The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Joint Town Board and County Commissioners 2019-02-19 TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING BOARD OF LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION ONLY Tuesday, February 19, 2019 6:30 p.m. Town Hall Board Room The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available. • Mayor Jirsa & Commissioner Donnelly to Open the meeting • Introductions • Meeting Objective – Discuss the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Rewrite in Context of Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) and the Joint Planning Area 1. Overview of Meeting Objective (Town Administrator Lancaster) 2. History of the IGA and Joint Planning Area (Town Attorney White) 3. Mechanics of the IGA (Town Community Development Director Hunt) 4. Alternative Joint Planning Agreements/Growth Management Areas (County Community Development Director Ellis) 5. Questions and options for moving forward (County Manager Hoffmann) • Next Steps for Comprehensive Plan Rewrite and IGA 1. Town Board may elect to introduce motion(s) (take action) • Discussion of Structure for Proposed Stormwater Fees (Public Works Director Muhonen) • Adjourn NOTE: The Town Board and County Commissioners reserve the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. *This meeting will be recorded and available live online. 1 2 To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Board of Larimer County Commissioners Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Linda Hoffmann (Larimer County Manager), Jeannine Haag (Larimer County Attorney), Lesli Ellis (Larimer County Community Development Director), Michael Whitley (Larimer County, Planner II), Matthew Lafferty (Larimer County, Principal Planner), Randy Hunt (Town of Estes Park, Community Development Director), Greg White (Town of Estes Park, Town Attorney) Jeffrey Woeber (Town of Estes Park, Community Development, Senior Planner) Date: February 19, 2019 RE: Joint Meeting, Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees and Board of Larimer County Commissioners, Discussion of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Town and the County Regarding the Estes Valley Planning Area Purpose and Overview This memo provides background and information about the Town of Estes Park and the Larimer County Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) related to the Estes Valley Planning Area (“the Planning Area”) and its history, mechanics, and options for the future in advance of the joint work session on February 19. (See Attachment A: IGA and Amendments.) At the work session, Town and County staff will provide additional information, analysis, and discussion on options for how proceed with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan update. The work session will help staff shape community discussion on other facets of the IGA and joint planning, such as the joint Planning Commission, County and Town staff responsibilities, and Development Code options. Staff seeks direction from the Town Trustees and Board of County Commissioners on the following questions: 1. Should the update of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan (“the Comp Plan”) proceed in 2019? 2. If so, should the Town and County jointly or separately update the Comp Plan? Report COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 JOINT MEETING, ESTES BOARD OF TRUSTEES, LARIMER BOCC IGA DISCUSSION, FEBRUARY 19, 2019 PAGE | 2 3. Would the Trustees and Commissioners like staff to conduct additional community outreach or analysis related to the Comp Plan update or options for the Intergovernmental Agreement or joint planning (e.g., extension, revisions, or a new path forward)? Background and History of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) In the early 1990s, land use in the Estes Valley was regulated like most County/Town relationships in Colorado. The Town and the County had separate land use codes and did not participate in land use planning with each other. The Town’s land use code had not been updated for several years; and the County’s Land Use Code was rudimentary and did not address issues such as lot sizes, development density, and land uses in the properties surrounding the Town. At that time, the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners determined to move forward with joint land use planning for the Estes Valley (the Estes Valley Planning Area). The Comprehensive Plan Task Force was formed to pursue a Joint Comprehensive Plan. This resulted in the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan which was adopted as part of the Larimer County