HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2018-07-24The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide highǦquality, reliable services
for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being good stewards
of public resources and our natural setting.
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.
%2$5'2)75867((672:12)(67(63$5.
7XHVGD\-XO\
SP
3/('*(2)$//(*,$1&(
$Q\SHUVRQGHVLULQJWRSDUWLFLSDWHSOHDVHMRLQWKH%RDUGLQWKH3OHGJHRI $OOHJLDQFH
$*(1'$$33529$/
38%/,&&200(17 3OHDVHVWDWH\RXUQDPHDQGDGGUHVV
72:1%2$5'&200(176/,$,6215(32576
72:1$'0,1,675$7255(3257
32/,&<*29(51$1&(021,725,1*5(32576±3ROLFLHV
%RDUG3ROLF\GHVLJQDWHVVSHFLILFUHSRUWLQJUHTXLUHPHQWVIRUSURYLGLQJLQIRUPDWLRQ
WRWKH%RDUG3ROLF\3ROLF\DQG3ROLF\HDFK-XO\
&216(17$*(1'$
%LOOV
7RZQ%RDUG0LQXWHVGDWHG-XO\DQG7RZQ%RDUG6WXG\6HVVLRQ0LQXWHV
GDWHG-XQHDQG-XO\
(VWHV9DOOH\3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ0LQXWHVGDWHG-XQH DQG6WXG\6HVVLRQ
0LQXWHVGDWHG-XQH DFNQRZOHGJHPHQWRQO\
7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ$GYLVRU\%RDUG0LQXWHVGDWHG-XQH DFNQRZOHGJHPHQWRQO\
3DUNV$GYLVRU\%RDUG0LQXWHVGDWHG0D\ DFNQRZOHGJHPHQWRQO\
7KUHH <HDU +ROLGD\ /LJKWLQJ ([KLELWV &RQWUDFW ZLWK $GDP¶V7UHH 6HUYLFH )LUVW
6HDVRQ %XGJHWHG$QQXDOO\
$FFHSWDQFHRI7RZQ$GPLQLVWUDWRU3ROLF\*RYHUQDQFH0RQLWRULQJ5HSRUWV
3/$11,1* &200,66,21 ,7(06 ,WHPV UHYLHZHG E\ 3ODQQLQJ &RPPLVVLRQ RU VWDII IRU
7RZQ%RDUG)LQDO$FWLRQ
$&7,21,7(06
$ $0(1'(' 3/$7 1 67 95$,1 $9(18( /276 $1' 2) /,77/(
35263(&702817$,1$'',7,21&+81*2:1(53ODQQHU:RHEHU
5HPRYH7DEOHGLWHPDQGDSSURYHWKH7ZLQ2ZOV$PHQGHG3ODWDVSUHVHQWHGRQ
-XQH $SSOLFDQWV 5HSUHVHQWDWLYH KDV UHTXHVWHG WKH LWHP EH UHPRYHG
IURP WKH DJHQGD DQG UHYLHZHG DW D IXWXUH 7RZQ %RDUG 0HeWLQJ 1R DFWLRQ
UHTXLUHG
3UHSDUHG
5HYLVHG
1
127( 7KH7RZQ%RDUGUHVHUYHVWKHULJKWWRFRQVLGHURWKHUDSSURSULDWHLWHPVQRWDYDLODEOHDWWKHWLPHWKHDJHQGDZDV
SUHSDUHG
$&7,21,7(06
)(( :$,9(5 5(48(67 67$1/(< $9(18( '(9(/230(17 3/$1 '$1
60,7+2:1(53ODQQHU+DWKDZD\
)HHZDLYHUUHTXHVWRIDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHUHYLHZRID'HYHORSPHQW3ODQIRU
DZRUNIRUFHKRXVLQJSURMHFW
5(9,6('32/,&<72:1)81',1*2)2876,'((17,7,(6$VVLVWDQW7RZQ
$GPLQLVWUDWRU0DFKDOHN
&RQVLGHUDWLRQRISURSRVHGFKDQJHVWRWKH7RZQ
VSROLF\RQIXQGLQJRXWVLGHHQWLWLHV
5(32576$1'',6&866,21,7(06
83'$7( 21 '5< *8/&+ :25.)25&( +286,1* 352-(&7 0DQDJHU
/DQGNDPHU $PHULFD:HVW
67250:$7(50$1$*(0(17352-(&783'$7(0DQDJHU+RRN
$'-2851
2
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
970.577.3705
flancaster@estes.org
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 24th 2018
TO: Board of Trustees
FROM: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
SUBJECT: INTERNAL MONITORING REPORT - EXECUTIVE LIMITATIONS
(QUARTERLY MONITORING REPORT POLICY 3.3, 3.12,3.13)
Board Policy 2.3 designates specific reporting requirements for me to provide information to the
Board. Policy 3.3, Financial Planning and Budgeting, Policy 3.12, General Town Administrator
– Internal Operating Procedures and 3.13 – Town Organizational Plan, are all scheduled for
reporting to the Board in July.
Policy 3.3 states: “With respect for strategic planning for projects, services and activities with a
fiscal impact, the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either the operational or fiscal integrity
of Town government.”
Policy 3.12 states: “With respect to internal operating procedures, the Town
Administrator will ensure that the Town has internal procedures to promote effective and
efficient Town operations.”
Policy 3.13 states: “With respect to internal organizational structure of the Town, the
Town Administrator will maintain a current organizational plan (organizational chart) of the
Town, in a graphical format including through the division level. The Town Administrator
will update the plan annually. The current plan shall be included in the Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report each year, and presented to the Board of Trustees at the first
regular meeting following the certification of the results of each biennial election.”
This report constitutes my assurance that, as reasonably interpreted, these conditions have not
occurred and further, that the data submitted below are accurate as of this date.
________________________
Frank Lancaster
Town Administrator
3
3.3.1. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which deviates from
statutory requirements.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that our budgeting practices and policies
comply with all State statutory requirements that are applicable to statutory Colorado
towns.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
There are no deviations in our practices and policies in violation of State Statutes
Evidence:
1. The annual independent audit
2. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
3. All policies are reviewed for compliance with State Statutes by the Town
Attorney.
4. State Department of Local Government has not issued any non-compliance
notifications to the Town of Estes Park regarding our budgetary obligations under
statute.
Report: I report compliance
3.3.2. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which deviates
materially from Board-stated priorities in its allocation among competing
budgetary needs.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that the annual budget, as adopted by the
Board of Trustees, is the officially adopted priorities of the Board. This includes any
budget amendments approved by the Town Board throughout the year and any specific
spending authorizations approved by the Town Board. I interpret “materially deviate” to
mean any change in spending priority that results in diverting resources away from any
Board objective, goal or outcome substantial enough to contribute to not achieving the
objective, goal or outcome. I do not interpret minor deviations resulting from changing
circumstances, community demands and unforeseen circumstances outside of the Town’s
control, as material deviations.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
Budget spending does not materially deviate from the levels approved in the adopted
budget.
Evidence:
1. The adopted budget was prepared based on the Board stated priorities.
2. Any substantial budget changes have been presented to the Board for review and
approval.
3. HTE Budget reports for each department are available on a regular basis or as
4
requested.
Report: I report compliance
3.3.3. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which contains
inadequate information to enable credible projection of revenues and
expenses, separation of capital and operational items, cash flow and
subsequent audit trails, and disclosure of planning assumptions.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean the budget, as recommended by the Town
Administrator, must be based on credible data and the best available information
concerning the local economy and other factors that may impact our revenues and
expenses. In addition, the budget is to be structured to separate capital expenditures
from operational costs. All revenue projects will be conservative and it is more critical not
to overestimate revenues vs underestimating revenues.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1. Revenue projections are clear and deviations between projected actual revenues
are within a 5-10%, barring any catastrophic events.
2. Actual revenue is not less than projected.
3. The Budget presented to the Board for adoption is in a format the separates
revenues, expenses and capital expenditures.
4. Any assumptions used in preparing the budget are clearly articulated to the Board
during budget review sessions.
Evidence:
1. Sales tax collections through May are currently 10.92% higher than May
2017. They are 12.6% higher than budgeted
2. Current revenue is more than projected.
3. The current budget and proposed budget are both presented in the format that
separates revenues, expenses and capital.
4. Assumptions leading to the projects were discussed with the Board during budget
review sessions.
Report: I report compliance
3.3.4. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which plans the
expenditure in any fiscal year of more funds than are conservatively
projected to be received in that period, or which are otherwise available.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that the proposed budget must be balanced.
This includes expenditures for the year not exceeding the revenues received from all
sources. Exceptions are Board approved use of fund balances, and use of funds that have
5
been accumulated over a period of time, with the approval of the Board, with the intent of
saving funds to pay for a specific project or capital expense.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
The proposed budget meets the above criteria and year end expenses do not exceed
year end revenues, inclusive of any board approve spending of fund balance or specific
reserve funds.
Evidence:
1. The adopted budget and the CAFR document that I have not allowed budgeting
which plans the expenditure in any fiscal year of more funds than are
conservatively projected to be received in that period, or which are otherwise
available.
Report: I report compliance
3.3.5. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which reduces fund
balances or reserves in any fund to a level below that established by the
Board of Trustees.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I the audited year end unrestricted fund
balance in the General Fund does not drop below 20% unless otherwise authorized by the
Board. If the Board approves and adopts a budget that plans for reducing the fund
balance below the 20% level, I interpret this as being authorized by the Board. (This
interpretation will be modified if the Board adopts a cash reserve minimum policy in the
future. Staff will be bringing options for such a policy forward in the near future for Board
consideration, as directed in the September study session.)
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1. The final CAFR indicates that a general fund fund balance of 20% or greater, or as
otherwise approved by the Town Board.
2. The proposed budget anticipates an end of year fund balance in the General Fund
of 20% or greater unless otherwise approved by the Town Board..
Evidence:
1. The 2015 CAFR shows a 21.5% fund balance at the end of 2015
2. The 2016 unaudited budget indicates a 31.4% fund balance at the end of 2016
3. The current fund balance projection is 22.8% based on the amended budget and
audited ending balances for 2016
i. Report: I am reporting technical non-compliance.
The General Fund has grant receivables estimated at $4,540,000 of which $3,038,398
6
is for the Fish Creek project. Because most of this was not actually collected by Feb
28, 2018, the Town cannot recognize grant revenue for these receivables for the
fiscal year 2017 and cannot include the revenues in the upcoming CAFR and will
result in a CAFR reported fund balance of 15%. This is a requirement of GASB
accounting rules. We had fully expected to have this revenue in hand by February
28th. It’s important to note these are reimbursements from FHWA and there is no
question that the reimbursements will be received. It is just a matter of timing when
the reimbursement will go to Larimer County and then be forwarded on to the
Town.
Staff first became aware of this on March 2nd when the payment was not received,.
On March 5, 2018, the Town received a grant payment from Larimer County of
$2,037,892. If this payment would have been received 5 days earlier, the Town could
have recognized this grant receivable as revenue and the ending 2017 General Fund
fund balance ratio would have been 25%. The non-compliance is due to this one-
week timing difference.
The projected year end General Fund fund balance as of the date of this report is
21% and is in compliance with Board policy.
3.3.6. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which Fails to
maintain a Budget Contingency Plan capable of responding to significant
shortfalls within the Town’s budget.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I must prepare the budget, maintain a
cash reserve ratio as specified in Policy 670.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1. The Town Board has adopted and approved a Formal Budget Contingency plan
2. The current cash reserve ratio is 2.0 or greater
Evidence:
1. The current cash reserve ratio is in compliance with Policy 670
2. Cash ratio reserve reports as supplied to the Board on a monthly basis
Report: I report compliance
3.3.7. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which fails to
provide for an annual audit.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I must ensure that the Town completes
an independent audit annually. Further, that audit report should result in an unqualified
and unmodified opinion from the Board’s auditors.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
The audit is complete and presented to the Town Board.
7
Evidence:
1. The 2017 Audit should be completed by the end of the month and the CAFR
prepared and submitted to the State of Colorado.
Report: I report compliance
3.3.8. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which fails to
protect, within his or her ability to do so, the integrity of the current or
future bond ratings of the Town.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I cannot take any action that will result
any negative impact on the Town’s bond rating. This includes, maintaining adequate fund
balances as required in 3.3.5 and maintaining adequate bond coverage ratios for all
revenue bonds associated with the Town’s enterprise funds.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1. I am in compliance with 3.3.5
2. Required bond coverage ratios are met.
Evidence:
1. The estimate is $3,005,617 for the final 2017 fund balance (fund balance ratio of
approximately 15% of 2017 General Fund expenditures) The general fund balance
as of the date of this report is 25% and is in compliance with Board policy. (see
explanation in 3.3.5 above)
2. The required Bond coverage ratio for L&P is 125% and for Water is 110%. Our
current coverage for the L&P Bonds exceeds both of these ratios.
Report: I report partial compliance
3.3.9. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which results in new
positions to staffing levels without specific approval of the Board of Town
Trustees. The Town Administrator may approve positions funded by
grants, which would not impose additional costs to the Town in addition
to the grant funds and any temporary positions for which existing
budgeted funds are allocated.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I cannot allow any new positions or
expansion of any part-time positions to be advertised or filled without prior Board
approval. I may allow the reduction in staffing without Board approval and any positions
or partial positions funded by grants or any temporary positions for which existing
budgeted funds are allocated may be filled without prior approval of the Board.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
No new positions or expansion of positions are approved and hired without approval of
the board, with the exceptions noted above.
8
Evidence:
1. All positions are indicated in the adopted and proposed budgets and no
unapproved positions are shown.
Report: I report compliance
3.12 With respect to internal operating procedures, the Town
Administrator will ensure that the Town has internal procedures to promote
effective and efficient Town operations.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I maintain up to date internal policies and
procedures that control the day to day operations of the Town. These policies are
updated to reflect change conditions and governing laws,
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
No issues regular arise that not covered by internal policies and procedures, and the
Town is not put at risk legally or with undue liability due to lack of adequate policies or
procedures guiding our actions.
Evidence:
1. Town policies and procedures are up to date and available to all employees on I-
Town
2. Town Policies are reviewed on a regularly scheduled basis to insure they are
current and effective.
Report: I report compliance
3.13 With respect to internal organizational structure of the Town, the
Town Administrator will maintain a current organizational plan
(organizational chart) of the Town, in a graphical format including through
the division level. The Town Administrator will update the plan annually.
The current plan shall be included in the Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report each year, and presented to the Board of Trustees at the first regular
meeting following the certification of the results of each biennial election.
Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I maintain a current organizational chart
that is included in the CAFR and presented to the Board of Trustees biennially.
Compliance with the policy will be achieved when:
1. The organizational chart is printed in the CAFR
2. The organizational chart is presented to the Town Board at the first regular
meeting following the certification of the results of each biennial election.
9
Evidence:
1. The organizational chart was published as part of the 2015 CAFR and it planned
to be included in the 2017 CAFR
2. The organizational chart was presented to the Town Board at the first regular
meeting following the certification of the results of each biennial election.
Report: I report compliance
10
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 10, 2018
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said
Town of Estes Park on the 10th day July, 2018.
Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Trustees Carlie Bangs
Marie Cenac
Patrick Martchink
Ron Norris
Cody Rex Walker
Ken Zornes
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
0D\RU-LUVDFDOOHGWKHUHJXODUPHHWLQJWRRUGHUDW SPDQGDOOGHVLULQJWRGRVR
UHFLWHGWKH3OHGJHRI$OOHJLDQFH
$*(1'$$33529$/
,WZDVPRYHGDQGVHFRQGHG 0DUWFKLQN:DONHU WRDSSURYHWKH$JHQGDDQGLWSDVVHG
XQDQLPRXVO\
38%/,&&200(176
$GDP6KDNH*OHQ+DYHQFLWL]HQ'DYLG/D6DOOH&RXQW\FLWL]HQDQG-HII-RKDQVVRQ7RZQ
FLWL]HQLQWURGXFHGDQHZORFDOQRQSURILW)OLQFK)RUZDUGWRSURYLGHVXSSRUWIRUYHWHUDQV
DQGILUVWUHVSRQGHUVWUDQVLWLRQLQJWRFLYLOLDQOLIH
'RXJ.OLQN&RXQW\FLWL]HQVSRNHWRWKHSURSRVHGVWRUPZDWHUXWLOLW\IHHVWUXFWXUHEDVHG
RQLPSHUYLRXVFRYHUDJHDQGWKHVLJQLILFDQWILQDQFLDOLPSDFWLWZRXOGKDYHIRUFRPPHUFLDO
SURSHUWLHV+HZDVUHTXLUHGWRGHYHORSDGGLWLRQDOLPSHUYLRXVFRYHUDJHDQGDGHWHQWLRQ
EDVLQWKURXJKWKHSODQQLQJSURFHVVWKHUHE\LQFUHDVLQJWKHSURSRVHGIHHIRUKLVSURSHUW\
+HVWDWHGVWRUPZDWHUVKRXOGEHDGGUHVVHGWKURXJKSURSHUW\WD[RUDVDOHVWD[DQGQRW
WKURXJKLQGLYLGXDODVVHVVPHQWRQLPSHUYLRXVFRYHUDJH7KHSURSRVHGIHHGRHVQRW
H[HPSWQRQSURILWVDQGZRXOGLPSDFWWD[LQJGLVWULFWVVXFKDVWKH)LUH'LVWULFW
0HPEHUVRIWKHSXEOLFVSHDNLQJDJDLQVWWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIDPRXQWDLQFRDVWHUDGMDFHQW
WRWKH*RRG6DPDULWDQ9LOODJHDORQJ'U\*XOFKLQFOXGHG*UDKDP5XVVHOO7RZQFLWL]HQ
'LDQD9DQ'HU3ORHJ&RXQW\FLWL]HQ)DLWK=LPPHUPDQ7RZQFLWL]HQ-XOLH/HH7RZQ
FLWL]HQ DQG UHSUHVHQWDWLYH RI WKH *RRG 6DPDULWDQ UHVLGHQWV -RKDQQD 'DUGHQ7RZQ
FLWL]HQ0LNH+HDGOH\7RZQFLWL]HQ'HQQLV6RKRFNL7RZQFLWL]HQ1DQF\+LOOV&RXQW\
FLWL]HQ $OH[ .RVWDGLQRY7RZQ FLWL]HQ /LQGD /DQJHU7RZQ FLWL]HQ DQG 3DP
+HQGHUHN7RZQFLWL]HQ&RQFHUQVUHJDUGLQJWKHGHYHORSPHQWLQFOXGHWKHLQWHUSUHWDWLRQ
E\7RZQVWDIIRQWKHDOORZHGXVHVLQ5(]RQLQJWKHSURMHFWKDVEHHQOLPLWHGWRDVWDII
OHYHO UHYLHZ ZLWK QR SXEOLF KHDULQJ DW WKH 3ODQQLQJ &RPPLVVLRQ WKH &RPPXQLW\
'HYHORSPHQW¶VXQZLOOLQJQHVVWRGLVFXVVWKHSURMHFWZLWKWKHQHLJKERUKRRGWKH7RZQ
%RDUG¶V UHIXVDO WR DGGUHVV WKH SURMHFW DQG UHTXLUH VWDII WR UHFRQVLGHU WKH ]RQLQJ
LQWHUSUHWDWLRQDFRPPHUFLDOHQWHUSULVHVKRXOGQRWEHDOORZHGLQDUHVLGHQWLDO]RQLQJ
GLVWULFWDQGQRLVHIURPWKHFRDVWHUZRXOGGHVWUR\WKHTXLHWUHVLGHQWLDODUHD
0D\RU-LUVDVWDWHGWKH7RZQ%RDUG¶VUHVSRQVLELOLW\IRUWKHPRXQWDLQFRDVWHUGHYHORSPHQW
SODQZRXOGEHOLPLWHGWRHQVXULQJWKH,*$ZLWK/DULPHU&RXQW\LVIROORZHGEHFDXVHWKH
SURMHFWDUHDOLHVZLWKLQWKHXQLQFRUSRUDWHG(VWHV9DOOH\7RZQVWDIIDFWVDVDQDJHQWIRU
/DULPHU&RXQW\IRUGHYHORSPHQWVZLWKLQWKHFRXQW\
11
%RDUGRI7UXVWHHV±-XO\±3DJH
*DU\ 0LOOHU(VWHV 9DOOH\ :DWHU &RDOLWLRQ 3UHVLGHQW UHTXHVWHG WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ EH
FRQVLGHUHGIRUEDVHIXQGLQJLQWKH7RZQ¶VDQQXDOEXGJHWDVRXWOLQHGLQ3ROLF\
0HPEHUVRIWKHSXEOLFVSHDNLQJDJDLQVWWKHSURSRVHGZRUNIRUFHKRXVLQJGHYHORSPHQW
RQ 'U\ *XOFK LQFOXGHG 'HQQLV 6RKRFNL7RZQ FLWL]HQ $UW 0HVVDO7RZQ FLWL]HQ $OH[
.RVWDGLQRY7RZQFLWL]HQDQG3DP+HQGULFN7RZQFLWL]HQ7KHFLWL]HQVLQWKHDUHDKDYH
QRWKDGSURSHUQRWLFHRIWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFWZKLFKLQFOXGHVDUH]RQLQJIURP(±(VWDWH
WR505HVLGHQWLDO0XOWL)DPLO\$QHHGIRUWKHSURMHFWVKRXOGEHHVWDEOLVKHGSULRUWR
PRYLQJ IRUZDUG EHFDXVH WKH UHFHQW +RXVLQJ 1HHGV $VVHVVPHQW UHSRUW GRHV QRW
DGHTXDWHO\DGGUHVVWKHQHHG7KHODQGZDV]RQHGRSHQVSDFHDQGQRWUHVLGHQWLDOGXULQJ
WKHRULJLQDOSODWWLQJRIWKHVXEGLYLVLRQ5HTXHVWHGDGHOD\LQWKHUH]RQLQJXQWLODUHYLHZ
RIWKHSURMHFWZLWKWKHSXEOLFKDVEHHQKHOG0D\RU-LUVDUHTXHVWHGDPHHWLQJEHKHOGWR
GLVFXVVWKHSURMHFWRQ7RZQRZQHGODQG
72:1%2$5'&200(176
7UXVWHH1RUULVVWDWHGWKH(VWHV9DOOH\3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQZRXOGKROGLWVQH[WPHHWLQJ
RQ -XO\ 7KH :LQG 5LYHU GHYHORSPHQW ZRXOG EH FRQWLQXHG WR WKH $XJXVW
PHHWLQJ 7KH )DPLO\ $GYLVRU\ %RDUG PHW RQ -XO\ DQG KDV GHYHORSHG
UHFRPPHQGDWLRQVIRUWKH 7RZQEXGJHWLQFOXGLQJDGYRFDWLQJIRUDVSHFLDOWD[LQJ
GLVWULFWWRUDLVHIXQGVWRDGGUHVVWKHFKLOGFDUHQHHGVUHTXHVWHG7RZQODQGIRUDFKLOGFDUH
FHQWHUDQGUHTXHVWHG7RZQIXQGLQJIRUDFHQWHU
0D\RU3UR7HP:DONHUFRPPHQWHGRQDQRWKHUVXFFHVVIXOURGHRDQGWKDQNHGWKH5RGHR
FRPPLWWHHIRUWKHLUHIIRUWVDQGUHFRJQL]HG7UXVWHH&HQDFIRUKHUHIIRUWVZLWKWKHSDUDGH
+HDOVRUHFRJQL]HGWKHFURZQLQJRIKLVGDXJKWHU5XWKDWWKLV\HDU¶VURGHR
7UXVWHH&HQDFWKDQNHGDOOWKDWDWWHQGHGWKLV\HDU¶VURGHRDQGSDUDGH6KHFRPPHQWHG
WKH5RGHRFRPPLWWHHKDVDJUHDWKDUGZRUNLQJWHDPWKDWSURGXFHGDQDPD]LQJURGHR
7UXVWHH0DUWFKLQNVWDWHGWKHQH[W3DUNV$GYLVRU\%RDUGPHHWLQJZRXOGEHKHOGRQ-XO\
DWWKH0XVHXP
72:1$'0,1,675$7255(3257
$GPLQLVWUDWRU/DQFDVWHUSURYLGHGDTXDUWHUO\XSGDWHWRWKH7RZQ%RDUGRQWKH
%RDUG6WUDWHJLF3ODQ
&216(17$*(1'$
%LOOV
7RZQ%RDUG0LQXWHVGDWHG-XQHDQG7RZQ%RDUG6WXG\6HVVLRQ0LQXWHV
GDWHG-XQH
)DPLO\ $GYLVRU\ %RDUG 0LQXWHV GDWHG 0D\ DQG 0D\
DFNQRZOHGJHPHQWRQO\
(VWHV9DOOH\%RDUGRI$GMXVWPHQW0LQXWHVGDWHG-XQH DFNQRZOHGJHPHQW
RQO\
,WZDVPRYHGDQGVHFRQGHG 1RUULV=RUQHV WRDSSURYHWKH&RQVHQW$JHQGDDQG
LWSDVVHGXQDQLPRXVO\
$&7,21,7(06
5(62/87,21 72 6833257 $&&(/(5$7,1* 7+(
,03/(0(17$7,212)7+('2:172:1(67(6/223352-(&7'LUHFWRU
0XKRQHQSURYLGHGDQRYHUYLHZRIWKHSURMHFWDQG7RZQ%RDUGYRWHVRIVXSSRUWLQ
DQG$WWKH7RZQ%RDUG6WXG\6HVVLRQRQ-XQHWKH
7RZQ %RDUG DVNHG WKH VWDII EULQJ IRUZDUG D 5HVROXWLRQ WR UHTXHVW 7HFKQLFDO
$GYLVRU\&RPPLWWHHWRDFFHOHUDWHWKHFRPSOHWLRQRIWKHSURMHFWIURPWR
DQGWRDOORZULJKWRIZD\DFTXLVLWLRQWRSURFHHGDQGSURYLGHFORVXUHIRU
12
%RDUGRI7UXVWHHV±-XO\±3DJH
LPSDFWHGSURSHUW\RZQHUV7KHSURMHFWGHVLJQKDVUHDFKHGDQGWKHGHVLJQ
FRXOGEHFRPSOHWHGWRPHHWDQDFFHOHUDWHWLPHIUDPH'XULQJWKH6WXG\6HVVLRQ
WKH%RDUGIXUWKHUGLVFXVVHGWKHLPSDFWVWRWKH7RZQLIWKHSURMHFWGLGQRWPRYH
IRUZDUG 7RZQ $GPLQLVWUDWRU /DQFDVWHU SUHSDUHG D PHPR RXWOLQLQJ WKH
FRQVHTXHQFHVVXFKDVORVLQJIXQGLQJIRUWKHSURMHFWWKHQHHGWRSD\EDFNFRVWV
LQFXUUHGWRGDWHHVWLPDWHGDWDSSUR[LPDWHO\PLOOLRQDQGWKHOLNHOLKRRGWKH7RZQ
ZRXOGQRWUHFHLYHDGGLWLRQDOJUDQWIXQGLQJIRUIXWXUHSURMHFWV
0D\RU-LUVDTXHVWLRQHGLIWKHSURSRVHG5HVROXWLRQZRXOGEHFRQVLGHUHGV\PEROLF
RUZRXOGLWKDYHVXEVWDQFHLQPRYLQJWKHSURMHFWIRUZDUGHDUOLHU'LUHFWRU0XKRQHQ
VWDWHGWKH5HVROXWLRQZRXOGVHUYHERWKSXUSRVHVDQGWKHSURMHFWFRXOGEHUHDG\
WRPRYHIRUZDUGLQ ZLWKWKHFRPSOHWLRQRIWKHGHVLJQLQVL[WRQLQHPRQWKV
DQGWKHDFTXLVLWLRQRIWKHQHHGULJKWRIZD\
0D\RU-LUVDVWDWHGWKHLQLWLDOSUHPLVHRIWKHSURMHFWZDVWRLPSURYHDFFHVVWRWKH
1DWLRQDO 3DUN KRZHYHU WKH 3DUN KDV EHJXQ D VWXG\ WR DGGUHVV WUDIILF DQG
FRQWLQXHVWRHYDOXDWHWKHSRVVLELOLW\RIOLPLWLQJWUDIILFXWLOL]LQJDUHVHUYDWLRQV\VWHP
RUDWLPHHQWU\DSSURDFK7KH7RZQGRHVQRWKDYHWKHLQIRUPDWLRQQHHGHGIURP
WKH3DUNWRPDNHDGHFLVLRQRQWKHYDOLGLW\RIWKHSURMHFW'LUHFWRU0XKRQHQVWDWHG
WKH SURMHFW DGGUHVVHV WUDIILF IORZ WR DQG IURP WKH 3DUN DQG ZRXOG LPSURYH
FLUFXODWLRQWKURXJK(VWHV3DUN
7KRVH VSHDNLQJ LQ IDYRU RI WKH 5HVROXWLRQ LQFOXGHG ,QJULG %XVK(VWHV 9DOOH\
3DUWQHUVIRU&RPPHUFH (93& %RDUGPHPEHU.HQW6PLWK7RZQFLWL]HQ$QQ
)LQOH\7RZQ &LWL]HQ *UHJ 5RVHQRU7RZQ FLWL]HQ 'DQ 6SHHGOLQ7RZQ FLWL]HQ
6WHYH.RPLWR7RZQFLWL]HQ&KDUOH\'LFNH\7RZQFLWL]HQDQG%HOOH0RUULV7RZQ
FLWL]HQ(93&%RDUGFRQGXFWHGDVXUYH\RIWKHPHPEHUVDQGIDYRUWKH
SURMHFWZLWKUHVSRQVHV&RPPHQWVZHUHVXPPDUL]HG FRQFHUQHGWKH7RZQ
ZRXOGQRWUHFHLYHIXWXUHJUDQWVLIWKHSURMHFWGRHVQRWPRYHIRUZDUG WZRSUHYLRXV
7RZQ%RDUGVKDYHYRWHGIRUWKHSURMHFW DYRWHIRUWKH5HVROXWLRQZRXOGEHDYRWH
RIVXSSRUWIRUWKHFRPPXQLW\ WKHSURMHFWZRXOGVXSSRUWPRUHWKDQWUDQVSRUWDWLRQ
WKH SURMHFW VKRXOG QRW EH VHQW WR WKH YRWHUV WKH SURMHFW ZRXOG SURYLGH VDIHU
SHGHVWULDQDQGELF\FOHPRELOLW\ DQGQRWPRYLQJWKHSURMHFWIRUZDUGZRXOGLPSDFW
WKH7RZQHFRQRPLFDOO\DQGSROLWLFDOO\
7KRVHVSHDNLQJRXWDJDLQVWWKHSURMHFWLQFOXGHG0DXUHHQ0DUVK7RZQFLWL]HQ
5LFN*ULJVE\7RZQFLWL]HQ-RKQ0HLVVQHU7RZQFLWL]HQ$UW0HVVDO7RZQFLWL]HQ
-RKDQQD'DUGHQ7RZQFLWL]HQDQG3DW1HZVRP7RZQFLWL]HQ&RPPHQWVZHUH
VXPPDUL]HGDQGLQFOXGHGWKHSURMHFWKDVQRWEHHQVWXGLHGHQRXJK WKHSXEOLFKDV
QRWEHHQDVNHGWKURXJKDSXEOLFYRWH WKH5HVROXWLRQUHDIILUPVWKHFRPPXQLW\
VXSSRUWVWKHSURMHFWZKLFKFDQQRWEHVDLGZLWKRXWDSXEOLFYRWH DQGWKHSURMHFW
ZRXOGPDNHWUDIILFDFFHVVLQJWKH3DUNZRUVH
%RDUGGLVFXVVLRQZDVKHDUGRQWKHVXEVWLWXWHPRWLRQWRKDYHDSXEOLFYRWHRQWKH
'RZQWRZQ/RRS3URMHFWDQGKDVEHHQVXPPDUL]HG 7UXVWHH&HQDFVWDWHGVKHZRXOGEH
LQIDYRURIDYRWHLQRUGHUWRREWDLQWKHSHRSOH¶VRSLQLRQRQWKHSURMHFW 7UXVWHH%DQJV
FRPPHQWHGVKHZRXOGQRWEHLQIDYRURIDYRWHWKDWPLJKWMHRSDUGL]HDSURMHFWUHVHDUFKHG
DQGVWXGLHGE\WUDIILFHQJLQHHUVDQGH[SHUWVLQWKHILHOG 7UXVWHH0DUWFKLQNFRPPHQWHG
WKHYRWHZRXOGEHDYRWHRISDVVLRQDQGQRWDQLQIRUPHGYRWHE\WKHFLWL]HQV 7UXVWHH
=RUQHVVWDWHGDYRWHZRXOGQRWSURYLGHWKHFLWL]HQ¶VRSLQLRQXQOHVVWR YRWH 7UXVWHH
1RUULVKDVUHFHLYHGILYH\HDUVRISXEOLFFRPPHQWRQWKHSURMHFWDQGKDVFRQVLVWHQWO\KHDUG
DLQIDYRURIWKHORRS 0D\RU-LUVDKDVEHHQDQDGYRFDWHIURPWKHEHJLQQLQJIRUD
SXEOLFYRWHRQWKHSURMHFW DQG0D\RU3UR7HP:DONHUVWDWHGVXSSRUWIRUWKHPRWLRQ
,WZDVPRYHGDQGVHFRQGHG &HQDF:DONHU WRKROGDSXEOLFYRWHIRUWKH
'RZQWRZQ/RRS3URMHFWDQGLWIDLOHGZLWK7UXVWHHV%DQJV0DUWFKLQN1RUULVDQG
=RUQHVYRWLQJ³1R´
%RDUGFRPPHQWVRQWKH5HVROXWLRQZHUHKHDUGDQGVXPPDUL]HG WKH5HVROXWLRQ
ZRXOGSODFHWKHSURMHFWLQWKHRULJLQDOWLPHOLQHIRUFRPSOHWLRQ WKH5HVROXWLRQZRXOG
EHPRUHV\PEROLFWKDQVXEVWDQWLYH PRYLQJWKHSURMHFWIRUZDUGZRXOGSURYLGHD
UHGXFWLRQLQWKHFRVWRIWKHSURMHFWLPSURYHVDIHW\IRUSHGHVWULDQVDQGELF\FOHV
LPSURYHGDLUTXDOLW\DQGUHGXFHWKHFRVWRIIORRGPLWLJDWLRQZRUNLPSDFWLQJWKH
13
%RDUGRI7UXVWHHV±-XO\±3DJH
GRZQWRZQ VWRSSLQJWKHSURMHFWZRXOGLPSDFWWKH7RZQ¶VDELOLW\WRUHFHLYHGIXWXUH
JUDQWV WKH5HVROXWLRQZRXOGQRWUHVROYHWKHGLYLVLRQDPRQJVWWKH%RDUGDQGWKH
FRPPXQLW\ DQGVXSSRUWIRUWKH5HVROXWLRQZRXOGUHDIILUPVWKHFLWL]HQ¶VVXSSRUWIRU
WKHSURMHFWZKLFKFDQQRWEHFRQILUPHGZLWKRXWDYRWHRIWKHFLWL]HQV
,WZDVPRYHGDQGVHFRQGHG 0DUWFKLQN=RUQHV WRFDOOWKHTXHVWLRQDQGLW
SDVVHGZLWK0D\RU-LUVD0D\RU3UR7HP:DONHUDQG7UXVWHH&HQDFYRWLQJ³1R´
,WZDVPRYHGDQGVHFRQGHG 0DUWFKLQN=RUQHV WRDSSURYH5HVROXWLRQ
DQGLWSDVVHGZLWK0D\RU-LUVD0D\RU3UR7HP:DONHUDQG7UXVWHH&HQDFYRWLQJ
³1R´
5(62/87,21 6833257 '(9(/230(17 )25 $ 1(: (67(6
9$//(< &2035(+(16,9( 3/$1 'LUHFWRU +XQW VWDWHG WKH SURSRVHG
5HVROXWLRQSURYLGHVWKH7RZQ%RDUG¶VIRUPDOFRQILUPDWLRQWRUHZULWHWKH\HDU
ROG(VWHV9DOOH\&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQDQGSURYLGHDSURFHVVDQGWLPHIUDPHWR
FRPSOHWH WKH 3ODQ 7KH 5HVROXWLRQ RXWOLQHV WKH QHHG IRU UHVRXUFHV WR EH
FRPPLWWHG WR WKH SURFHVV WKURXJK D EXGJHW DPHQGPHQW LQ DQG EXGJHW
DSSURYDOLQ ±WRFRPSOHWHWKHSURMHFW7KHDGRSWLRQRIWKH5HVROXWLRQ
ZRXOGDOORZWKH7RZQDQG&RXQW\WRDSSO\IRUJUDQWIXQGLQJIRUWKHSURMHFW,WZDV
PRYHGDQGVHFRQGHG 1RUULV:DONHU WRDSSURYH5HVROXWLRQDQGLW
SDVVHGXQDQLPRXVO\
(67(6 9$//(< &2035(+(16,9( 3/$1 $'9,625< &200,77((
)250$7,21 $332,170(17'LUHFWRU+XQWUHTXHVWHGWKHDSSRLQWPHQWRIDQ
$GYLVRU\&RPPLWWHHWKURXJKWKHHQGRIWRRYHUVHHWKHSUHSODQQLQJIRUWKH
UHZULWHRIWKH(VWHV9DOOH\&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ+HUHFRPPHQGHGDILYHPHPEHU
FRPPLWWHHZLWKWWRZPHPEHUVIURPWKH7RZQWZRPHPEHUVIURPWKH&RXQW\DQG
RQH 3ODQQLQJ &RPPLVVLRQHU $IWHU IXUWKHU GLVFXVVLRQ LWZDV PRYHG DQG
VHFRQGHG %DQJV1RUULV WRDSSRLQW7UXVWHH1RUULV&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW
'LUHFWRU+XQWDQG7UXVWHH&HQDFVHUYLQJDVEDFNXSWR7UXVWHH1RUULVWRWKH
(VWHV 9DOOH\ &RPSUHKHQVLYH 3ODQ $GYLVRU\ &RPPLWWHHDQG LW SDVVHG
XQDQLPRXVO\
5(62/87,216833/(0(17$/%8'*(7$335235,$7,2160D\RU
-LUVDRSHQHGWKHSXEOLFKHDULQJ'LUHFWRU+XGVRQVWDWHGWKHSURSRVHGDPHQGPHQW
WRWKHEXGJHWZRXOGDSSURSULDWHIXQGVIRUWKH3URVSHFW0RXQWDLQ:DWHU
&RPSDQ\6\VWHPLPSURYHPHQWVWKH.QROO:LOORZ/HJDF\SURMHFWWKH9HWHUDQV
0HPRULDO0RQXPHQWWKHDGGLWLRQRIDSURVHFXWLQJDWWRUQH\IRU0XQLFLSDO&RXUW
DQG IXQGLQJ IRU SODQQLQJ VHUYLFHV LQ SUHSDUDWLRQ RI WKH &RPSUHKHQVLYH 3ODQ
UHZULWH7KHDPHQGPHQWVWRWDOZLWKIURPWKH:DWHU)XQG
IURPWKH*HQHUDO)XQGDQGIURPWKH2SHQ6SDFH)XQG0D\RU
-LUVDFORVHGWKHSXEOLFKHDULQJ,WZDVPRYHGDQGVHFRQGHG :DONHU1RUULV WR
DSSURYH5HVROXWLRQDQGLWSDVVHGXQDQLPRXVO\
+,6725,&$/ 6,*1 $33529$/ %,5' -,0 025$,1( $9(18(
67521* &2//&2:1(5&RGH&RPSOLDQFH2IILFHU+DUGLQVWDWHGWKHQHRQ
URRIVLJQZDVFRQVWUXFWHGGXULQJWKH ¶VDQGUHPDLQVRQWKHQHZO\UHQRYDWHG
EXLOGLQJ7KHVLJQGRHVQRWPHHWWKHFXUUHQWVLJQFRGHUHJXODWLRQVZKLFKSURKLELWV
URRIVLJQV7KHFXUUHQWRZQHUVKDYHUHVWRUHGWKHVLJQWRPHHWWKHFXUUHQWZLQG
DQGVQRZORDGV
.HQW6PLWK6PLWK6LJQVFRQILUPHGWKHVLJQKDVEHHQLQVSHFWHGDQGPHHWVWKH
FXUUHQWUHTXLUHPHQWV
-RKQ:LWPHU%LUG -LPFRRZQHUVWDWHGWKHVLJQLVDQKRPDJHWRWKHKLVWRU\RI
WKHEXLOGLQJ
,WZDVPRYHGDQGVHFRQGHG &HQDF:DONHU WRDSSURYHWKHDSSOLFDWLRQRI%LUG
-LPWRXVHWKHQHRQURRIVLJQLQLWVRULJLQDODQGDXWKHQWLFIRUPILQGLQJWKDW
LWPHHWVWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKH(VWHV3DUN0XQLFLSDO&RGH7LWOH
+LVWRULFDORU&XOWXUDOO\6LJQLILFDQW6LJQVDQGLWSDVVHGXQDQLPRXVO\
14
%RDUGRI7UXVWHHV±-XO\±3DJH
:KHUHXSRQ0D\RU-LUVDDGMRXUQHGWKHPHHWLQJDW SP
7RGG-LUVD0D\RU
-DFNLH:LOOLDPVRQ7RZQ&OHUN
15
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 8, 2018
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at the Museum in
said Town of Estes Park on the 8th day of June, 2018.
Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Walker, Trustees Bangs,
Cenac, Martchink, Norris and Zornes
Attending: Mayor Jirsa, Trustees Bangs, Cenac, Martchink, Norris and
