sign permit requirement. If this
allowance is made permanent, I ask that the Town maintain that exemption and avoid
adding additional costs for businesses that are already working hard to increase customer
traffic and sales.
I would like to see the Town place greater focus on supporting and encouraging businesses
located outside of the downtown district. Making the provisions of Ordinance 15-25
permanent would be a practical, reasonable, and meaningful way to do that.
Thank you for your consideration and for taking the time to hear from local business
owners.
Sincerely,
Brian George
Public Comment Received 9/18/2026
Feather Flag Sign Code Review
Town Board Study Session
September 22, 2026
Presentation Provided at Meeting 2026-09-22
Purpose & Direction
Review the temporary allowance for feather flag signs
Seeking Town Board direction whether to:
•Extend the allowance;
•Allow it to expire; or
•Allow as a permitted sign within sign code.
2
Source: Ordinance 15-25
Background
•Prohibited by sign regulations
(wind sign)
•August 12, 2025 – Town Board
discussed temporary allowance
•August & September 2025 –
Town Board approved temporary
allowance (Ord 15-25)
•Ends January 6, 2027
3
Source: Planning
Source: Google Maps
Ordinance No. 15-25
4
•No sign permit or fee required given temporary nature
•Not permitted in any residential zoning district or Downtown
•Only one feather flag per lot
•Considered freestanding sign included in max signage calculations
•Max height of 12 feet
•Setback at least 12 feet from street, alley, or sidewalk
Feather flag means a freestanding, temporary fabric sign intended to be inserted directly into
the ground or into a mounting device that sits on the ground, often with a feather-like shape.
Other common names for feather flags include blade flags, sail flags, quill flags, flutter flags,
feather banners, teardrop banners, and sail banners.
Direction
Given the temporary allowance expires on
January 6, 2027:
•Extend the temporary allowance?
•Allow the temporary allowance to expire?
•Allow feather flags as a permitted sign type
within the sign code?
5
Source: Google Maps
Source: Capital Banner
Advantages & Disadvantages
Advantages:
•Businesses would be provided with an additional advertising
opportunity, at a lower cost compared to permanent signage
Disadvantages:
•Feather flags are prone to damage from the elements
•Feather flags can be visually impactful and distracting
•Applicable standards can help mitigate such disadvantages
6
Source: Google Maps
Direction
7
For feather flags, does the Town Board direct staff to:
•Extend the temporary allowance for another year?
•Allow the temporary allowance to expire on January 6, 2027?
•Allow as a permanent sign type within the sign code (Development Code
update) subject to regulations, permit and fee?
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
From: Town Administrator Machalek
Department: Town Administrator’s Office
Date: September 22, 2026
Subject: Black Canyon Treatment Plant Property
Purpose of Study Session Item:
The Town Board requested this study session on June 23, 2026. Per that request, the
purpose of this item is to review the background of the Black Canyon Treatment Plant
parcels (“the property”), discuss the donation of the land to MacGregor Ranch, and
discuss the establishment of easements prior to donation.
Town Board Direction Requested:
• Does the Board wish to begin the process of disposing of the property?
o If so, does the Board want to complete the full process outlined in Section
C of Policy 226 (Acquisition, Retention, and Disposal of Real Property) or
rely on the Town Board’s determination from 2014?
• Does the Board wish to explore the donation of the property, or some other
method of disposal?
• What easements, if any, is the Board interested in pursuing before disposing of
the property?
• What additional information, if any, does the Board need in order to decide on the
disposition of the property?
Present Situation:
The property comprises two Town-owned parcels of land adjacent to Rocky Mountain
National Park and MacGregor Ranch (Parcel 3514000946 and Parcel 3514000948).
Maps detailing the general location of the property and a more detailed depiction of the
two parcels that make up the property are attached for reference. Combined, these
parcels amount to roughly 1.65 acres and are home to the decommissioned Black
Canyon Water Treatment Plant and water tank. Neither of these assets has an identified
current or future use as it relates to the Town’s water system.