Master Plan in 1996 and as the Town’s Comprehensive Plan in 1997. The primary purpose of the Comprehensive Plan was to provide for a unified Estes Valley land use plan and address the deficiencies in both the Town and County’s Land Use Codes. House Bill 96-1119 was signed into law by Gov. Romer on April 25, 1996. This legislation changed the law to allow the creation of the joint Estes Valley Planning Commission. In 1998, additional legislation allowed the creation of the joint Estes Valley Board of Adjustment. With the adoption of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, the Town and the County established the Estes Valley Planning Commission which drafted the Estes Valley Development Code and Zoning Plan to cover all the properties within the Estes Valley Planning Area. The Joint Land Use Planning Project culminated with the adoption of the IGA between the County and the Town, and the Estes Valley Development Code and Zoning Plan, effective February 1, 2000. The Mechanics of the Agreement Key components of the Town and County agreement include: 1. Estes Valley has its own Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC), with four members appointed by the County and three by the Town to review developments in the Estes Valley as required by code. 2. The agreement also gives authority to a single Estes Valley Board of Adjustment (EVBOA) that is jointly appointed (3 members appointment by the Town and 2 members by the County). 3. The agreement includes policies for annexation, but a single code and zoning reduce the land-use significance of the action. 4. The Estes Valley Development Code addresses zoning throughout the Planning Area, and the agreement describes other rules that apply to development such as density, uses, streets and roads standards. Not all these other rules were made jointly 4 JOINT MEETING, ESTES BOARD OF TRUSTEES, LARIMER BOCC IGA DISCUSSION, FEBRUARY 19, 2019 PAGE | 3 applicable; for example, floodplain regulations and signs remain separate between Town and County Codes. 5. Decision-making authority generally lies with respective elected representatives, with the EVPC mostly serving in an advisory capacity. A few matters, such as review of certain types of development plans, are authorized as approvals by EVPC, with appeals possible to the respective governing body. Final decisions depend on the jurisdictional location of the development. For unincorporated Larimer County, the final decision lies with the Board of County Commissioners. In Town limits, the Town Board of Trustees decide. 6. Generally, Town staff in Community Development review and manage the land use code throughout the planning area on behalf of the County. County staff serve as a resource. The agreement notes staffing responsibilities and differences related to Code Enforcement and legal advice. Other City and Town Growth Management and IGAs Other communities in Larimer County and Colorado often coordinate on land use planning by adopting IGAs to define how they will work together and forming Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) or Growth Management Areas (GMAs) around municipal boundaries and. These local agreements set forth procedures to share land use authority within designated planning areas so that development occurs in a manner that is compatible with the adjacent town or city. Such local agreements often require developers to annex to the city or town prior to development to ensure consistency with community values and plans and to address adequate urban service provision for higher density town-like development. Staff will provide examples and be prepared to discuss various forms of joint planning agreements at the work session. Recent Activity in the Valley - What’s Different Now? Twenty years ago, outward growth in the Valley created a need for Town/County coordination. Recent development trends suggest more infill and redevelopment activity in the Town and a pattern of little remaining development of private land in the Valley’s unincorporated areas. Over its two decades, the IGA has served the community well and addressed its original intent. However, circumstances have changed with the passage of time, and the Town and County may see value in revisiting the agreement’s provisions and fine tuning how the Town and County work together. Additionally, to address changed conditions, trends, and new needs, the Town and County have been preparing to update the Comp Plan (the vision for the Valley) in 2019. Questions have arisen about the timing of the plan update and whether it should continue to be jointly prepared and adopted or whether the Town and County should each develop plans for their respective jurisdictions. Next Steps and Considerations? Attachment B: Future Land Use Administration for the Estes Valley, provides a decision flow chart showing possible paths forward starting with decisions about the Comp Plan. The chart notes that the first important decision or milestone is whether to update the Comp Plan this year, and if so, whether to do so jointly. 