Zornes
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Town Attorney White, Directors Bergsten, Hinkle,
Hudson, Hunt, Kufeld, Muhonen, and Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Walker
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF CURRENT STRATEGIC PLAN
Administrator Lancaster provided opening remarks and reviewed the foundation of
Policy Governance. He stated the Strategic Plan outlines the ends or the outcome
areas. The meeting identified high-level strategic needs that would be used by the
Town’s departments to develop the 2019 budget.
Director Hudson provided a review of the Town’s financial overview. The Town
currently operates with the assumption of a 20% reserve for the General fund and debit
service fund balance requirements for enterprise funds (Light and Power and Water).
He stated the General fund balance has been projected at 22% at the end of 2018.
Revenue assumptions for 2019 have been estimated utilizing a conservative approach
which would require expenses to be budgeted flat with no new projects in order to
maintain a 20% fund balance. To provide new services or projects in 2019 the Board
may need to shift priorities or develop revenue enhancements.
The Board acknowledged a shifting of priorities or new revenues sources would need to
be addressed during the budget process. It was also stated government could be made
smaller to provide additional funds for projects.
Assistant Town Administrator Machalek stated staff would provide the Board with an
updated 2019-2023 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for consideration during the 2019
budget process.
OUTCOME AREA DISCUSSIONS
The Mission and Vision of the Town was reviewed with the Board and no changes were
recommended for 2019.
TOWN FINANCIAL HEALTH
Town Administrator Lancaster reviewed the 2018 Strategic Plan Objectives and Goals.
He stated the Town does not have an annexation policy to actively engage sales tax
generating properties to annex. The Town has a number of enclaves, properties
completely surrounded by town for three years, that could be annexed to provide
additional sales tax revenue. The Board would discuss the annexation of enclaves at
an upcoming study session. He stated 63% of sales tax collection comes from visitors.
He further commented on the need to address unincorporated businesses that receive
Town services, such as the shuttle, and do not pay for the service or collect sales tax for
the services they provide. One of the largest businesses, the YMCA, has been
16
Town Board Study Session – June 8, 2018– Page 2
estimated to generate $500,000 in annual sales tax collection if annexed. After further
discussion, the Board consensus was to discontinue providing free shuttle service
outside town limits in 2019 and to use the savings to enhance the service within town.
The Town staff would investigate revising the annexation statement between the Town
and Larimer County’s Intergovernmental Agreement; adopt an annexation policy to
aggressively pursue annexations to enhance sales tax collection; review administrative
support provided to other entities to ensure the Town covers the cost of providing the
services, such as the support provided to the Library for accounting services and the
land use planning conducted for county property located in the Estes Valley Planning
area; discuss Town’s policy on marijuana to provided additional revenue; and online
sales tax collection.
Trustee Cenac commented on the need to have a higher fund balance to address a
future natural disaster that could devastate the Town financially. Director Hudson
stated the GASB standards state two to three months of reserves should be the
standard and be adjusted based on the seasonality of the community and other local
factors. An increase in General fund balance would need to be considered during the
development of the 2019 budget. Director Hudson stated the Board could set a policy
allocating any funds over 3% growth in sales tax would be added to the fund balance to
reach the Board’s set fund balance goal overtime. This would allow current operations
to continue and not be negatively impacted.
ROBUST ECONOMY
Town Administrator Lancaster reviewed the 2018 Strategic Plan Objectives and Goals.
Staff would continue to address changes to the Town codes and regulations to ensure
they are user friendly and easier to understand. A joint study session with the Town
Board, County Commissioners and the Planning Commission would be held to discuss
a rewrite of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan which would direct code amendments
in the future; however, the current code would be used in the meantime. Trustee Cenac
requested staff redefine the definition of workforce housing in the Estes Valley
Development Code.
The Board would discuss the next steps for broadband later this year, therefore, the
decision on the course of action would be decided and would be removed from the
Strategic Plan.
The Downtown Plan has been completed and moves into the implementation stage.
The Board would discuss what portions of the Plan should be implemented at this point
and provide staff with feedback.
Discussion was heard on the need to address requests for Community Development
and Utility fee waivers from developers. A policy on economic incentives and fee
waivers would be developed in 2018 in order to add a fee waiver fund to the 2019
budget for consideration by the Board during the upcoming budget sessions in October.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Parking:
The Board approved the Parking Master Plan this year, therefore, the objective would
be updated to reflect the need to implement the plan through Phase IV. A new objective
was added to assess the data collected and determine implementation and timing of
future phases.
Utilities:
Staff continues discussions with the YMCA to develop a redundant raw water source
and has made good progress on the goal.
17
Town Board Study Session – June 8, 2018– Page 3
Discussion followed on the goal to engage the community in discussion of the role of
renewable energy in Estes Park. PRPA has been developing long-term energy goals
that address renewable energy. PRPA continues to discuss the topic within the
community and would be conducting a survey on the issue. The technology and cost is
evolving quickly. The Board consensus was to remove the goal.
Facilities:
The facilities needs assessment was placed on hold earlier in the year and would be
completed in 2019. The AV system in the Board Room requires updating as a number
of the components are out of date and need to be replaced. A proposal would be
submitted for the Board’s consideration during the budget process. With the increase in
plantings the greenhouse has reached its capacity and needs to be expanded. A
request would come forward for the 2019 budget. A goal was added to address the
replacement of the remaining stall barns on the fairgrounds property.
Storm Drainage:
The 2018 goal states the Town would pursue funding for flood mitigation projects.
Discussion followed on the need to identify the top priorities within Phase I; the need to
address work downstream to prevent rising water levels with improvements upstream;
the water wheel bridge should be improved; and the Town should fund an additional
hydrology study to accurately identify the floodplain. After further discussion, the Board
requested a study session to address the need for an additional hydrology study.
EXCEPTIONAL GUEST SERVICES
Town staff continues discussions with Delaware North on the possibility of taking
ownership of the Conference Center. The Town owns the building but not the land
which is owned by Delaware North. The Town’s ground lease terminates soon and the
building would revert to the landowner. Until such time the Town would be responsible
for any maintenance of the facility.
The visitor survey was initiated in partnership with the Local Marketing District. As the
survey would cover an entire year, the final report would not be available until June
2019. The objective would remain through next year.
Mayor Jirsa requested the maintenance of the public restrooms be added to the CIP.
He stated the Town cannot be considered a premier mountain community if public
facilities are not in good working condition. The Board discussed the need to address
deferred maintenance of public facing infrastructure. An objective was added to state
the Town would have high quality, functional and clean public facing infrastructure that
exceed the expectation of our guests.
The Board requested an additional objective be added to update the Stanley Park
Master Plan.
PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
Police
Chief Kufeld stated the staffing analysis completed in 2018 identified the need for 27
patrol officers. The 2018 budget request was for two additional officers and one was
funded bring the total to 21 sworn. Discussion followed on the seasonality of the Town
and what other resources might be available to provide police services without adding
staff. Chief Kufeld stated staff has reviewed alternatives in the past but has not found
other viable options. There are currently times when the department has single
coverage which can lead to unsafe situations. The increase in severity of crimes, the
time it takes to investigate crime, and provide high quality services to the citizens and
visitors requires additional staffing. The Board consensus was to add a goal to pursue
achieving the staffing levels recommended in the Police department staffing needs
study in the next five years.
18
Town Board Study Session – June 8, 2018– Page 4
Building Inspection
The Town has been in discussions with Larimer County to take over the building
division to combine the services. The valley wide operation run by the County would
provide a cost savings and provide better customer service. The County continues to
investigate the option to determine if it would be financially feasible. A new Chief
Building Official would be hired if the County decides not to move forward with the new
model. The issue should be resolved by the end of the year.
Waste and Recycling
Administrator Lancaster stated the Town continues to participate in the wasteshed
committee. The Town would provide the land for a new waste and recycling center built
by Larimer County. Discussion followed on the Town providing additional land to
expand the recycling to include glass and cardboard and there was little support and not
enough information to make a final decision. Larimer County would continue to take the
leading role on recycling.
Other
The 2018 goal to partner with the Eses Valley Watershed Coalition to restore stream
corridors impacted by the 2013 flood and to implement projects to protect property in
future flood events was reviewed. The consensus was to maintain the goal even
though there are no projects identified.
Trustee Cenac requested the handicap parking at the Event Center be addressed.
Director Hinkle stated the issue is currently being addressed.
OUTSTANDING COMMUNITY SERVICES
Town Administrator Lancaster reviewed the 2018 Strategic Plan Objectives and Goals.
Trustee Cenac requested the Board revisit the double density and address what should
be considered workforce housing. Discussion followed on the need to define workforce
housing and place a definition in the Development Code; the need to review the density
incentive in R-2 zoning; and to review the impact the approved housing developments
have had on the housing needs in the community. An objective would be added to
revise the code definition for workforce housing purposes.
The Board would revisit the objective to being a catalyst for childcare once the Family
Advisory Board has presented their recommendations to the Board.
Discussion was heard on the Comprehensive Plan and whether the Board has reached
an agreement to develop a new plan. The joint study session on June 11, 2018 with the
County Commissioners and Planning Commission would discuss the topic further. The
2019 Strategic Plan would contain objectives to revise the Comprehensive Plan and
begin the implementation of the Downtown Plan.