Discussions about disposal of the property date back to at least January 28, 2014, when
the Town Board held a study session to discuss an inventory of Town-owned property
developed by staff. The Board agreed at that time to allow staff to move forward with the
disposal of the Black Canyon property to the neighboring property owners. The minutes
and packet material from that meeting reference only one of the parcels (Parcel
3514000946), but Parcel 3514000948 is listed as “redundant” on the property inventory
and appears to have been considered along with Parcel 3514000946 for disposal.
Since that time, efforts to dispose of the property have proceeded in fits and starts.
MacGregor Ranch has approached the Town with interest in the property at least twice
and is one of only two neighboring property owners. The other neighboring property
owner is Rocky Mountain National Park.
The Town does not have an identified future use for the property and the 2014 rationale
for disposal remains valid.
Proposal:
Staff support the disposal of this property through donation. The parcels under
discussion have been identified as targets for disposal since at least 2014. Donation of
the property would allow the Water Division to avoid the costs associated with
demolishing the existing structure on the property, as well as the ongoing costs
associated with property maintenance.
Access and conservation easements on the property have been a topic of discussion in
past conversations about disposal of the property. Staff will need information from the
Board on the desired type(s) of easement(s) in order to engage in conversations with
MacGregor Ranch representatives. The Town has not typically held conservation
easements in the past and would need to work with a third party if the Board was
interested in pursuing this option. Rocky Mountain National Park currently holds
conservation easements on MacGregor Ranch land adjacent to the property.
Advantages:
• Allows the Water Division to avoid the costs of demolishing the old water
treatment and storage infrastructure
• Contributes to land conservation in the Estes Valley
• Puts this land into active management instead of being a collateral duty for the
Water Division
Disadvantages:
• The donation of the parcels forgoes any revenue that could be realized through a
market sale. The total potential revenue is unknown but would likely be
negatively impacted by the existing water treatment plant structure, access, and
cost of demolition.
Finance/Resource Impact:
While donating the land would not generate direct revenue, the Town would benefit from
not having to demolish/remediate the old water treatment infrastructure currently on site.
Level of Public Interest:
Medium
Attachments:
1.Policy 226 (Acquisition, Retention, and Disposal of Real Property)
2.Maps of Parcel 3514000946 and Parcel 3514000948
3.January 28, 2014, Town Board Study Session Minutes
Effective Period:Until superseded
Review Schedule:Annually
Effective Date:August 20,2025
References:Policy Governance Policy 2.1.8
ADMINISTRATION
226
Acquisition,Retention,and Disposal of Real Property
1.PURPOSE
This policy describes the process and procedures that must be followed when real
property is acquired,leased,or disposed of,and obligations associated with property
owned or leased by the Town.
2.POLICY
The Town's Financial Policies and Procedures Manual defines "Fixed Assets"as "land,
buildings,vehicles,equipment,and other items used in providing services to the
community."The Town has the authority to acquire,retain,and lease real property,and
to dispose of it pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes section 31-15-713.
3.PROCEDURE
a.Real Property Acquisition
i.Introduction:Real property acquired,whether through purchase,lease,gift,
condemnation,or any other means,must follow all relevant financial policies and
state statutes,including those related to the issuance of debt,whether adopted
prior to or after approval of this policy (see Financial Policies and Procedures
Vlanual).
ii.Authorization:
1)Any proposed acquisition of property by any manner shall be subject to the
approval of the Town Administrator.The Town Administrator has sole
discretion to authorize staff to enter into negotiations regarding the purchase
or acceptance of any real property assets,except for property already
dedicated by plat,which is a routine Community Development Department
function,and for routine acquisition of rights-of-way or easements.Town
Administrator approval is required before ordering an appraisal,survey,or
title commitment needed for entering into an option or agreement to
purchase.
Document Title Policy 226 -Acquisition,Retention,and Disposal of Real Property 08/20/2025
Revisions:1 Town of Estes Park,Town Administrator's Office Page 1 of 6
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
514000946]
514000947
514000948
514100901
ri-mfr —1 ,
1
0B \
1
u
1
vte\^<
1„%tf 7
tel
We are committed to providing equitable access to our services. If you need any assistance, please email digitalaccessibility@estes.org.