5 JOINT MEETING, ESTES BOARD OF TRUSTEES, LARIMER BOCC IGA DISCUSSION, FEBRUARY 19, 2019 PAGE | 4 If the Town and County determine to prepare a joint Comp Plan, they should also further discuss how it may be prepared (e.g., staffing, funding, vendor, adoption process) and whether it is desirable to continue with joint Land Use Code or to move toward separated codes. An IGA update will be necessary if a joint Comprehensive Plan is prepared and adopted, but the characteristics in the update would be different to reflect jurisdictional requirements and intentions. It is also possible that each entity could do a plan for respective jurisdictions concurrently and collaboratively as separate work products, or that the Town could proceed with a plan for the incorporated area and the County could follow. Some of the decisions about the code may be able to wait until after the plan is updated. Preparing and adopting separate plans would likely lead to revisiting the Land Use Code and zoning – perhaps preparing and administering them separately as well, meaning the IGA would need to be updated. If the Town and County decide to proceed separately, then it soon will be time to discuss how to update or revise the IGA to address transitions of staffing, the EVPC, the EVBOA, and the planning area administration. The Town and County may see value in revisiting the agreement’s provisions and discussing how the entities may work together to achieve their visions and goals going forward. The flow chart should aid the Trustees and Commissioners in discussion and in providing direction to staff on the three questions noted at the beginning of the memo: 1. Should the update of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan (“the Comp Plan”) proceed in 2019? 2. If so, should the Town and County jointly or separately update the Comp Plan? 3. Would the Trustees and Commissioners like staff to conduct additional community outreach or analysis related to the Comp Plan update or options for the Intergovernmental Agreement or joint planning (e.g., extension, revisions, or a new path forward)? Attachments: A. IGA and Amendments (2000, 2003 Amendment, 2010 First Amendment, 2014 Second Amendment, 2015 Third Amendment, 2017 Fourth Amendment) B. Future Land Use Administration for the Estes Valley (Decision Chart) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Jointly Separately Should the update be conducted jointly or separately? Are revisions to the IGA needed? Should an update of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan proceed in 2019? Updated Estes Valley Land Use Code Town of Estes Park Comprehensive Plan Larimer County Comprehensive Plan Updated to include unincorporated valley Updated Town of Estes Park Land Use Code Updated Larimer County Land Use Code • What geographic area should the Comp Plan study? • How should the process be conducted? Town of Estes Park Larimer County No Yes • Expand Mountain Resiliency Plan/County Comp Plan for Valley unincorporated area • Consider interim ĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƟŽŶ Yes No Should Comprehensive Plan be implemented through a shared Land Use Code? Town of Estes Park Larimer County Town KEY County Joint = Beginning or end product = Decision required с&ƵƌƚŚĞƌŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƟŽŶƐ ĂŶĚĐƟŽŶ^ƚĞƉƐ • Update Land Use Code for Municipal area • Establish Municipal Planning Commission • Adopt Special Planning ƌĞĂƌĞŐƵůĂƟŽŶƐĨŽƌ unincorporated Valley • Establish Valley Advisory Board or Planning Commission Future Land Use AdministraƟŽŶĨŽƌ the Estes Valley • Are revisions to the IGA needed? • How should the process ďĞƐƚĂīĞĚ͍ • How should the plan be adopted? hƉĚĂƚĞͬZĞǀŝƐĞĞǆŝƐƟŶŐ/' ͻdƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶŽĨƐƚĂĸŶŐ ͻdƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶŽĨWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ ͻĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƟŽŶŽĨ'ƌŽǁƚŚ Management Area ͻǆƚĞŶĚͬƌĞǀŝƐĞĞǆŝƐƟŶŐ/' ͻŽŶƟŶƵĞũŽŝŶƚWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ or establish separate Planning Commissions or Advisory Boards? ͻŐƌĞĞŽŶWůĂŶŶŝŶŐƐƚĂīĂƌƌĂŶŐĞŵĞŶƚƐ • Update Estes Valley Land Use Code Attachment B Updated Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan 30 Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Land Use Planning Input Robert Guthrie <robertnguthrie@gmail.com>Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:58 AM To: townclerk@estes.org Good Day, Although we have not yet seen the final proposal for changes to our zoning codes, I would like to voice my strong opposition to the draft proposal calling for commercial development approval for residential lots of 5 acres or greater. With respect, I'm just a bit incredulous that such a proposal would even be floated, as our open space in the Estes Valley is so very limited, and wintering ground for elk, deer, and other wildlife already at a premium. Finally, I feel a bit of a betrayal for those of us who purchased residences in the Valley under current zoning, with no idea that such a radical notion would spring from Town Planners. I look forward to seeing the final proposal. Thanks very much. Robert Guthrie 1101 North Lane Estes Park -- R Guthrie 303.913.0391 31 Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Feb. 19 Joint Study Session questions Geoffrey J Letchworth <GJL3@uwyo.edu>Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:54 PM To: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org> You asked that comments for the Feb. 19 Estes Park Town Board and Larimer County Board of Commissioners joint study session be directed to you. I hear rumors that some would advocate for rezoning 10 acre lots in the North End to 2.5 acres and for allowing business use of any lot in the North End. If true, the Boards will need to seek help on two major issues beyond their areas of expertise. Most homes in the North End get water from personal wells and dispose of wastes with personal septic systems. Most of the wells are drilled in solid granite, reaching down as far as 1000 feet to find a little crack with enough water to run a household. There is so little water that most wells are restricted to indoor use only. Some require a cistern to provide enough water for peak use. Subdividing the large lots will require that you coordinate with the Colorado Division of Water Resources to assure their approval for a large number of new well permits. Approval seems unlikely because there probably just isn’t enough water in the granite under the North End. Septic systems require a large area of deep soil which is less likely to be found on a small lot. What would you propose for lots that lack water or a site for a septic leachfield? What would such a lot be worth? How would you tax it? Would subdivision lead to large numbers of worthless, undevelopable, untaxable little lots? Of course, the alternative solution is to extend city water and sewage treatment services to the North End. And that would require expensive excavation to bury pipes in granite below the frost line. Would the municipal water and sewage treatment plants have to expand to serve so many new customers? Will there be enough water as the climate changes? Where would you get funding for any proposed changes? Would you require existing residents to abandon their very expensive wells and septic systems to pay for and hook up to city services and how would you deal with their anger and lawsuits? The elk that draw crowds to Estes Park in the Fall migrate between the mountains and Loveland, but their home base is the Estes Valley where large herds congregate to graze the grass and lounge in quiet areas out of sight of the roads. By the time they drop their calves and move up into the high meadows in the late Spring, they have grazed North End grass down to the ground. To state that differently, there is now just enough forage to support the existing elk herd. Before the North End is subdivided and developed, wildlife biologists should be engaged to estimate the negative effect on the elk herd. How much would the herd shrink if much of the North End grass disappeared? Would the elk continue to thrive in a more densely populated environment? How many more elk would be killed on the road? Would concentrating the remaining elk into smaller areas of grass facilitate transmission of chronic wasting and other diseases? And what would Estes Park businesses do if there weren’t enough elk to attract tourists in the Fall? Geoff Letchworth, DVM, PhD 1726 Devils Gulch Road 32 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CMS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, INC. P.O. BOX 416 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 (970) 231-6200 CMS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT February 17, 2019 Town Trustees and County Commissions: As you discuss whether or not to prepare a valley-wide, joint