Community Development would submit proposals for the addition of a Planning
Technician and an additional Planner I. The main purpose for the Technician would be
to follow through on redevelopment and ensure development items such as plantings
are being completed.
The Downtown Plan contains the possibility of forming a new Urban Renewal Authority
or the formation of Downtown Development Association. After further discussion, the
Board requested the item be discussed at a study session to educate the Board on the
differences and the pros and cons of each.
GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES AND INTERNAL SUPPORT
The Town would maintain a well-trained and educated staff continues to be a goal of the
Board. Administrator Lancaster mentioned Human Resources would develop a
strategic plan during 2018/2019 to address challenges such as recruitment, housing,
cost of living, spousal insurance, etc. Staff would make recommendations to the Board
19
Town Board Study Session – June 8, 2018– Page 5
for the 2020 budget that may include reorganization and additional staffing. Human
Resources has not been a high priority in the past.
To address the housing issue, staff would propose an expansion of the Home
Ownership program. The program has been very successful in providing employees
with down payment assistance. Since the inception of the program in 2005 the program
has not seen an increase in funding level. Staff would bring forward a proposal for the
2019 budget.
The Town has been approached by the Estes Park Housing Authority to provide funding
for a new housing project. The Town could provide the funding and hold master leases
on a to-be-determined number of units in the housing project. The units would be
subleased to Town employees. The units could provide long or short-term housing for
employees. Providing transitional housing for new employees has been a successful
program.
An employee satisfaction survey would be added to the 2019 budget to identify issues
and address issues such as work life balance and wellness.
A 2018 request to fund an additional IT staff member would be added to the 2019
budget for consideration. This position continues to be requested to address cyber
security.
Mayor Jirsa stated discussions with Judge Thrower have identified the need for the
Town to have a prosecuting attorney for court rather than a senior police officer acting
as a court liaison. He requested the position be considered in 2018. Attorney White
stated the Town is one of a few communities that operates in this manner and would
recommend a prosecuting attorney. Trustee Norris requested the impact on overtime
for the police officers and the time that would be freed up for staff to complete other
tasks.
TRANSPORTATION
Town Administrator Lancaster reviewed the 2018 Strategic Plan Objectives and Goals.
Updates were provided on the 2018 objectives, including the improvements to the US
36 and Community Drive intersection with a proposed roundabout to be completed by
Memorial Day 2019 or during the fall of 2019; Safe Routes to School grant funding
would be used to improve access on Brodie during the summer of 2019 and staff may
apply for a grant to improve Graves; discussion of the wayfinding plan; investigation of
the Rural Transit Authority would be removed from the objectives; staff continues to look
at options to expand transit services and the possibility of grant funding to purchase
rolling stock and decreasing the cost of leasing shuttles; and staff would recommend
expanding the seasonal shuttle service to match the Rocky Mountain National Park
(RMNP) hiker shuttle.
The Board requested the following objectives be added to the 2019 Strategic Plan: to
implement and install downtown wayfinding signage in 2019; focus shuttle services
within town limits; coordinate shuttle operating season with the RMNP hiker shuttle; run
the Green route for employees; pursue funding for the Fall River trail; and pursue
funding for the Moraine pedestrian bridge.
Staff would propose the development of a 2040 Multi-Model Transportation Master Plan
at an estimated cost of $250,000. Director Hunt stated the plan would be a component
of the Comprehensive Plan and the last plan was completed in 2003.
Trustee Cenac stated the Board should discuss whether or not the Downtown Loop
should be voted on by the citizens.
Mayor Jirsa questioned if there were any intermediate steps that could be taken to
address Cleave Street in 2018 prior to the implementation of the Downtown Plan.
20
Town Board Study Session – June 8, 2018– Page 6
An objective for 2019 would examine code changes to address electric bikes.
NEXT STEPS
1.Staff compiles info and prepares draft Strategic Plan outline and map.
2.Board reviews draft plan, making any adjustments deemed necessary.
3.Board adopts Strategic Plan.
4.Budget is prepared based on Strategic Plan.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 1:20 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
21
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado July 10, 2018
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town
of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in
the Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 10th day of July,
2018.
Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Walker, Trustees Bangs,
Cenac, Martchink, Norris and Zornes
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town
Administrator Machalek, Town Attorney White, and
Recording Secretary Disney
Absent: None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
HOUSING AUTHORITY PROJECT ON HIGHWAY 7.
Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) Executive Director Hawf and Board Chairperson
Blackhurst presented a loan request for a development planned at 1551 South Saint
Vrain Avenue, Peak View Apartments. The loan would be for up to $550,000 needed in
2019 and repaid in 5 years with a negotiable interest rate. In the future, EPHA would
also be requesting water tap and other fee waivers. The Peak View Apartments project
would consist of 26 one, two, and three-bedroom units devoted to workforce housing.
EPHA has previously received a loan from the Town for The Pines Apartments which
was repaid. The requested funds could also be used by the Town to purchase or master
lease units at the property for employee housing.
Board discussion followed and has been summarized: The repayment schedule of the
previous loan provided to EPHA, if the Town has acted as a lender to other outside
entities, the potential for master leasing units at Peak View, and the number of units
planned in regards to double density. It was determined to schedule an additional
discussion for a Study Session in August or September with more information regarding
interest rates, master leasing and budgetary implications for 2019.
ANNEXATION OF FAWN VALLEY AND OTHER ENCLAVES.
Town Administrator Lancaster presented the annexation of eight enclaves. Under
Colorado law the Town has the ability to annex an enclave, property that has been
100% surrounded by the Town for three years, without petition. Board discussion
followed and has been summarized: The revenue potential of annexing the enclaves,
relieving election boundary line confusion, Town services already provided to the
enclaves, and a future Town policy regarding the annexation of enclaves. It was
determined to annex the eight enclaves deemed eligible and to create an enclave
annexation policy.
REVIEW OF POLICY 671 – TOWN FUNDING OF OUTSIDE ENTITIES.
Trustee Bangs recused herself from the discussion due to a conflict of interest.
Assistant Town Administrator Machalek explained Policy 671, adopted in 2017 to
establish a uniform process for fund distribution to outside entities. Staff recommended
three changes to the policy: clarifying reporting requirements to make annual reports
readily usable, making Base-funded organizations ineligible for Community Initiative
funding, and eliminating the in-kind request option for Community Initiative funding and
Event Sponsorship funding. The Board requested the revised Policy 671 be brought
forward to the Town Board on July 24, 2018.
22
Town Board Study Session – July 10, 2018 – Page 2
TRUSTEE & ADMINSTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Trustee Cenac asked for clarification on the density of the The Pines Apartments from
EPHA which Director Hawf would be able to provide at a later time.
Trustee Bangs questioned if other housing authorities receive financing support from
their communities. Director Hawf explained financial support in other communities mos
often is received via taxes.
Mayor Jirsa stated Trustee Norris and he met with a concerned citizen regarding Visit
Estes Park. The Mayor would provide more information regarding this in the future.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Town Administrator Lancaster stated the Stormwater Utility discussion scheduled for
July 24, 2018 would be an update only. Concerns have been raised on the Housing
Needs Assessment and how it pertains to the Dry Gulch Workforce Housing Project.
Administrator Lancaster would like the entities that worked on the assessment, to
explain how the results were obtained, at a Study Session in August. Trustee Bangs
requested the Family Advisory Board be scheduled for a future Study Session to
provide updates on five recommendations to the Town Board regarding the 2019 Town
Board Strategic Plan. It was determined to schedule this for August or September.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 5:56 p.m.
Kimberly Disney, Recording Secretary
23
24
25
26
27
28
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado June 19, 2018
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the PLANNING COMMISSION
of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at
Town Hall in the Board Room on the 19th day of June, 2018.
Commission: Chair Leavitt, Vice Chair White, Commissioners Schneider,
Foster, Murphree, Hull, Baker
Attending: Leavitt, Schneider, Foster, Baker, Hull, Murphree
Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Hunt, Senior Planner
Woeber, County Liaison Whitley, Town Board Liaison
Norris, Code Compliance Officer Hardin and Recording
Secretary Swanlund
Absent: Commissioner White
Chair Leavitt called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m.
Approximately 55 people in attendance, this study session was audio recorded (audio
recording did not work)
Vacation Homes Code Amendment
CCO Hardin reviewed the cap for vacation homes. The 588 cap was met in May. At
this point, there doesn’t seem to be a need to revise the cap. 172 registrations in
accommodations, 588 residential, for a total of 760.
Cultural Institutions Code Amendment
Director Hunt reviewed the Code Amendment update being requested, the main point
being to allow Cultural Institutions in Residential Districts. A Code Amendment for just
one use is not desirable and this would allow it to be applied elsewhere in the future,
with MacGregor Ranch, Masonic Lodge, and Sweet Home (YMCA) being other
possibilities.
Questions raised were if this is a fair and equitable implementation of the process, what
is the criteria, and who decides what is interesting. The definition of a Museum was
discussed at length. It was suggested that special criteria be put in Chapter 5 for the
review process. It was noted that there was a certain element of judgement to this
amendment and that Cultural Institution suggests something broader perhaps not
limited to the history of a property.
29
Planning Commission Study Session June 19, 2018 –Page 2
Wind River Development Plan
Planner Woeber reviewed the Development Plan and the waivers requested, noting that
there has been a significant amount of opposition to this project.
Questions asked by the Commission were answered: Covenant agreement of 50 years,
Housing Authority staff will verify that the dweller works in Estes Park, making sure at
least one occupant must meet 30 hr/wk/yr in the Estes Valley School District. Concern
was expressed over waivers and exceptions due to hardships with no cap on how many
waivers would be allowed for the tenant. Attorney White stated that the Restrictive
Covenants were taken verbatim from Summit County and that further restrictions could
be added. Other questions and concerns were raised about lot sizes with a lengthy
discussion on how the density bonus was calculated and if it was done correctly. There
was considerable discussion on traffic impact, right-of-ways, and CDOT’s involvement
with this project. Director Hunt noted that Development Review Standards are
scattered throughout the Code, and there is more than one standard for analyzing
traffic. Other topics raised were open space distribution, center-line radius calculation,
and if any meetings with the Neighbors had been held.
Lunch break 12:15-12:35
Joint Meeting follow up
Ron Norris compiled notes from the joint meeting that was held on June 14 (attached).
Review of the process was discussed, starting with the forming of a Pre Committee task
group, working with the three presiding bodies (Leavitt-Planning Commission, Jirsa-
Town Board, Johnson-Larimer County Commissioner) by July as well as the formation
of a Steering Committee. Careful selection of a consultant can be done after a budget
is adopted and an RFP has been created. A Grant Committee also needs to be
developed.
It was suggested that a 1 page Charter be drafted outlining propositions in order to get
feedback. An Agenda Action Item to authorize the conceptual level of task list should be
submitted for July meetings. Community Development was asked to pull together
examples to work from.
Adding Conditions to projects
Attorney White explained that adding conditions to a project should relate to
Development Code regulations that Code doesn’t adequately address stating that there
is no legal authority to add conditions that aren’t in the Development Code. The
Applicant can agree to conditions via comments but the condition must be properly
added.
Standard conditions of approval between the Developer and Property owner can take
place during the hearing with the Attorney deciding if it is binding and makes it into the
final resolution. At some point the process gets agreed to by all parties and becomes
part of the legal document. Discussion was had on how Larimer County does it vs how
Estes Park does it. The final answer, we are here to make a decision.
30
Planning Commission Study Session June 19, 2018 –Page 3
Commissioner comments and questions
CCO Hardin informed the commission that the new Starbucks sign is in compliance.
Questions were raised about Mountain Coaster project, wondering how it goes through
the process without a review, and how it complies with the current zoning. Hunt
answered that this project has 19 parking spaces and 21 parking spaces triggers a
review and that this is considered a lower intensity recreational facility due to it being a
gravity-driven coaster. It was argued that this type of project should not be allowed
based on Zoning District uses. The public can submit input on this and the Staff
decision is appealable to the Board of County Commissioners.
CCO Hardin addressed the question of “rubber stamping” Large Vacation Home
reviews that are under one acre, stating that she carefully reviews all applications prior
to recommendation.
Commissioner Hull will not be in town for the July or August meetings
Commissioner Murphree would like pressure put on CDOT to remove dead trees on the
sides of our highways.
MLB All-Star game on July 17, let’s make next PC meeting a quick one!
Future Study Session Agenda items
Mountain Coaster
Adjourn 1:20
There being no further business, Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 1:20 p.m.
_____________________________________
Bob Leavitt, Chair
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
Attached: Notes from Joint Study Session on 6/14/18
31
Planning Commission Study Session June 19, 2018 –Page 4
Notes by Ron Norris from June 14 joint Study Session:
•Add action item to July 17 Planning Commission agenda to authorize
formation of an initial Steering Team to lead development of the
following draft documents, for review and approval by the Planning
Commission and elected Boards no later than August 2018:
o Proposal(s) for obtaining grant $ to support Comp. Plan work.
o RFP for consultant to support this work, including clearly defined
expectations of end products/deliverables, and timing.
o Communication plan defining how staff, EVPC, and elected
boards will work together with one another, with the public, and
with the media.
o Short list of principles (Do's and Don'ts) we will follow when we
consider projects prior to adopting the new C Plan and code.
•The previous item can serve as the charter for the Steering Team.
Steering Team should be kept small- no more than 6-7 people.
Suggested membership:
o Planning Commission Chair and/or Vice Chair
o Elected or Staff representative from Larimer County
o Estes Park Community Development Director
o Estes Park Mayor and/or Town Board Liaison
o Recording Secretary for staff support
•Select consultant in 2018. Major effort to work with stakeholders will be
in 2019. But... we do not need to wait on consultant selection to start
some tasks, including:
o Training on SDIC methodology
o Learning what has worked for DOLA, and from Larimer County on
their recent work
o Identifying stakeholder groups, including HOAs, neighborhood
associations, advisory boards, geographic regions of the valley,
young working families, retired people, business owners,
guests, Hispanic community, etc.
o County and Town work together on grant applications
o Identify venues for work groups to meet, and for public meetings
o Town and County will formally approve the Comp. Plan effort this
month.
•Town and County will share costs 50/50 for this work.
•Overall goal is to have new Plan approved by 2020, or early 2021.
32
Planning Commission Study Session June 19, 2018 –Page 5
•The new Plan is a huge undertaking. To be successful, requires
extensive community input and dialogue.
•Must identify principles for how we will work together and decide on
major land use issues between now and when the new Plan is
approved.
•Staff will lead effort to develop a "descriptive" RFP for consultant
services by Sept.
•Staff will provide participants with examples of good C. Plans, RFPs,
etc.
•Participants must agree on plan for how to stay in
touch/communicate/coordinate all this work.
•Must agree on best ways to keep media and the public informed and
provided with accurate information.
33
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 20, 2018
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Room 203 of Town Hall on the 20th
day of June, 2018.
Present: Gordon Slack
Tom Street
Belle Morris
Stan Black
Ann Finley
Amy Hamrick
Janice Crow
Ron Wilcocks
Also Present: Carlie Bangs, Town Board Liaison
Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director
David Hook, Engineering Manager
Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant
James Herlyck, Central Federal Lands
Corey Lang, AECOM
Brittany Hathaway, Community Development Planner
Absent: Linda Hanick
Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 12:00 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
No public in attendance.
TAB MEMBER INTRODUCTIONS:
Existing TAB members, Town staff, and new TAB members introduced themselves to one
another.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A motion was made and seconded (Slack/Street) to approve the May meeting minutes
and all were in favor.
34
Transportation Advisory Board – June 20, 2018 – Page 2
DOWNTOWN ESTES LOOP 70% PLAN UPDATE:
James Herlyck and Corey Lang reviewed with the TAB, changes to the plans since the
July 2017 update. New suggestions were made by Chair Morris requesting the paint
markings along the shoulder be widened for bike sharrow lanes which Lang indicated
would be possible. Morris also requested delineators. Lang would check potential of
delineators but would like to wait to see how the widened striping works.
An additional rapid flash beacon was requested for East Riverside. Director Muhonen
stated that too many rapid flash beacons would create repetitive traffic stops. If it is
determined necessary at a later date, the Town would be responsible for adding.
Chair Morris requested a dotted line along the shoulder to indicate appropriate bike
movement but this is not a viable option. Member Ron Wilcocks stated there were
discussions in the past about a potential underpass at Moraine Avenue and Crags Drive.
Lang stated there is grade opportunity on one side but other side of road is historic
property. Enough depth and width is not provided for an underpass. Chair Morris
suggested that, along Elkhorn, a combination lane for only shuttles and bicycles be
applied to the outside lane wherein no vehicles would be allowed. This will back up traffic
but may encourage drivers to use shuttles.
With the new Loop design wayfinding is critical. Pedestrian scale wayfinding signage
concepts will be reviewed with the Parks Advisory Board (PAB) at the next regularly
scheduled meeting. PAB input will determine appropriate signage. Community
Development Planner, Brittany Hathaway stated that she would serve in an advisory role
to Public Works relative to wayfinding signage. Member Finley has visited with the
Colorado Center for Community Development regarding an intern program provided to
communities in need of wayfinding development. This is potentially a free service that
Finley will continue to investigate and will provide needed information to Manager Hook.