Black Canyon Treatment
Plant Property
09/22/2026
Town Board Study Session
We are committed to providing equitable access to our services. If you need any assistance, please email digitalaccessibility@estes.org.
Presentation Provided at Meeting 2026-09-22
To change the picture >delete the current picture > Click icon in picture box to add picture > Use quality images – no clip art.
Agenda
•Direction Requested
•Present Situation
•Advantages and
Disadvantages
•Direction Requested
To insert a background image, right-click on the slide –select FORMAT BACKGROUND > Picture or texture fill > Insert picture from File…
Direction Requested
Direction Requested
•Does the Board wish to begin the process of disposing of the
property?
•If so, should staff complete full process in Policy 226 or rely on
previous determination from 2014?
•Does the Board wish to explore the donation of the property,
or some other method of disposal?
4
Direction Requested
•What easements, if any, does the Board want to pursue
before disposing of the property?
•What additional information, if any, does the Board need to
decide on the disposition of the property?
5
To insert a background image, right-click on the slide –select FORMAT BACKGROUND > Picture or texture fill > Insert picture from File…
Present Situation
Why are we here?
•Town Board requested study session on June 23, 2026
•Review background of the Black Canyon Treatment Plant
parcels
•Discuss donation of the land to MacGregor Ranch
•Discuss the need to establish easements prior to donation
7
History of Black Canyon Water Treatment Plant
•Built in 1960 and rebuilt in 1971
•Decommissioned treatment plant in the mid-1990s
•Decommissioned associated water tank in the late 1990s
•No current use for the Water Division
8
Map of Parcels Under Discussion 9
Current Conditions 10
Current Conditions Continued 11
Current Conditions Continued 12
History of Disposal Efforts
•Town Board discussed disposal of property at a Study Session
on January 28, 2014.
•Discussion arose from a property inventory completed by staff
•Received Board direction to start process of disposal to
neighboring property owners
•Only two neighboring property owners (MacGregor Ranch and
Rocky Mountain National Park)
13
Access and Conservation Easements
•No access or conservation easements on property currently
•A topic of discussion in past conversations about disposal of
the property.
•Town has not typically held conservation easements, would
need to work with a third party (ROMO currently holds
easements on adjacent MacGregor Ranch land)
14
To insert a background image, right-click on the slide –select FORMAT BACKGROUND > Picture or texture fill > Insert picture from File…
Advantages and
Disadvantages
Advantages
•Allows Town and Water Division to avoid cost of
demolition/remediation of old water assets
•Contributes to ongoing land conservation efforts
•Puts land into active management
16
Disadvantages
•Donation forgoes revenue that might be realized with a market
sale
•Potential for revenue decreased by existing structure, access,
and cost of demolition
17
To insert a background image, right-click on the slide –select FORMAT BACKGROUND > Picture or texture fill > Insert picture from File…
Direction Requested
Direction Requested
•Does the Board wish to begin the process of disposing of the
property?
•If so, should staff complete full process in Policy 226 or rely on
previous determination from 2014?
•Does the Board wish to explore the donation of the property,
or some other method of disposal?
19
Direction Requested
•What easements, if any, does the Board want to pursue
before disposing of the property?
•What additional information, if any, does the Board need to
decide on the disposition of the property?
20
Thank You!
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.
Future Study Session Items
October 13, 2026
• Organizational Climate Action Plan
• Overview of Fish Hatchery Project to Date
• Parking License Plate Recognition Policy
• Winter Event Strategy Proposal
October 27, 2026
• Joint Study Session: 2027 Visit Estes Park Operating Plan
November 10, 2026
• Micromobility Devices Code Updates
• Liquor License Process
• Future of 4th of July Fireworks
November 24, 2026
• Growth Management Areas Overview
Items Approved - Unscheduled
• Façade and Sidewalk Improvement Program Proposal
• Structure of Potential Development Agreement with Whimsadoodle and the
Estes Park Housing Authority for Cleave Street Development
Items for Town Board Consideration
• Nothing