Comprehensive Plan, a decision which will affect the lives of everyone in the Estes Valley for the next 20 years, please consider the following: 1) We currently provide valley-wide services to residents for education, fire protection, utilities, hospital, library, recreation and parks, child services, victim advocates, open space preservation, and environmental stewardship. Also, the County and Town have numerous IGAs and Mutual Aid agreements in place, including for cooperative police services. The most significant cooperative agreement is the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and Joint Planning Area. 2) The only significant services the residents of the Estes Valley don’t already receive valley-wide are governance, financing, and road maintenance. 3) A valley-wide Comprehensive Plan can be used to address these issues. It is not uncommon for governance to be included in the scope of a Comprehensive Plan, along with transportation, land-use, infrastructure, and environment. As an experienced, professional land planner, I recommend that the Trustees and Commissioners should agree to proceed with a valley-wide Comprehensive Plan, including an analysis of governance structure in the Estes Valley. This is a great opportunity to explore this issue in a thorough way, and not make a snap decision on such an important topic. As you know, I am a member of the Estes Valley Planning Commission, but these are my private and professional views, not those of the Planning Commission. Sincerely, Frank Theis, President CMS Planning & Development Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Estes Valley Development Code Ammendments jay@grainplacefoundation.org <jay@grainplacefoundation.org>Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 8:39 AM To: townclerk@estes.org, planning@estes.org, jkafalas@larimer.org, swjohnson@larimer.org, tdonnelly@larimer.org TO: Estes Valley Planning Commission Estes Park Town Board Larimer County Board of Commissioners FROM: Jay Vetter, 1711 Mills Drive, Estes Park RE: Estes Valley Development Code Changes Thanks for your work to help guide development in the Estes Valley. I have a very simple request: Please stop all these code amendments. Nearly every one of them has unintended consequences. To the EVPC: It is not “best practice” to expect (allow) town staff to rewrite the codes they are charged to administer. I think the process outlined in the conceptual proposal on your Feb. 19, agenda could be a step in the right direction if not taken too hastily. When a community wide effort to rewrite both the comprehensive plan and development code is underway it may not be wise to keep approving code amendments unless to address known specific projects with broad public support. To the Town Board: Please re-evaluate your strategic goals. They are pointing your employees in the wrong direction. While most believe that economic development is important, we hope you will give priority to providing for public safety and improving our quality of life. Long term economic development will be best served by enhancing amenities and quality of life. These can only be addressed with broad public input and cooperation. To Larimer County Board of Commissioners: You are probably frustrated by the disgruntled citizens of the Estes Valley. Unless the issues above are addressed expect it to continue. As the only elected representatives some of us have on these matters, please help us address them in healthy ways. Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Estes Valley Planning District 2 messages J Rex Poggenpohl <poggenpohl@mac.com>Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 5:44 PM To: Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Cc: Steve Johnson <swjohnson@larimer.org>, Tom Donnelly <donnelt@co.larimer.co.us>, Ronald Norris <rnorris@estes.org>, "Patrick Martchink, MPT" <pmartchink@estes.org>, Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>, Frank Lancaster <flancaster@estes.org> Please pass this on to County Commissioners and Town Trustees: I am writing as an informed citizen and a long time student of land use planning about your upcoming discussion on the above, as I will be out of town for your Feb. meeting. I suspect the Town is most interested separating the district because of the currently high percentage of planning department effort for development outside of Town limits and the prospect that this percentage will increase with more outer development because the Town is getting close to buildout. Our special planning district has worked well for over 20 years in spite of the tribulations typical of any planning district. More