Lang then reviewed high-level landscape plans for the roundabout section of the Loop
project with the TAB.
SHUTTLE UPDATE
The Town’s Transit Program Manager, Brian Wells provided shuttle updates to the TAB:
Shuttle service for the Wool Market provided 337 passenger trips for June 9 and
10.
Shuttle sponsorships for 2018 are now at $18,750.
35
Transportation Advisory Board – June 20, 2018 – Page 3
The 2019 budget process may require discontinuing service to shuttle stops
located outside Town limits beginning in 2019. Affected stops include: YMCA,
Rockmount Cottages, Glacier Lodge, Dunraven Inn, the stop across from Ride-A-
Cart, the Estes Park Marina, Mountain Shadows Resort, and Marys Lake
Campground. Wells will continue to review the Town limit boundaries to determine
other locations.
Grant opportunities are being pursued as they come available. The most recent
application was made for another battery-electric trolley and an electric charging
station. Determinations should be made in late September, 2018.
The GPS tracking system, DoubleMap, is in the process of becoming fully
operational. This technology will allow visitors and residents to see where the
individual shuttles are located at any given time.
Town Board Liaison Carlie Bangs expressed that the Town Board wants the Town
shuttles to have more budget to serve the in-town area. The outlying areas do not pay
sales tax to fund the service they’re receiving, therefore the allotted budget should be
expended to enhance in-town service. Muhonen stated this discussion began as a result
of a request to expand the shuttle season moving forward and there being no available
funding without some type of change to the current structure.
Member Janice Crow stated that other communities establish an Intergovernmental
Agreement (IGA), or something similar, to reach an agreement on how to share service
costs. She stated another option would be for the lodges to get together to help reimburse
the Town for shuttle services.
Member Slack proposed this item be continued to the July meeting to allow time to gather
data, etc. This item will carry to the next regularly scheduled TAB meeting.
Member Wilcocks stated that the Shuttle Committee needs a more concise Mission
Statement in order to appropriately develop a plan. Wilcocks feels that this would be far
more efficient in planning for the future rather than performing ad hoc missions/routes.
2019 PRIORITY PLANNING FOLLOW-UP:
Complete Streets Policy: The TAB would present to the Town Board for adoption. Morris
will send the information gathered to the new TAB members. The policy would provide a
list of criteria for future multimodal design work. Co-Chair Street stated that it makes
sense to draft the new plan based on work other communities have completed rather than
36
Transportation Advisory Board – June 20, 2018 – Page 4
reinventing the wheel. It is important to focus on the policy statement. Street would draft
a plan and distribute to the TAB prior to the regularly scheduled July meeting.
Member Slack reminded the TAB that, with the newly approved Downtown Parking
Management Plan (DPMP), Public Works has a very busy year implementing Phase 1.
Muhonen stated that for this phase of the DPMP there is a staff component for the Parking
& Transit Manager and three parking enforcement positions, to be filled by Community
Service Officers (CSOs). Public Works is working with the Police Department to supervise
the CSOs that are assigned to log the parking statistics. Public Works is developing a
report to provide findings to the Town Board and is hoping to advertise the position for
the Parking & Transit Manager within the next couple weeks. Slack offered assistance in
getting the parking statistics crunched for reporting.
2040 Multimodal Master Plan: Director Muhonen stated the topic of the 2040 Multimodal
Master Plan was discussed in the recent 2019 Strategic Plan meeting. Muhonen stated
that the TAB would be very heavily involved with this process and the Town Board
Trustees have it on their list. In order to begin work on the plan in 2019 funding will be
needed. Muhonen further stated that if the TAB has a position on this topic to submit a
memo reflecting the position. The memo would need submitted by August.
E-BIKE POLICY REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION:
Director Muhonen stated that Mayor Jirsa would like a formal policy related to the use of
e-bikes on trails. Town Administrator Frank Lancaster requested this information be
provided to the TAB for review and to gauge support. Lancaster requested a written policy
recommendation be submitted to the Town Board. The main question is whether or not
e-bikes should be allowed on trails. Co-Chair Street informed the TAB that e-bikes travel
at approximately 25 mph which would be concerning on a pedestrian trail.
Member Hamrick volunteered to research ordinances in other communities and share
those that would have the potential use for response to the Town Board. Hamrick would
distribute the information for review prior to the regularly scheduled July meeting.
A motion was made and seconded (Slack/Finley) to request TAB draft a recommendation
to disallow all electric powered bicycles from trails with the exception of electrical-assisted
bicycles as defined by Colorado Statute for those individuals protected by the Americans
with Disabilities Act. As detailed discussions continued, determining caveats and
37
Transportation Advisory Board – June 20, 2018 – Page 5
evaluating different areas, Slack withdrew the motion due to the time constraints of the
meeting.
US 36/COMMUNITY DRIVE – ROUNDABOUT DESIGN
Public Works hired a consultant to develop roundabout designs for the intersection of
U.S. Hwy. 36 and Community Drive per the TAB’s previous request. The consultant
provided multiple design options. It would be important to read the narrative text during
the review. The design plans were reviewed with the TAB. Comments have not yet been
received by Community Services Director Rob Hinkle.
Due to the design encroaching on existing towers, Manager Hook will confer with the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation, Western Area Power Administration and the Colorado
Department of Transportation. Anticipated construction of this project is April/May of
2019.
Member Hamrick favors the 3-leg roundabout design stating a 4th leg could be added at
a later time if deemed necessary. Those members in favor of constructing the 4-leg
roundabout were Slack, Street, Finley and Black. Those undecided were Wilcocks and
Crow.
PROJECT UPDATES, David Hook, Engineering Manager
Moraine Avenue Improvements:
The Moraine Avenue Bridge is now open for traffic. Perimeter cleanup and completion of
punchlist items are still in progress. Continued work under the bridge is still needed, but
won’t occur until the river water levels are lower.
DMS – Dynamic Message Sign Installation:
All signs have been erected and are operational as of last week. The technology glitches
encountered were handled by the Town’s IT Division. Transit Program Manager Brian
Wells is tasked with ensuring messaging being conveyed is appropriate throughout the
day. Wells notified the TAB that message ideas are always welcome.
Member Wilcocks suggested “Downtown Core Parking Full” be a standard mess age on
the Digital Message Signs (DMS) located at each Town entry point from 11 to 2 every
day.
38
Transportation Advisory Board – June 20, 2018 – Page 6
OTHER BUSINESS
Chair Morris asked the TAB for their thoughts on holding a Transportation Symposium at
the 2018 Farmers Market. Morris stated that due to lack of attendance at the public
meetings, this forum may be a good way to communicate information on Complete
Streets and shuttle schedules. Co-Chair Street suggested a questionnaire be used to
provide needed focus. Street further suggested a TAB homework assignment to come up
with questions for review at the next regularly scheduled TAB meeting.
Hamrick conveyed her support for this effort and suggested that, prior to planning, a
conversation take place with those in charge of the Farmers Market to ensure feasibility.
With no other business to discuss, Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 2:00 p.m.
39
July20,2018Mr.RandyHuntCommunityDevelopmentDirectorP0Box1200EstesPark,CO 80517DearMr.Hunt,OnbehalfoftheOwnersandApplicants, ProspectofEstesLLC,IamrespectthllyrequestingwithdrawalfromtheTownBoardsJuly24,2018 agenda,withoutprejudiceforfriturerequests,to“untable”theamendedplatofLotsIand2ofLittleProspectMountainAdditiontotheTownofEstesPark,COat 700StanleyAvenue.RespectfullySubmitted,7)cPaulF.BrownAuthorizedAgentfortheOwnersandApplicantsProspectofEstesLLC40
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From:Brittany Hathaway, Planner II
Date:July 24, 2018
RE:Request for fee waiver – 444 Stanley Ave.
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
A request for a fee waiver for a development project addressed 444 Stanley Ave.
Proposal:
The applicant, Dan Smith, is requesting a fee waiver in the amount of $1,250.00 for
development fees associated with review of a Development Plan for a workforce housing
development project located at 444 Stanley Avenue. The application can be viewed at
www.estes.org/currentapplications.
Development Plan: Staff Level Review $1,250.00
Total $1,250.00
The attached letter from Dan Smith of Long Lunch Enterprises further describes the
request. The fee waiver policy adopted by Town Board is also attached. Since the amount
is less than $3,000.00, the Town Board may direct the Community Development Director
to approve the waiver.
Advantages:
Proposed development includes four (4) workforce housing units to serve employees in
the Estes Valley.
Disadvantages:
Reduced revenue in the amount of $1,250.00.
41
Finance/Resource Impact:
General Fund Revenue: Charges for Services — Application Fees — Inside
Account #: 101-1600-341.30-00
$1,250.00 in reduced revenue.
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I recommend approval/denial of the requested fee waiver in the amount not to exceed
$1,250.00.
Attachments:
1. Fee Waiver Request from Dan Smith dated June 22, 2018
42
43
44
ADMINISTRATION Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Date: July 24, 2018
RE: Review of Policy 671 – Town Funding of Outside Entities
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER: POLICY
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Consideration of proposed updates to Policy 671 – Town Funding of Outside Entities.
Present Situation:
The Town Board adopted Policy 671 in 2017 to establish a uniform process for
distributing funding to outside entities. The policy is up for its first review and changes
are being recommended by staff.
Proposal:
Staff is recommending three significant changes to the policy: (1) clarifying reporting
requirements so that the required annual reports are more readily usable by the Town,
(2) making Base-funding organizations ineligible for Community Initiative funding, and
(3) eliminating the in-kind request option for Community Initiative funding and Event
Sponsorship funding.
Staff is proposing more detailed language for the reporting requirements for Base
funding and Community Initiative funding. At present, there is no guidance in the policy
regarding either length or level of detail for these reports. Accordingly, the end product
delivered by each agency varies greatly. The proposed change provides clarity and
would result in press-release style annual reports that would be more readily usable by
the Town in communicating the impact that the funding has on both the receiving
entities and the community.
In 2017, multiple Base funding organizations applied for both Base funding and
Community Initiative funding. Staff believes that it is more appropriate for organizations
that are eligible for Base funding to apply for their total funding request through that
process, and not dip into Community Initiative funds (which are intended to be more
45
widely accessible). The proposed edit would require organizations eligible for Base
funding to request their full funding amount through the Base-funding process.
The final significant change recommended by staff is to remove the ability to apply for
in-kind funding through the Community Initiative funding and Event Sponsorship funding
processes. The majority of these requests have been for waivers of Events Division
fees (e.g. Bond Park rental fees, Performance Park set-up fees, etc.). Staff believes that
these requests can be more appropriately handled by having organizations request
cash event sponsorships from the Town that they can use to pay these fees. This
enables the Town to support the event without decreasing Event Division revenue.
Requests for Town staff time (e.g., the staff time contributed to the construction of the
Community Garden) would be handled on a case-by-case basis by staff.
The Board may also wish to make changes to the list of entities that are eligible to apply
for Base funding (Section 3.a.ii). The Estes Valley Watershed Coalition has formally
asked to be eligible for Base funding (see attached materials).
Advantages:
Provides clarity on annual reporting requirements;
Maintains distinct funding pools for Base funding, Community Initiative funding,
and Event Sponsorship funding; and
Continues to refine and streamline the Town’s process for funding outside
entities.
Disadvantages:
Limits diversity of funding opportunities for Base-funding eligible entities; and
Eliminates ability of groups to ask for fee-waivers for Events Division activities.
Action Recommended:
Approve proposed changes to Policy 671 – Town Funding of Outside Entities.
Finance/Resource Impact:
The Town granted $198,800 in Base funding and $31,176 in Community Initiative
funding in 2018 ($229,976 total). Event Sponsorships were budgeted at $7,000.
Level of Public Interest
Medium. All organizations that have requested grant funding from the Town of Estes
Park over the past two (2) years were notified of this meeting.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of Policy 671 with the edits recommended by staff
(please note edits to the list of Base-funding eligible entities in the motion).
Attachments:
Policy 671 with red-lined edits;
Materials from Estes Valley Watershed Coalition requesting to be listed as
eligible for Base funding.
46
Document Title Policy 671 – Town Funding of Outside Agencies
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Finance
1/23/187/24/2018
Effective Period: Until superseded
Review Schedule: Triennially
Effective Date: 0908/01/20172018
References: Governing Policies Manual 3.11
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 that 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 Park Economic Development Corporation
3) Estes Park Housing Authority
4) Estes Park Nonprofit Resource Center
5) Estes Valley Crisis Advocates
6) Estes Valley Investment in Childhood Success
7) Salud Family Health Centers (Estes Park)
47
Document Title Policy 671 – Town Funding of Outside Agencies
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Finance
1/23/187/24/2018
8) Via Mobility Services
iii. Review of Eligible Entities
The Town Board will review the list of entities eligible to apply for Base funding
every three (3) years in June (first review date June 2018)at every scheduled
review of this policy. 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 Assistant Town Administrator by
July 1st of each calendar year for the next year’s budget (i.e. by 07/01/2017 for
the 2018 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 Report
Any entity receiving Base funding must submit an annual report to the Assistant
Town Administrator by May 30th of the year following the year in which funding
was received (i.e. May 30th, 2019 for funding received for the 2018 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.
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. Base funding recipients must ask for all desired funds through the
Base funding process.
48
Document Title Policy 671 – Town Funding of Outside Agencies
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Finance
1/23/187/24/2018
iii. Application
Eligible entities seeking Community Initiative funding shall submit a completed
“Community Initiative Funding Application” (Exhibit B) to the Executive Assistant
in Administration 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. In-Kind Requests
Applicants for Community Initiative funding may request in-kind support from the
Town. Town staff will evaluate the request and include a staff recommendation
when forwarding the request to the Board.
vii.vi. Project Report
Any recipient of Community Initiative funding must submit a project/program
report to the Assistant Town Administrator 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.
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.
49
Document Title Policy 671 – Town Funding of Outside Agencies
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Finance
1/23/187/24/2018
iii. Application
Eligible entities seeking event sponsorship funding shall submit a completed
“Event Sponsorship Funding Application” (Exhibit C) to the Executive Assistant in
Administration.
iv. Process
All Event Sponsorship funding applications will be reviewed and awarded by the
Leadership Team. 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 Leadership Team 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?
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.
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
50
Document Title Policy 671 – Town Funding of Outside Agencies
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Finance
1/23/187/24/2018
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:
_____________________________
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
_____________
Date
51
POLICY 671 – EXHIBIT A
Base Funding Application
2018 Funding Year: ______
Entity Name:___________________________________________________________
Contact Person:__________________________ Title:__________________________
Phone: ____________________________ E-mail:_____________________________
Address:_______________________________________________________________
Base Funding requested: $_________________
1. If your Base Funding request has increased by more than $5,000 from the
previous year, please explain what the additional funding would support.
2. Please attach the most recent fiscal year-end financial statements reflecting your
entity’s beginning and ending balances for the year. This requirement can be met
by submitting one or more of the following:
a.Financial statements as approved by your board
b. Audited statement or review by an outside expert
c. Most recently filed IRS Form 990
3. Please list all anticipated funding sources for the current and coming year. Be
sure to highlight any opportunities to leverage Town funds with external funds.
4. Please attach a list of your Board of Directors with names, Board titles, and
contact information (email, phone, and/or address).
I swear and affirm that all of the information included in this application, its
attachments, and its supplemental documents is true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
_______________________________ _______________________________
Entity Director Board President/Chair
52
POLICY 671 – EXHIBIT B
Community Initiative Funding Application
2018Funding Year: ______
Project or Program Title:__________________________________________________
Entity: ________________________________________________________________
When was your entity established?:_________________________________________
Contact Person:__________________________ Title:__________________________
Phone:___________________________ E-mail:_______________________________
Address_______________________________________________________________
Dollar amount requested for 2018: $_________________
Description of in-kind service requested (if applicable): _________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Please provide the following information to help us assess your entity’s eligibility:
Is your entity currently serving the Estes Valley? Y___ N___
1. What is the mission of your organization (100 words max)?
2. Describe the project or program that will be supported with the assistance to the
Town of Estes Park funding if granted (500 words max).
a. Please attach your anticipated detail budget for this project or program.
3. How does this project or program advance the Town’s Strategic Plan
(https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/townofestespark/strategicplan) (500 words max)?
4. What population and geographic area will be targeted for service through this
project or program (200 words max)?
53
POLICY 671 – EXHIBIT B
5. How many people in the Estes Valley (total and unduplicated) do you expect to
serve with this project or program?
6. How will you measure the success of the project or program for which funding is
requested (200 words max)?
7. Who will be responsible for the administration of the project or program for which
you are requesting funding (name, title, and entity only)?
8. Are there currently any other entities or organizations providing similar projects or
programs in the Estes Valley? If so, please identify them and describe any
cooperation (250 words max).