importantly the original and current reasons for the combined district are very valid: Our unique physical setting. Our distance from the County seat and County meetings. The we/they nature of our Town and valley. Our generation of sales taxes from 5 million visitors a year and over 70,000 overnight guests on peak weekends. Much of the commercial and residential physical growth here will be outside of Town as it is nearing buildout. We know and appreciate the trek County Officials have to make several times each year for meetings up here, but their experience in community planning and presence here is very valuable for this important community. Their continued support of the combined planning district is critical to well planned growth of the valley and a stronger community. Reverting to separate planning districts implies separate Comprehensive plans, zoning plans, land use Boards. And separation increases the we/they tension and an even more fragmented community. This already must be the most fragmented community for is size. For our approximately 9000 voters we have: over 20 churches, over 100 non-profit organization and about 2000 volunteers. Please continue the joint Planning District and efforts to make this an even better community. Thanks and Regards, ..... Rex Poggenpohl Chair, Estes Valley Board of Adjustment Vice Chair, Larimer County Board of Appeals Member, Estes Parks Advisory Board Regards, ..... Rex Town Clerk <TownClerk@estes.org>Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 8:38 AM To: Randy Hunt <RHUNT@estes.org>, Frank Lancaster <FLANCASTER@estes.org>, trustees@estes.org Hello Trustees, ResolutionInSupportoftheJointPlanningAreaBelowisaresolutioninsupportoftheJointPlanningArea,whichwillbediscussedandvotedonduringtheEVPCmeetingonFebruary19,2019.IfitisapproveditwillbegiventotheEstesParkTownTrusteesandLarimerCountyCommissionersforinclusionintheirmeetingontheeveningofFebruary19th.Publiccommentsarewelcomeanditwillbeontheagendaforthepublicmeeting.WetheEstesValleyPlanningCommissionstronglysupporttheEstesValleyJointPlanningArea(JPA)andtherelatedIntergovernmentalAgreement(IGA).Oursupportisbasedonthefollowing:•FirstandforemosttheEstesValleyisoneintegratedcommunity.Intermsofcommoncommunityinterestsandconcerns,therearenoboundariesbetweentheTownandCountyintheEstesValley.•TheEstesValleyisuniqueinthatitislandlockedandnearlyallofthelandisdeveloped.ThesizeoftheEstesValleyisnotlarge.Thus,landuseplanningthroughouttheEstesValleyisofconcerntoawiderangeofTownandCountyresidents.•Itmakescompletesensethatlanduseplanninginsuchaconfinedgeographicareabehandledonacoordinatedbasis.ThisiswhytheJPAwasimplementedmorethan20yearsago.•TheEstesValleyPlanningCommissionismuchbetterequippedtoaddresslanduseissuesintheEstesValleythantheLarimerCountyPlanningCommissionduetoourknowledgeandexperiencewithlocallanduseissues.OurfocusisontheEstesValley.TheLarimerCountyPlanningCommissionisfocusedontheentirecountyandinparticularonthefrontrangecommunitiesandtheirissues.•AprimarygoalofthenewComprehensivePlanistocreateasharedvisionforthefutureoftheEstesValley.ThiscanonlybedoneifthereisoneComprehensivePlanfortheentireEstesValley,andthiscanonlybedoneiftheJPAisretained.•TheComprehensivePlanismuchmorethanaguideforlanduseplanning.Itencompasestransportation,parking,downtownplanning,trails,utilities,wateruse,floodcontrolandmitigation,firemitigation,andmore.Thesetopicsarebydefinitionvalley-wideasislanduseplanning.‘-•ResidentsofthecountyportionoftheEstesValleymayhaveamoredifficulttimegettingtheirconcernsaddressedbytheircountyrepresentatives(theLarimerCountyPlanningDepartment,LarimerCountyPlanningCommission,andtheCountyCommissioners).TheseCountyofficialshavebusyschedulesandmayat timeshavemarepressingissuestoaddressthantheconcernsofEstesValleyresidents.AllthisactivitywilltakeplaceinFortCollinsratherthanEstesPark,unlessspecialmeetingsareheldinEstesPark.•IftheJPAisdissolvedthecountyportionoftheEstesValleywillcomeundertheCounty’sComprehensivePlanandDevelopmentCode.ZoninginthecountyportionofthevalleywillhavetoberedonesincetheCountydoesnothavethesamezoningdistrictsaswehaveintheEstesValleyDevelopmentCode.Protectionsprovidedtoresidentsbycurrentzoningdesignationsanddevelopmentcodewillnotnecessarilybeavailableafterthisrezoning.Someneighborhoods,suchasCarriageHills,willbedividedwithoneportionunderTownzoninganddevelopmentcodesandanotherportionundercountyzoninganddevelopmentcodes.Thiswillcreatealotofconfusion.•DissolvingtheJPAwillincreasethedissentionanddisunityintheEstesValley.RetainingtheJPAtogetherwithanewvalley-wideComprehensivePlanwillincreasecooperation,collaboration,andconsensusintheEstesValley.•DissolvingtheJPAwillaccentuatethelackofrepresentationthatresidentsexperiencewhendevelopmentprojectsarebroughtforward.Therewillbenovalley-wideforumlikethePlanningCommissionwherecitizen’sviewscanbeheard.•TheexistenceoftheJPAand(GAallowustodrawontheknowledgeandexperienceofCountyplanningstaffaswedevelopourawnuniquesolutionstoEstesValleylanduseissues.GiventheknownnegativeconsequencesofdissolvingtheJPAandthelikelihoodofadditionalunintendedconsequences,theresponsiblecourseofactionistoretaintheJPAandfixexistingproceduralproblemsbyrevisingtheGA.GiventhecriticalimportancethattheJPAhasplayedinEstesValleyplanning,nogoverningbodyshouldproposetodissolvetheJPAunlessithasidentifiedanalternativethatcanworkaswellorbetterthanaJPA.EstesValleyPlanningCommissionFebruary19,2019BobLeavia,Chair,EstesValleyPlanningCommission PUBLIC WORKS Report To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Board of County Commissioners Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director Date: February 19, 2019 RE: Proposed Stormwater Management Fees Objective: Discuss with the Town Board and County Commissioners the foundational assumptions incorporated into the cost modeling and the associated stormwater management fees to be shared with the public for review and comment. Present Situation: In October, 2018 PW staff received direction from the County Commissioners and Town Board to proceed with the distribution of proposed stormwater management fees and educational information through a direct mailing to the owners of 7676 improved parcels within the Estes Valley Development Code boundary. Additionally, a public opinion survey is to be conducted to learn property owner reactions to the proposed fee and funding structure for a future stormwater utility. In January 2018 Town and County Public Works (PW) staff jointly worked through the parcel data and presented summaries of potential monthly user fees options separately to both the Board of Trustees and Board of County Commissioners. Concerns were expressed regarding potential modeled fees in excess of $35/month for a fraction of the larger residential parcels. Other concerns were expressed about asking only the owners of 7676 improved lots to bear the burden of sharing the local cost contribution to the program instead of all owners of the 8583 parcels within the Estes Valley Development Code boundary. It was pointed out that the flood runoff watershed contains 210 sq miles, the proposed stormwater program area (EVDC boundary) encompasses 36.8 sq miles which consists of 35.3 sq miles of vacant land and 1.5 sq miles of impervious area. Following the January meetings Town and County PW staff created several new cost models to temper the high outlier residential fees and more closely examine the annual cash flow needs to construct the $79M master planned projects. Fee charges on vacant land are omitted due to concern about elevated exposure to legal challenge of administrative imposition of a tax rather than a fee. 33 Proposal: Staff prepared and attached a summary of two options (no grant revenue and 20% grant revenue) for calculating fees. Both options include the following key assumptions. • All fees are based on impervious area within 7676 improved parcels. No fees are proposed for the vacant 907 parcels (or the vacant fraction of improved parcels) within the Development Code boundary. • Non-residential property fees are individually calculated. This includes parcels with multi-family development. • Residential fees are based on the average impervious areas within four lot size tiers of 1656 parcels each. These quartile sizes are: under 0.04 ac, 0.05 to 0.44 ac, 0.45 to 1.01 ac, and over 1.02 ac. • Fees are proposed to be adjusted annually based on the rise or fall of the Construction Cost Index provided by CDOT for their transportation projects. Our inflation assumptions project a potential 238% increase in the fees over the program duration. • The program duration is assumed to be 30 years, and can be shortened depending on revenue (user fees, grants, and sales tax). • A sales tax of 0.4% is dedicated to this program from 2024 thru 2047 (27 years) to generate $70M. An election is necessary to approve this. • This is a no-debt, pay-as-you-go cost model. Low user fees and zero sales tax in the early years delay the start and increase the cost of construction projects. Before mailing proposed fees to our property owners, we need guidance from our policy makers on the following elements that impact the proposed user fees: 1. Do you agree with the assumptions listed above? 