9. Please attach the most recent fiscal year-end financial statements reflecting your
entity’s beginning and ending balances for the year. This requirement can be met
by submitting one or more of the following:
a. Most recent financial statements as approved by your board
b. Most recent audited statement or review by an outside expert
c. Most recently filed IRS Form 990
10. Please list all anticipated funding sources for this project or program. Be sure to
highlight any opportunities to leverage Town funds with external funds.
11. Please attach a list of your Board of Directors with names, Board titles, and
contact information (email, phone, and/or address).
12. Please indicate the percentage of your Board Members who have contributed
funds to your project or program during the past year (please note that we are
not interested in the amounts given by individual Board Members, but instead in
the percentage of the Board Members who have financially supported the
organization).
I swear and affirm that all of the information included in this application, its
attachments, and its supplemental documents is true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
_______________________________ _______________________________
Entity Director Board President/Chair
54
POLICY 671 – EXHIBIT C
Event Sponsorship Funding Application
Applicant/Entity Name:___________________________________________________
Contact Person:__________________________ Title:__________________________
Phone:___________________________ E-mail:_______________________________
Address:_______________________________________________________________
Dollar amount requested (maximum funding $1,000): $_________________
In-Kind Service Requested (maximum financial equivalent of $1,000): ______________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Please provide the following information to help us assess your entity’s current non-
profit status:
Current Federal Employer Identification Number:_________________________
Registered with Colorado Secretary of State as non-profit?: Yes _____ No _____
Filed for 501(c)(3) with IRS?: Yes _____ No _____
Received non-profit status from the IRS?: Yes _____ No _____
Is another agency serving as your fiscal agent?: Yes _____ No _____
(If “yes,” list the agency’s name, address, and contact person)
__________________________________________________
1. Please provide the name, date, and location of the event.
2. Please describe the event (no more than 500 words).
3. How many people are projected to attend the event?
55
POLICY 671 – EXHIBIT C
4. Is there an event admission fee? If so, how much?
5. Please list all other committed sponsors.
6. Please list any event partners.
Town of Estes Park Event Sponsorship Applicant
Declaration and Acceptance of Conditions
1. In the event that any funds allocated are not used for the event as described in
this application, or if there are misrepresentations in the application, the amount
of the funds allocated will be re-payable immediately to the Town of Estes Park.
2. The applicant will make or continue to make attempts to secure funding from
sources other than the Town of Estes Park.
3. The applicant agrees that the event shall not be represented as a Town service,
event, or program in any way (the only relationship being that the Town has
approved and granted financial assistance to the applicant).
4.Any sponsorship recipient shall indemnify and hold harmless the Town of Estes
Park and its employees and officers against any claims, costs, fines, or any other
losses or penalties related to the event for which a sponsorship has been
awarded.
4.5. The Town will be listed at the appropriate sponsorship level on all event
materials.
We swear and affirm that all of the information included in this application, its
attachments, and its supplemental documents is true and correct to the best
of our knowledge and is endorsed by the Entity which we represent.
_______________________________ _______________________________
Applicant Board President/Chair
_______________________________ ______________________________
Date Date
56
July 18, 2018
Travis Machalek
Assistant Town Administrator
Town of Estes Park
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Subject: Policy 671—Town Funding of Outside Entities
EVWC’s Request
Regarding Policy 671 – Town Funding of Outside Entities, the Estes Valley Watershed Coalition
(EVWC) requests the Town Board and Staff:
•to include the Estes Valley Watershed Coalition on the list of entities eligible for Base
funding from the Town; and
•on a one-time basis, to allow EVWC to file its application for funding no later than
August 8, 2018 for the 2019 funding cycle.
EVWC’s Work
•The Estes Valley Watershed Coalition recently completed fourteen high-priority, post-
2013 flood repair projects in the Estes Valley, including at the Estes Park Visitor Center,
along the Fish Creek corridor, Fall River, and the Upper Big Thompson River. Going
forward, EVWC is moving from REpairing to PREparing the Estes Valley for the next “big
event”—fire, flood, or pests (such as the pine beetle infestation).
•An example of future projects being planned by EVWC is the Marys Lake Forestry Health
Project, a fire fuels reduction project to remove beetle-kill pine from 200-400 acres of
the forest on the north face of Rams Horn Mountain, including the area above the Town
water plant. The recent, catastrophic fire at Marys Lake Lodge did not ignite that dead
forest tinder box, only because of low winds that night and the all-out efforts of the
many fire departments that responded to contain and extinguish the fire.
•Additional projects, upstream and uphill from downtown Estes Park, are clearly needed
to mitigate the impact of future events. Such projects are in the initial stages of
information gathering and planning.
Estes Valley Watershed Coalition
PO Box 4494
Estes Park, CO 80517
57
Town Benefits
•EVWC’s continued work is important to the environmental health of the area, which
maintains the attractiveness of the area to visitors. Given that ours is a tourism-based
economy, EVWC’s work also is important to the economic health of the Town and the
valley.
•Big events, such as fires and floods, don’t recognize property and jurisdictional
boundaries. EVWC, by virtue of its non-governmental status, largely citizen and
volunteer driven, has both the expertise and the ability to work across those boundaries
–benefitting the Town proper by taking actions outside the Town limits to prevent or
reduce the negative impacts of “the next big one” to the Town proper.
•EVWC’s long-term strategies also complement the Town’s stormwater management
plans.
Why EVWC?
•EVWC’s scientific, ecological approach to projects makes economic sense. For example,
the 14 post-flood river and riparian restoration projects we completed in 2017 were
designed so they won’t require a complete “do-over” when the next flood hits.
•EVWC has a good track of fund utilization. Our administrative overhead over the past
three years has been around 10% of our project implementation funds.
•EVWC has demonstrated expertise in resilient solutions, volunteer organization, project
planning, and enabling collaboration between governmental and non-governmental
entities across jurisdictional boundaries. All without increasing governmental “head
count”.
•EVWC’s status in the field recently was recognized by Larimer County when it awarded
the Larimer County Environmental Stewardship Award to EVWC.
•The Town’s strategic plan includes support of EVWC and its work (See Attachment 1).
•EVWC also provides the Town with a willing non-profit partner to apply for grants for
mutually beneficial projects.
Why Now?
•The DOLA Capacity Grant which provided federal funds to support the bulk of EVWC’s
base operations over the past three years expired on June 30, 2018. Now more than
ever, EVWC needs the Town’s support to continue EVWC’s base operations.
•Without ongoing, increased Town support, EVWC may not be able to employ staff to
plan, find funding for, and implement projects such as the Marys Lake Forest Health
Project. This would be a loss for the Town and its constituents.
•Hazard mitigation programs reduce the risk to life and property and save money.
The National Institute of Building Sciences’ Multi-hazard Mitigation Council estimated that for
every dollar invested in hazard mitigation, a savings of four dollars is achieved. Mitigation
programs save the American public an estimated $3.4 billion annually through a strategic
approach to natural hazard risk management.” From The Role of Mitigation in Reducing Federal
Expenditures for Disaster Response, US Senate Testimony of David Miller, Associate
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2014.
58
The Board and staff of the Estes Valley Watershed Coalition sincerely appreciate the past
support and funding from the Town of Estes Park. We acknowledge the importance of the
positive working relationship between EVWC and the Town, as we all work together to address
the water and fire threats to the Estes Valley, its inhabitants, and visitors. EVWC desires to
continue and build upon that relationship.
Please approve EVWC’s request to be included in the list of approved entities named in Policy
671 and to extend, on a one-time basis, the application filing deadline to August 8, 2018 for the
2019 funding cycle.
Thank you for your consideration.
Gary Miller, President
Estes Valley Watershed Coalition
Gary.Miller@evwatershed.org
970-227-0514 (cell)
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Page from Town Strategy listing Town support for EVWC
Attachment 2 – Letter of Support from Estes Valley Sunrise Rotary
Additional Letters of Support will be provided prior to the next Town Board meeting.
59
60
July 17, 2018
Travis Machalek
Assistant Town Administrator
Town of Estes Park
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, Co 80517
Subject: Add EVWC to Policy 671
Dear Mr. Machalek,
The Estes Valley Sunrise Rotary supports adding the Estes Valley Watershed Coalition to the list
of Eligible Entities in Policy 671 so that EVWC would be eligible for Base funding from the Town
of Estes Park.
The Sunrise Rotary has provided two grants to EVWC this year. One to support EVWCs post
flood revegetation projects. And another to help repair damaged elk-fencing along the Fish
Creek corridor, needed to protect willows and other restoration plantings until they mature. So
it is clear that our Rotary club supports the important work EVWC does in our valley.
Adding EVWC to the eligibility list in Policy 671 will provide much needed funds to enable EVWC
to continue its vital operations.
��tlM/
Leslie Glover, President
Estes Valley Sunrise Rotary
PO Box 4261
Estes Park, CO 80517
61
July 21, 2018
Travis Machalek
Assistant Town Administrator
Town of Estes Park
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, Co 80517
Subject: Add EVWC to Policy 671
Dear Mr. Machalek;
This letter is provided in support of the Estes Valley Watershed Coalition’s application to be
added to the list of Eligible Entities in Policy 671.
As landowners who were impacted by the 2013 flood, we have been closely involved with
watershed restoration activities since even before the Watershed Coalition was formed. We
actively supported the formation of the coalition and have worked closely with EVWC in a
variety of capacities over the past few years. During the past year, our property (along with
many others’ properties) benefitted from an EVWC project that not only helped with flood
recovery issues, but also provided a means for greater security and resiliency during future
flooding events.
The next crucial phase of the Estes Valley flood recovery effort includes maintenance of
completed projects and design of additional grant applications to further increase the resiliency
of targeted areas with the Estes Valley. In order to accomplish these goals, EVWC has to
identify a source for Base funding. Policy 671 eligibility by the Town of Estes Park would be a
critical step in assuring that these important functions will be addressed.
Please add EVWC to the eligibility list in Policy 671 to provide the funds needed to continue its
vital operations.
Thank you,
Mary Banken and Terry Rizzuti
1523 Fish Hatchery Road
Estes Park, CO 80517
62
Document Title Policy 671 – Town Funding of Outside Agencies 7/24/2018
Revisions: 1 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 1 of 5
Effective Period: Until superseded
Review Schedule: Triennially
Effective Date: 08/01/2018
References: Governing Policies Manual 3.11
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 that 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 Park Economic Development Corporation
3) Estes Park Housing Authority
4) Estes Park Nonprofit Resource Center
5) Estes Valley Crisis Advocates
6) Estes Valley Investment in Childhood Success
7) Salud Family Health Centers (Estes Park)
Document Title Policy 671 – Town Funding of Outside Agencies 7/24/2018
Revisions: 1 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 2 of 5
8) Via Mobility Services
9) Estes Valley Watershed Coalition
iii. Review of Eligible Entities
The Town Board will review the list of entities eligible to apply for Base funding at
every scheduled review of this policy. 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 Assistant Town Administrator by
July 1st of each calendar year for the next year’s budget (i.e. by 07/01/2017 for
the 2018 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 Report
Any entity receiving Base funding must submit an annual report to the Assistant
Town Administrator by May 30th of the year following the year in which funding
was received (i.e. May 30th, 2019 for funding received for the 2018 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.
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. Base funding recipients must ask for all desired funds through the
Base funding process.
Document Title Policy 671 – Town Funding of Outside Agencies 7/24/2018
Revisions: 1 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 3 of 5
iii. Application
Eligible entities seeking Community Initiative funding shall submit a completed
“Community Initiative Funding Application” (Exhibit B) to the Executive Assistant
in Administration 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 Assistant Town Administrator 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.
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 Executive Assistant in
Administration.
Document Title Policy 671 – Town Funding of Outside Agencies 7/24/2018
Revisions: 1 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 4 of 5
iv. Process
All Event Sponsorship funding applications will be reviewed and awarded by the
Leadership Team. 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 Leadership Team 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?
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.
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:
Document Title Policy 671 – Town Funding of Outside Agencies 7/24/2018
Revisions: 1 Town of Estes Park, Finance Page 5 of 5
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:
_____________________________
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
_____________
Date
POLICY 671 – EXHIBIT A
Page 1 of 1
Base Funding Application
Funding Year: ______
Entity Name:___________________________________________________________
Contact Person:__________________________ Title:__________________________
Phone: ____________________________ E-mail:_____________________________
Address:_______________________________________________________________
Base Funding requested: $_________________
1. If your Base Funding request has increased by more than $5,000 from the
previous year, please explain what the additional funding would support.
2. Please attach the most recent fiscal year-end financial statements reflecting your
entity’s beginning and ending balances for the year. This requirement can be met
by submitting one or more of the following:
a. Financial statements as approved by your board
b. Audited statement or review by an outside expert
c. Most recently filed IRS Form 990
3. Please list all anticipated funding sources for the current and coming year. Be
sure to highlight any opportunities to leverage Town funds with external funds.
4. Please attach a list of your Board of Directors with names, Board titles, and
contact information (email, phone, and/or address).
I swear and affirm that all of the information included in this application, its
attachments, and its supplemental documents is true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
_______________________________ _______________________________
Entity Director Board President/Chair
POLICY 671 – EXHIBIT B
Page 1 of 2
Community Initiative Funding Application
Funding Year: ______
Project or Program Title:__________________________________________________
Entity: ________________________________________________________________
When was your entity established?:_________________________________________
Contact Person:__________________________ Title:__________________________
Phone:___________________________ E-mail:_______________________________
Address_______________________________________________________________
Dollar amount requested: $_________________
Please provide the following information to help us assess your entity’s eligibility:
Is your entity currently serving the Estes Valley? Y___ N___
1. What is the mission of your organization (100 words max)?
2. Describe the project or program that will be supported with the assistance to the
Town of Estes Park funding if granted (500 words max).
a. Please attach your anticipated detail budget for this project or program.
3. How does this project or program advance the Town’s Strategic Plan
(https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/townofestespark/strategicplan) (500 words max)?
4. What population and geographic area will be targeted for service through this
project or program (200 words max)?
5. How many people in the Estes Valley (total and unduplicated) do you expect to
serve with this project or program?
6. How will you measure the success of the project or program for which funding is
requested (200 words max)?
POLICY 671 – EXHIBIT B
Page 2 of 2
7. Who will be responsible for the administration of the project or program for which
you are requesting funding (name, title, and entity only)?
8. Are there currently any other entities or organizations providing similar projects or
programs in the Estes Valley? If so, please identify them and describe any
cooperation (250 words max).
9. Please attach the most recent fiscal year-end financial statements reflecting your
entity’s beginning and ending balances for the year. This requirement can be met
by submitting one or more of the following:
a. Most recent financial statements as approved by your board
b. Most recent audited statement or review by an outside expert
c. Most recently filed IRS Form 990
10. Please list all anticipated funding sources for this project or program. Be sure to
highlight any opportunities to leverage Town funds with external funds.
11. Please attach a list of your Board of Directors with names, Board titles, and
contact information (email, phone, and/or address).
12. Please indicate the percentage of your Board Members who have contributed
funds to your project or program during the past year (please note that we are
not interested in the amounts given by individual Board Members, but instead in
the percentage of the Board Members who have financially supported the
organization).
I swear and affirm that all of the information included in this application, its
attachments, and its supplemental documents is true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
_______________________________ _______________________________
Entity Director Board President/Chair
POLICY 671 – EXHIBIT C
Page 1 of 2
Event Sponsorship Funding Application
Applicant/Entity Name:___________________________________________________
Contact Person:__________________________ Title:__________________________
Phone:___________________________ E-mail:_______________________________
Address:_______________________________________________________________
Dollar amount requested (maximum funding $1,000): $_________________
Please provide the following information to help us assess your entity’s current non-
profit status:
Current Federal Employer Identification Number:_________________________
Registered with Colorado Secretary of State as non-profit?: Yes _____ No _____
Filed for 501(c)(3) with IRS?: Yes _____ No _____
Received non-profit status from the IRS?: Yes _____ No _____
Is another agency serving as your fiscal agent?: Yes _____ No _____
(If “yes,” list the agency’s name, address, and contact person)
__________________________________________________
1. Please provide the name, date, and location of the event.
2. Please describe the event (no more than 500 words).
3. How many people are projected to attend the event?
4. Is there an event admission fee? If so, how much?
5. Please list all other committed sponsors.
6. Please list any event partners.
POLICY 671 – EXHIBIT C
Page 2 of 2
Town of Estes Park Event Sponsorship Applicant
Declaration and Acceptance of Conditions
1. In the event that any funds allocated are not used for the event as described in
this application, or if there are misrepresentations in the application, the amount
of the funds allocated will be re-payable immediately to the Town of Estes Park.
2. The applicant will make or continue to make attempts to secure funding from
sources other than the Town of Estes Park.
3. The applicant agrees that the event shall not be represented as a Town service,
event, or program in any way (the only relationship being that the Town has
approved and granted financial assistance to the applicant).
4. Any sponsorship recipient shall indemnify and hold harmless the Town of Estes
Park and its employees and officers against any claims, costs, fines, or any other
losses or penalties related to the event for which a sponsorship has been
awarded.
5. The Town will be listed at the appropriate sponsorship level on all event
materials.
We swear and affirm that all of the information included in this application, its
attachments, and its supplemental documents is true and correct to the best
of our knowledge and is endorsed by the Entity which we represent.
_______________________________ _______________________________
Applicant Board President/Chair
_______________________________ ______________________________
Date Date
PUBLIC WORKS Report
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Jon Landkamer, Facilities Manager
Date: July 19, 2018
RE: Update on Dry Gulch Workforce Housing
Objective:
This report is intended to update the Town Board and Staff, on the work done to date,
on the Dry Gulch Workforce Housing project, and the Fish Hatchery workforce housing
project. The attached report from NV5 is a summary of the work completed to date.
Present Situation:
•The project team has been in exclusive negotiations with America West/Prairie Fire
Development related to the Development Agreement (DA) over the last few months, with
a draft of this agreement awaiting comments and a Term Sheet from the developer,
detailing the expected deliverables of the potential project.
•The first neighborhood meeting for the Dry Gulch project produced many negative
comments, and questions on the validity of the 2016 Estes Valley Housing Needs
Assessment (HNA).
•The application for rezoning of the Dry Gulch property has been withdrawn without
prejudice.
•The project team has had one meeting with the newly formed Housing Advisory
Committee (HAC) and will have the second meeting on July 24th. There have been
testimonials from members of this committee of the need for workforce housing in our
community.
•ATA Machalek has begun the process of developing a workforce housing strategy
development group with a similar list of participants as the HAC.
Proposal:
Town Board and Staff are set to review the HNA at their study session on August 14th,
2018. The workforce housing projects are in a holding pattern until after this review. The
project team would like direction after this HNA review meeting on future status and
direction for the workforce housing projects.
63
Advantages:
•Donation of the property would help to keep costs down for the project
•The project may assist with recruitment and retention of Town staff
•Brings together the large area employers and engages them in the solution
•There is the potential that this project will also encourage others in valley to create
similar opportunities
•We could potentially add over 200 units to the area inventory, making a significant
impact in a relatively short amount of time
Disadvantages:
•There are many unknowns that will come up, and it will take some staff commitment and
resources to address them
•Increased density and traffic in quiet neighbors
Action Recommended:
Provide the Town Administrator with direction for staff on the future of the Town -owned
property, workforce housing projects.
Finance/Resource Impact:
Ongoing costs of Owner’s Representative (NV5), and staff time.
Level of Public Interest:
High Interest: This project has drawn a great deal of interest from affected parties near
the proposed development properties. It has also been a topic of interest for the Estes
Park EDC and many of the large employers that see a need for more workforce
housing.
Attachement:
Estes Valley Workforce Housing July Update (NV5)
64
Estes Valley Workforce Housing Project Update
The Town of Estes Park (TOEP) has pursued two Workforce Housing projects described as
Dry Gulch and Fish Hatchery. The Town of Estes Park, with support from NV5 (Owner’s
Representative) is working with a developer; AmericaWest/Prairie Fire Development group
(AWPF) on this process. The TOEP signed an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with AWPF in
February of 2018 to proceed with investigation of both properties. The basis for the need of
workforce housing in Estes Park is provided by the Housing Needs Assessment report
published by Rees Consulting, Inc. and WSW Consulting in 2016. On April 24, 2018 the
project team submitted a rezoning application for the Dry Gulch property. The goal of both
projects is to engage the community through a Collaborative Community Effort (CCE). The
first step in the CCE was to establish a Housing Advisory Committee (HAC) to provide insight
to ensure these projects addressed the housing needs in the Estes Valley. The HAC is
comprised of community members, large employers, and other stakeholders in the
community.
Dry Gulch - A preliminary site plan and rezoning application was submitted to the Town in
April 2018 to rezone the property to allow for multi-family development. A draft
development agreement (DA) is being developed by the TOEP and AWPF. Attached to the
development agreement, will be a supplemental term sheet that details the provisions of the
DA, including but not limited to items such as unit mix, timeline, provisions of the land
transfer, proposed rents, parking restrictions, leasing requirements for workforce housing,
etc. On July 9, 2018 the project team hosted the first of many community meetings at
Crossroads Ministry for the neighbors of Dry Gulch to provide an overview of the project,
receive feedback, and answer questions that the surrounding community had. The first
community meeting raised questions regarding the Housing Needs Assessment that was
published in 2016. As a result, the Town has decided to put a hold on the re-zoning
application while they address these questions. As any Town led workforce project moves
forward, the team would continue to receive design and project input from not only the
neighbors of a property but the Estes Park community as whole.
Fish Hatchery
As the 75-acre Fish Hatchery site has several infrastructure challenges, the team has been
working with design consultants to understand limitations as far as infrastructure/utilities,
and to determine how to make the development of this site as feasible as possible for all
65
parties involved. Once these items are accurately addressed, AWPF will proceed with a
preliminary site plan.
Key Dates
May 2017 TOEP issued an RFP for Developers
July 2017 TOEP issued an RFP for Owner’s Representative Services to assist with
Developer Evaluation and Selection
September 2017 TOEP selected NV5 for Owner’s Representative services
October 18, 2017 TOEP interviewed 3 potential Developers
October 24, 2017 TOEP selected America West/Prairie fire Development Group to explore
a workforce housing project
February 1, 2018 Developer Kick-Off Meeting
April 24, 2018 Project team submitted Letter of Intent/Rezoning application
June 13, 2018 DA review meeting with Town Attorney
June 21, 2018 HAC Kick-Off Meeting
July 9, 2018 Dry Gulch Community Meeting
July 24, 2018 HAC Second Meeting
July 24, 2018 Project on agenda for Town Board Meeting
Key Terms
NV5: Owner’s Representative to the town
AWPF: AmericaWest/Prairie Fire Development Group
DA: Development Agreement that stands as the contract between the Town of Estes Park
and AmericaWest/Prairie Fire for the development of Workforce Housing as it pertains to
this project.
HAC: Housing Advisory Council
CCE: Community Collaboration Effort
66
PUBLIC WORKS Report
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: David Hook, Engineering Manager
Greg Muhonen, PW Director
Date: July 24, 2018
RE: Stormwater Management Project Update
Objective:
Provide an update on the public outreach completed since the February 2018 study
session regarding the proposed stormwater utility.
Present Situation:
In response to Town Board feedback received in February, staff embarked on an
outreach effort to gather feedback from the community regarding the Stormwater
Management Project (SMP) proposal. Staff effort has been multifaceted, including
issuing a series of press releases, posting a number of informational documents on the
Town’s website for public viewing, meeting with certain property owners along Fall River
and Big Thompson River in and near downtown, presentations to four civic and
business groups, conducting three public meetings, interfacing with the community at
three Farmers Market events, holding several one-on-one meetings with individuals with
a keen interest in the SMP, and developing an online survey for use by the community
in providing their comments.
In addition, staff coordinated with the Colorado Water Conservation Board to dovetail
the SMP public meetings with the public meeting introducing the new draft floodplain
maps for the five watershed basins in and around Estes Park.
Throughout this process, Town staff has coordinated with Larimer County engineering
staff regarding these efforts.
The public comment period and survey closed on July 17, with a total of 221 responses
received. Staff is not satisfied that the overall response is adequate to provide the Town
Board and the Board of County Commissioners sufficient feedback regarding the SMP
proposal. Staff intends to wait until we have 1000 or more responses before returning to
both Boards for further discussion and action. See the attached summary of the current
survey responses.
Proposal:
One significant comment that staff has heard from the folks who have provided
comment (especially verbally) is that they desire to know more about what their real
67
cost will be since the proposed fee ranges in the study are so broad. Thus, staff is
embarking on a new course of action that includes (1) refining the database so that fees
can be more accurately calculated, (2) mailing a letter to owners of each of the 7280
improved parcels within the EVDC boundary that will inform them about the SMP
proposal, including their proposed fee for the staff recommended variant of Option 3A [a
stormwater utility funded by fees ($60M), sales tax ($70M beginning is 2024), and
grants (TBD)] be adopted, and (3) releasing a new, second online survey to gather
additional feedback of this specific user fee proposal.
Advantages:
Additional feedback from the community that is based on more accurate fee
information will provide the Town Board and the Board of County Commissioners
with a better understanding of the community’s opinions about the
acceptability/unacceptability the SMP proposal.
Disadvantages:
This new course of action will add time and costs to the process of gathering
additional feedback for Board consideration of the SMP proposal. County staff
has indicated that they are willing to proportionally share the additional costs.
Action Recommended:
No Town Board action is required at this time. Staff will continue the public outreach
efforts and will return to the Board for further discussion and Board direction.
Finance/Resource Impact:
The measurement of impervious area on over 2300 parcels is estimated to cost
$60,000. Staff anticipates that these costs will be shared with Larimer County. Are the
Trustees willing to consider redirecting unspent personnel funds within Public Works to
pay the estimated $40,000 Town portion of this effort? A 2018 budget adjustment could
be presented to the Town Board for formal action at the August 14, 2018 meeting.
Level of Public Interest
Based on the outreach efforts to date and the survey responses received, Staff believes
that the level of public interest is low. That said, staff has engaged in some vigorous,
constructive discussions with a handful of responding individuals who were interested
and outspoken enough to approach us with their comments and questions. Staff
believes the interest level will increase with the new course of action described above.
Attachments:
Summary of survey results
Summary of written comments - Link
Updated FAQ document
68
22.62%50
62.90% 139
14.48%32
Q1 How familiar are you with the recently completed Estes Valley
Stormwater Management Project?
Answered: 221 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 221
I have read
the Stormwat...
I am generally
aware of the...
I am not
familiar wit...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
I have read the Stormwater Master Plan and Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study
I am generally aware of the key concepts contained in these two documents
I am not familiar with this project
Estes Park Stormwater Utility SurveyMonkey
69
60.91% 134
37.73% 83
1.36% 3
Q2 Where is your property located?
Answered: 220 Skipped: 1
TOTAL 220
Within the
Town of Este...
Outside the
Town limits ...
Other (if
outside the...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Within the Town of Estes Park limits
Outside the Town limits but inside the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Boundary (for boundary information visit
www.estes.org/maps and scroll to the appropriate map)
Other (if outside the Town and the EVDC Boundary, this project will not directly impact you and you do not need to complete
this survey. Thank you.)
Estes Park Stormwater Utility SurveyMonkey
70
73.52%161
26.48%58
Q3 Are you aware of any problems or issues with stormwater drainage in
the Estes Valley?
Answered: 219 Skipped: 2
TOTAL 219
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Estes Park Stormwater Utility SurveyMonkey
71
43.10%75
20.69%36
51.72%90
73.56%128
32.18%56
Q4 What types of drainage problems are you aware of? (check all that
apply)
Answered: 174 Skipped: 47
Total Respondents: 174
Drainage /
damage on my...
Drainage /
damage throu...
Erosion or
sediment...
River flooding
Water ponding
due to...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Drainage / damage on my road and/or shoulder of the road where I live
Drainage / damage through my yard / property / home / business
Erosion or sediment disposition
River flooding
Water ponding due to undersized or missing drain pipes or inlets
Estes Park Stormwater Utility SurveyMonkey
72
47.47%94
11.62%23
14.14%28
26.77%53
Q5 Who do you feel should be responsible for managing stormwater
drainage and repairing associated damages?
Answered: 198 Skipped: 23
TOTAL 198
Town of Estes
Park
A new, special
district
Adjacent
property owners
No management
of storm wat...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Town of Estes Park
A new, special district
Adjacent property owners
No management of storm water is needed
Estes Park Stormwater Utility SurveyMonkey
73
4.57%10
16.44%36
11.42%25
21.00%46
46.58%102
Q6 Stormwater problems are community concerns and all property
owners in the Estes Valley should share the cost of a stormwater
management program by paying a monthly fee.
Answered: 219 Skipped: 2
TOTAL 219
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Estes Park Stormwater Utility SurveyMonkey
74
14.09% 21
55.70% 83
30.20% 45
Q7 What new funds should be used to design, build, and maintain public
stormwater infrastructure? If you think there should be more than one
funding source please insert the percent of funding for each.
Answered: 149 Skipped: 72
TOTAL 149
Property Tax
(within Town...
Sales Tax
(within Town...
User Fee (Town
& County...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Property Tax (within Town limits only)
Sales Tax (within Town limits only)
User Fee (Town & County property owners within the Estes Valley Development Code Boundary)
Estes Park Stormwater Utility SurveyMonkey
75
14.29%31
59.45%129
26.27%57
Q8 Do you support incurring debt paid by new funds to expedite
completion of stormwater infrastructure projects?
Answered: 217 Skipped: 4
TOTAL 217
Yes
No
Uncertain / do
not know
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Uncertain / do not know
Estes Park Stormwater Utility SurveyMonkey
76
3.31%6
6.63%12
3.87%7
10.50%19
75.69%137
Q9 The proposed stormwater master plan includes many projects across
the Estes Valley that will significantly decrease flood risk across the
valley. How should projects be prioritized? Highest priority should be
given to:
Answered: 181 Skipped: 40
TOTAL 181
Projects that
can be desig...
Lowest cost
projects
Greatest
benefit to...
Greatest
benefit to...
Greatest
benefit to t...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Projects that can be designed and built soonest
Lowest cost projects
Greatest benefit to business property owner(s)
Greatest benefit to residential property owner(s)
Greatest benefit to the community (such as river channels, roads, bridges)
Estes Park Stormwater Utility SurveyMonkey
77
83.02%88
16.98%18
Q10 Which would you prefer? (select one)
Answered: 106 Skipped: 115
TOTAL 106
Pay the
proposed...
Pay two times
the proposed...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Pay the proposed utility fee to complete the projects within 30 years
Pay two times the proposed utility fee to complete the projects within 20 years
Estes Park Stormwater Utility SurveyMonkey
78
5.12%11
7.91%17
16.28%35
15.81%34
54.88%118
Q11 The need for a stormwater utility is urgent and new fees should be
implemented in 2018.
Answered: 215 Skipped: 6
TOTAL 215
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Estes Park Stormwater Utility SurveyMonkey
79
100.00%25
24.00%6
88.00%22
8.00%2
92.00%23
88.00%22
88.00%22
76.00%19
96.00%24
76.00%19
Q12 If you have questions or would like to be contacted by the Town
regarding this project, please insert your contact information here
Answered: 25 Skipped: 196
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Name
Company
Address
Address 2
City/Town
State/Province
ZIP/Postal Code
Country
Email Address
Phone Number
Estes Park Stormwater Utility SurveyMonkey
80
Estes Valley Stormwater Management Project
Frequently Asked Questions (7/19/2018)
This document will be revised and updated as we all learn more about this project
and are asked more questions. Please check back with the Public Works
Department or online at estes.org/stormwater. Thank you for your interest in this project.
The following FAQs are grouped into the following areas:
A.Problems
B.Solutions
C.Utility/ fees
D.Other
Introduction
Stormwater is any precipitation that falls from the sky in the form of rain, hail, sleet or snow.
Stormwater runoff is water that ‘runs off’ instead of seeping into the ground. The runoff
flows to the nearest river, creek, lake, etc.
A stormwater management project (program or system) is a combination of all the areas
water flows, including property, roadside ditches, and creeks that carries stormwater away
from houses and businesses and eventually downstream to Lake Estes or the Big Thompson
River below the lake.
In 2016, the Board of Trustees asked Town employees to explore the need for a Stormwater
Master Plan. The Town received a grant and contracted with a consulting firm to draft this
plan and conduct a feasibility study to determine funding options. Documents for this project
are located on the Town website at estes.org/stormwater.
A.Problems
1. What is the risk of not doing anything and taking our chances with the “occasional
flood”?
Major floods are economically and emotionally destructive. The recovery and repair of
damaged private property and public infrastructure is often long, costly, and painful. The
recovery efforts redirect Town staff and financial resources away from delivery of the daily
services our community depends upon. Doing nothing perpetuates the risk of reliving these
destructive flood consequences. Mitigation and resiliency projects often have a cost benefit:
every dollar spent on these projects saves between $4.00 and $8.00 on future flood response
and recovery. The Town feels it is irresponsible to not take proactive steps to reduce these
repetitive risks to our community. Just as many of us mitigate to prevent or minimize losses
due to forest fires, we feel it is just as important to mitigate for floods.
81
It is important to note that a Stormwater Management Project includes roads, bridges, trails,
sidewalks and utilities – infrastructure that we use every day.
2. What is the prediction of the 2013 flood happening again?
Hydrologic modeling tells us the flood flows experienced in Estes Park in 2013 have a
greater than 1% chance of recurring every year. This is a statistical prediction and could
occur more or less frequently than this.
In other words, there is a one in 100 chance of the Town experiencing the 2013 Flood in any
given year as compared to your chance of winning the Colorado Lotto: matching 4 or more
of the 6 numbers are no better than approximately one in 500. So, there is a 5 times better
chance at seeing a 2013 Flood in any given year than matching 4 or more of the 6 numbers in
any given Colorado Lotto drawing.