2. Grant revenue can accelerate construction timing and lower user fees. The user fees more than double if we assume no grant revenue in the cost model. Is there guiding direction on the grant revenue assumption to be used? 3. If a stormwater utility is created, a revenue stream would be established that could service debt incurred thru future revenue bonds. The timing of the construction could be accelerated which lowers the total program cost. Does this need to be considered/modeled before user fees are calculated and shared with the property owners? 4. Do you wish to see any new information before staff presents the calculated, first-year user fees to owners of improved parcels? Upon receipt of direction on which fee structure to present to the public, Staff will launch an additional month of public outreach. When complete, Staff proposes to return to the Town Board and County Commissioners for further discussion of the feedback received from the public and to receive direction from both Boards regarding potential implementation of a stormwater utility for managing stormwater in the Estes Valley. Advantages: Careful study of fee amounts should improve fairness, reasonableness, & payer support. 34 Disadvantages: Ongoing analysis of the numerous fee calculation options delays the process of gathering additional citizen feedback for consideration of the proposed stormwater utility by the Trustees and Commissioners. Action Recommended: Fee guidance as outlined above. Finance/Resource Impact: The implementation of any stormwater management program will require new funding. Staff’s previous recommendations used a mixture of utility fees and future sales tax. Consideration of grants is now added in an effort to further reduce parcel owner fees. The range of values of fee and sales tax revenue can vary widely depending on the size of the stormwater program, its speed of implementation and preferences on how to balance revenue generation between user fees, grants and sales tax. Level of Public Interest The level of public interest seen to date is moderate for this program. Staff believes the interest level will increase when fee estimates are shared publicly. Attachments: Program Funding Option Summary 35 PROGRAM FUNDING OPTION SUMMARYPrepared 15 February 201920% GRANTSResidential FIRST YEAR ONLYResidential Non-Residential Total $/mo Annual25% 50% 75% 100%$8,608.60 $1,371.50 $9,980.10 $119,761.20Service FeeMaximum Lot Size (sq-ft)1927 19029 43996 8886240$15,372.03 $12,978.58 $28,350.61 $340,207.26O&MMaximum Lot Size (ac)0.04 0.44 1.01 204.00$20,345.33 $17,177.53 $37,522.86 $450,274.34Facil ExpanCount1656 1655 1656 16556622$44,325.96 $31,527.60 $75,853.57 $910,242.80 TotalTotal Developed Parcels7,677Average I (sq-ft)1195 3149 4110 5610Total Impervious Area42911756Utility Service Fee$1.30 $1.30 $1.30 $1.30O&M $/imperv sq ft$0.79 $2.08 $2.71 $3.70Count1055 Count > $100/mo 49Facilities Expansion $/imperv sq ft$1.04$2.75$3.59$4.90Min$1.34Count > $200/mo192020 TOTAL MONTHLY FEE $3.13 $6.13 $7.61 $9.91Max $3,559.79 Count > $300/mo 102047 TOTAL MONTHLY FEE $7.47 $14.61 $18.12 $23.61Average $29.88 Count > $500/mo 62020 Revenue5,188.88$ 10,146.12$ 12,594.66$ 16,396.30$ 44,325.96$ Median$8.92Count> $1000/mo2Fees likely to double over 28 year programTOTAL PROGRAM REVENUE (28 years--20% Grants)SourceAmount(Millions)PercentageLocal User Fees40.65$ 29.3%Local Sales Tax69.96$ 50.5%Grants28.00$ 20.2%TOTAL PROGRAM REVENUE $138.61100.0%TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSES$138.54NO GRANTSResidential FIRST YEAR ONLYResidential Non-Residential Total $/mo Annual25% 50% 75% 100%$8,608.60 $1,371.50 $9,980.10 $119,761.20Service FeeMaximum Lot Size (sq-ft)1927 19029 43996 8886240$15,372.03 $12,978.58 $28,350.61 $340,207.26O&MMaximum Lot Size (ac)0.04 0.44 1.01 204.00$67,817.78 $57,258.42 $125,076.21 $1,500,914.47Facil ExpanCount1656 1655 1656 16550$91,798.41 $71,608.50 $163,406.91 $1,960,882.94 TotalAverage I (sq-ft)1195 3149 4110 5610Utility Service Fee$1.30 $1.30 $1.30 $1.30O&M $/imperv sq ft$0.79 $2.08 $2.71 $3.70Count1055 Count > $100/mo 164Facilities Expansion $/imperv sq ft$3.48$9.17$11.97$16.34Min$1.38Count > $200/mo612020 TOTAL MONTHLY FEE $5.57 $12.55 $15.99 $21.35Max $8,289.44 Count > $300/mo 342047 TOTAL MONTHLY FEE $12.79 $28.82 $36.71 $49.02Average $67.88 Count > $500/mo 152020 Revenue9,224.17$ 20,771.89$ 26,473.08$ 35,329.27$ 91,798.41$ Median$19.05Count> $1000/mo6Fees likely to double over 28 year programTOTAL PROGRAM REVENUE (28 years--No Grants)SourceAmount(Millions)PercentageLocal User Fees85.73$ 55.1%Local Sales Tax69.96$ 44.9%Grants-$ 0.0%TOTAL PROGRAM REVENUE $155.68100.0%TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSES$152.55Summary FIRST YEAR ONLYQuartilesNon-Residential (2020)Summary FIRST YEAR ONLYQuartilesNon-Residential (2020)36