3. What are the factors that contribute to flooding?
Rainfall is the most significant factor. Other factors include snow melt, steep slopes,
impermeable rock, and impervious surfaces such as roof-tops, paved driveways, and parking
lots. Conversion of vacant land to a developed condition adds impermeable area and typically
increases stormwater runoff onto downstream properties. Constrictions in the waterway such
as narrow stream banks, undersized road and pedestrian bridges, and culverts that can be
blocked by debris also contribute to flooding.
4. What was the cost of the 2013 flood?
Total estimated costs from the 2013 Flood response and recovery in the Estes Valley is over
$47 million. The total verified loss to private property from the Small Business
Administration was $7,353,842. Roadway repairs costs are estimated to be over $14 million.
Public utility repair costs are estimated to be $16,500,000. Repairs to other facilities
including trails and basin work are estimated to be over $9 million.
An additional $10 million dollars has been received in resiliency and mitigation work. The
2013 Flood also resulted in a significant decrease in visitors and tourism dollars which
adversely impacted both the Town and private business owners.
In 2013 the number of Rocky Mountain National Park visitors for the month of September
was down 52% from 2012, and the number of October visitors was down a staggering 70%
from the previous year. The estimated financial impact of the 2013 Flood to RMNP was a
loss of more than $118 million, when considering an average financial impact of $278 per
visitor in accommodation, food service, arts, retail and transportation. This loss estimate does
not take into consideration the $1.317 million in documented lost park fees, or the reduced
visitor travel in November 2013 and after.
82
According to a Colorado State University graduate paper, “a drop in tourist visits to Estes
Park as a result of flood-damaged roads has a ripple effect through the rest of Colorado’s
economy, according to preliminary analysis conducted by the Regional Economics Institute
at Colorado State University.” This report was written October 3, 2013, too soon to know
exact impact; however, the report continued by stating, “a tourism reduction of as little as 30
percent in Estes Park could amount to a decline in state economic activity of $27.2 million, a
loss of 335 jobs, and a $13.9 million decrease in real household income. State tax revenue
could fall by $1.8 million and local tax revenue by $1.3 million.” This would be dependent
on how quickly the Town recovered which by all accounts was quick.
5. How much flood water can the Estes Valley’s bridges and culverts handle?
A summary of the Estes Valley’s bridge and culvert capacities is provided in Table 4.11 of
the Stormwater Master Plan. Many of the downtown bridges on Fall River and Big
Thompson River can pass no more than about 1/3 of the predicted 1% annual chance flood
flows. The table below provides a capacity summary of the downtown bridges/culverts.
Bridge Location
Structure
Capacity
(cfs)
Return
Period
(-years)
Percent
Annual
Chance of
Occurrence
Fall River
Pedestrian Bridge (Upstream of Confluence) 1,500 63 1.6
Pedestrian Bridge 450 5 20
Shopping Center 1,125 33 3.0
Existing Moraine Avenue (aka U.S. Highway 36) 1,100 30 3.3
Pedestrian Bridge 1,000 25 4
Weist Drive 1,160 36 2.8
Pedestrian Bridge 600 9 11
West Elkhorn Avenue at Water Wheel 600 9 11
Riverside Park Pedestrian Bridge 400 4 25
Spruce Drive 275 2 50
Pedestrian Bridge 650 10 10
Filby Court 500 6 17
West Elkhorn Avenue (Upstream of Filby Ct.) 1,225 40 2.5
Big Thompson River
Riverside Drive 850 < 2 > 50
Rockwell Street 600 < 2 > 50
Ivy Street 250 < 2 > 50
Crags Drive 750 2 50
6.Does inclusion of my property in the floodplain affect its value?
There are many factors that go into the market value of property so this is not a simple
answer. Also, in talking with various real estate brokers, their experience and opinions vary
on this subject.
83
Some think the floodplain maps have little negative impact on property values right now and
others think these maps will devalue properties that are in the floodplain.
In 2018 the demand continues to be high for all types of properties in the Estes Valley
regardless of its status in the floodplain. Properties on the Riverwalk in the downtown core
have sold well since the 2013 Flood. This is also true for residential property along Fish
Creek and on Fish Hatchery roads. Owners will likely pay more for flood insurance and
lenders will require flood insurance, but that does not necessarily lessen the value of
property. Of course, buyers make the ultimate decision as to what is the actual “value”. So
far, there does not seem to be any reluctance to purchase property in the floodplain.
The short answer is “yes ” according to another real estate broker. The exact amount will be
dependent on the individual property, and to what extent being in the floodplain affects it.
Being in the floodplain limits what a property owner can do with the property from a
construction and development point of view. This limitation will have a devaluing effect as
improvements may become costly or just not allowed. As an example, owners may not be
allowed to replace the improvements if there is a fire, or expanding the property may not be
allowed. If property owners are not looking to improve the property, then this may not be
immediately apparent. If there is a loan on the property, the lender will require Flood
Insurance. The cost of this insurance can be very expensive, and you may or may not be able
to pass it on to a tenant if it is leased out. Flood Insurance could easily cost several thousand
dollars per year. If you own the property free and clear, then you can “self-insure”, but that is
risky and ill-advised. The additional cost of Flood Insurance will affect what the bottom line
or Net Operating Income (NOI) for income received is and in broad terms, the lower the Net
Operating Income, the lower the property value.
People who have experienced a flood or move from flood-prone areas may be more hesitant
to purchase property that is in the floodplain.
It is hard to predict market response to property, business, and housing values.
7. I’m not in the floodplain. Why should I pay a fee?
Stormwater utility fees are typically assessed to all owners of developed property associated
with basins. Estes Valley has five (5) basins causing almost everyone to be associated with at
least one of these basins. When properties on higher ground in the basin are developed the
natural runoff is altered. By adding impervious (non-permeable) surfaces such as driveways
and buildings, the amount of runoff that leaves the property increases, impacting properties
downstream. The stormwater fees are generally based on the amount of impervious area on
the property. Some consider this similar to property owners not dumping sewage or trash on
a downstream neighbor.
84
B.Solutions
8. What is the purpose of having a stormwater master plan (SMP) and a stormwater
utility?
The recently released draft floodplain maps illustrate how the floodplain has changed and
impact properties as a result of updating the stormwater runoff forecasting (hydrology) and
the associated flood flow modeling. The Stormwater Master Plan evaluated the condition of
the Town’s stormwater infrastructure and the $79 million of improvements needed to safely
convey a 1% annual chance of occurring flood down the major riverways and through the
minor drainages in the Estes Valley. The proposed Stormwater Utility is the mechanism
most public agencies use to fund the improvement, maintenance, expansion, and operation of
stormwater infrastructure. A stormwater focused entity does not currently exist in the Estes
Valley.
9.Does this project include properties outside of Town and within unincorporated
Larimer County?
Yes. Around 8,400 parcels within the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Boundary
are included. Collection of a User Fee from properties outside of the Town limits must be
authorized by the Larimer County Commissioners through an Intergovernmental Agreement
(IGA) with the Town of Estes Park.
10. What are other communities doing?
According to a Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey in 2016, there were
7 states with 100 or more stormwater utilities (SWUs). Thirty-nine states have one or more
Stormwater Utilities. They identified 1,600 Stormwater Utilities with 22,192 communities
participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Their data was mostly based
on web searches and knowing that some may not be evident on the internet, their estimate
was that there were between 2,000 and 2,500 Stormwater Utilities in 2016. It was predicted
that this number would continue to grow.
In Larimer County Stormwater Utilities or districts are operating in Loveland, Wellington,
Windsor and Fort Collins. Properties in unincorporated Larimer County are included in the
West Vine Basin Utility and the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority.
11. Why not just deepen the channels to contain the predicted increased flood flows?
Deepening some river channels may be possible. Because the Stormwater Master Plan is
conceptual only, this could be considered at the time specific projects are designed. Bedrock,
buried utilities, and nearby buildings are cost and time challenges that impact the feasibility
of excavating deeper channels.
12. Why not manage the flow upstream from Town?
Our consultant, Anderson Consulting Engineers, explored the potential of creating an
upstream lake or detention area to hold future stormwater runoff. The vacant land areas of
85
sufficient size are situated on Federal land within Rocky Mountain National Park.
Converting natural open park lands into submerged detention areas utilizing sizable dams is
not consistent with the purpose and mission of the National Park Service.
13.How long will this construction project take (road closure, disruption to
businesses)?
The Stormwater Master Plan is conceptual only for cost estimating purposes and will change
during the specific project’s design process. Information on project construction would be
identified during the design phase for each project. Detailed project information is not
available at this project concept level. Town infrastructure project scheduling would consider
the sensitivity and need to minimize adverse construction impacts during our peak visitation
periods of June through September.
14.When will this project be done?
To keep the monthly user fees to a reasonable minimum, the duration of the program is
modeled to occur over a 30-year time frame. If fees increase or other funds are obtained, the
completion time frame can be shortened. The Stormwater Master Plan includes estimated
years for project implementation; however, this schedule was for establishing a basis for
project costs over the years of implementation. Actual implementation dates would be part of
the projects implementation plan developed by working closely with the community.
15. What if a property owner has already done some mitigation work – do they get
“credit” for this?
The proposed user fee formula is based on assumed representative impervious areas for each
parcel. Mitigation does not equal impervious area improvements. Impervious area
adjustments could be made by measuring actual impervious area using GIS rather than the
assumed percent that is currently being used for estimating costs only. Property owners could
provide this information to the Town. The Town understands the importance of the having
accurate information.
Properties with local detention ponds typically focus on immediately local needs and may
mitigate for peak rate discharges of water. They typically do not alter the overall volume of
stormwater, nor do they impact the need for regional system improvements. The regional
improvements funded with the fees will be designed to accommodate both the peak rate of
discharge and the overall volume of water on a regional level.
The same applies to runoff factor. Properties in the Estes Valley have stormwater runoff that
contributes to existing storm flows during a rain event. It is most equitable to have all
developed properties pay a fee to construct, operate and maintain a stormwater system that
manages those flows for community benefits.
The adopted program is intended to allow administrative adjustments to the fees.
86
16.Isn’t this what “Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District” does?
No. According to the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, they distribute water
to portions of eight counties in Northeastern Colorado via the Colorado-Big Thompson (C-
BT) Project’s West Slope collection system and East Slope distribution system. Their
customers buy water for agricultural and municipal uses. Their facilities are not designed
specifically for flood control purposes.
17.Is the Moraine Bridge project part of this project?
Not directly. This project was funded by a grant for resiliency following the 2013 Flood. This
redesign and new box culvert will help with the Fall River flow.
18. Who does the stormwater work now? What is the budget for stormwater work?
The Town’s Public Works Department Streets Division is responsible for stormwater work.
The current annual budget is $11,000. This is a shortfall that only allows minimal work and
usually the most pressing problems that need immediate attention are addressed.
19. What responsibility does CDOT have with stormwater systems?
The Colorado Department of Transportation’s responsibility is from gutter to gutter within
the roadway.
20. What are possible grants for this project?
Grant research would be conducted for specific projects. Possible sources for grants include:
Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB)
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Natural Resource Conservation Services (NRCS)
Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration (EDA), Public Works
Grants
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
21.What assurance if there that the completed stormwater projects will result in
reducing the floodplain area?
The Town will follow the process to change the floodplain maps when projects are
completed. FEMA has a defined process and as an applicant the Town will submit required
documentation in a timely manner. The Town is reasonably assured that FEMA will review
and approve applications for floodplain map changes. The Town is also considering internal
resources and training for employees to help expedite this effort.
22. Could a less ambitious or alternative plan provide equal or better emergency safety
and security during a flood? Estes Park already built the new Moraine Bridge to a
lesser standard.
The standard in the stormwater industry is to protect against the 1% annual chance of
flooding. Yes, the Town could explore a less ambitious or alternative plan, and would likely
do so in the context of performing the detailed designs for the specific projects where costs
87
and benefits can be more thoroughly evaluated. This could occur if a stormwater utility is
approved and funded. There are no funds available currently to redo the master planning
analysis which was paid for by a $300,000 resiliency grant following the 2013 flood event. It
is important to understand that a lesser level of infrastructure improvement is not likely to
provide an equal or better level of safety and security during a flood. The community could
let the Town know they prefer this, understanding the compromise in protection.
The Moraine Avenue Bridge project was designed so the buildings and businesses in the
immediate area would remain in place.
23. Will the 30 years of construction be similar to last spring during building of
Moraine Bridge?
Most of the work done each year will be shorter duration neighborhood projects. Most of the
large projects are in the river channels or minor side-streets and will not require extended
closures of the main roads in downtown Estes Park. Bridge projects (Riverside and Elkhorn)
will require extended road closures for one winter each.
C.Utility / Fee
24. Why create a new utility through the Town? Why not use a separate entity such as a
taxing district or authority?
Several funding alternatives were considered to make the necessary improvements and
maintain the stormwater system in the Estes Valley. The five (5) basins the run through the
valley cross jurisdictions so a separate stormwater fee is considered the fairest method to
fund the construction maintenance of the shared improvements.
The current stormwater management plan includes properties within the Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC) Boundary which includes both the Town limits and a portion of
unincorporated Larimer County. Currently there is no champion party willing to create the
administrative structure and manage a new taxing district. Additionally, Larimer County
staff and Commissioners have made it clear they do not support establishing or participating
in a district or authority. The proposed Stormwater Utility would be similar to the Town’s
Water, and Light & Power Divisions (enterprise services).
88
25. How much would I have to pay? How are fees calculated?
This is from the
Stormwater Master Plan.
Note: the Town will be
taking time to more
accurately measure
impervious areas.
As shown in the table,
residents of most other
Larimer County and Front
Range communities
already pay monthly
stormwater fees, ranging
from about $5 per month
to about $15 per month.
The basis for stormwater
fees and charges is the amount of developed impervious area (asphalt, concrete, rooftop, etc.)
within a parcel of land. Fees presented in this are subject to changes; this is a static report.
In application, total annual stormwater costs are divided over the region’s total square
footage of impervious area to calculate a cost per square foot of impervious area per year.
The property owner, residential or commercial, pays a stormwater fee based on their
impervious square footage. The monthly user fee proposed for Estes Park consists of three
parts: an administrative service fee, operation and maintenance fee, and the facility
expansion fee. The Town Public Works staff is proposing our property owners pay about
46% and a future sales tax initiative (0.4% in 2024) be imposed by an election to contribute
54% of the estimated $128 million needed to fund the programmed improvements over the
30-year program. The Town will be gathering data on impervious area to provide property
owners with a more accurate measurement and fee.
26. What is an “IGA”?
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) is a contract between government organizations. In this
case it would be between the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County.
27.What are the assumed impervious area factors/percentages of parcels?
0% vacant parcel
5% Rural Estate zoning
10% Accommodations, Low Density
20% Estate zoning
30% Single Family zoning
45% Multi-family zoning
50% Accommodations, Highway
60% Industrial zoning
90% Downtown Commercial zoning
Monthly User
Charge
Development
Impact Fee
($/parcel)
Monthly
User Charge
Development
Impact Fee
($/parcel)
Greeley 5.57$ 369$ 82.32$ 4,000$
Longmont 13.05$ 862$ 39.97$ 5,516$
Fort Collins 11.49$ 498$ 159.98$ 7,400$
Loveland 11.98$ 500$ 90.86$ 6,200$
Windsor 4.00$ 485$ 25.40$ 7,200$
Box Elder Stormwater Authority 5.50$ 440$ 108.00$ 862$
Lyons 10.00$ 10.00$
Steamboat Springs None None None None
Aspen1 NA 12,600$
2018 Baseline Level 7.18$ 500$ 74.47$ 7,300$
2023 Baseline Level 11.65$ 600$ 132.93$ 8,500$
Single Family Residential
(7,000 sf lot, 40% Impervious
area)
Commercial (1 acre site, 90%
Impervious Area)
Jurisdiction
Town of Estes Park
89
The Town will be gathering data on impervious area to provide property owners with more
accurate measurements and proposed fees.
28. What does impervious mean?
Impervious surface refers to the area covered by hard surfaces in which rain, for instance,
does not soak in to the ground. This is represented by the roof-tops of buildings, paved
driveways, patios, and parking lots on parcels.
29. Why are you using impervious area to determine the charges?
Developed property generates more stormwater runoff with a greater peak flow than land in
its natural, undeveloped state. The amount of stormwater fee charged to a property generally
correlates to the impervious surface area on a property, thereby ensuring that the fees are
charged equitably.
30. Why not pay for all the needed stormwater improvements with new sales tax
revenue?
A sales tax is one of several possible stormwater revenue-generating options. The Town is
seeking input from property owners and residents on how to fund the identified conceptual
stormwater projects. This option is open for consideration and will be evaluated.
31.Is the Town considering revenue bonds?
The Town is seeking input from property owners and residents on how to support the
identified and conceptual stormwater projects. This option is open for consideration and will
be evaluated.
32.Why are businesses assessed at 90% impervious and getting hit harder than other
properties?
The proposed user fees are calculated based on assumed impervious area. Commercial
properties commonly have greater impervious area due to paved parking lots. Consequently,
the proposed fees are typically higher than for an equivalently sized residential parcel.
Implementation of the stormwater program will allow for a site-specific measurement of
impervious area to be submitted by the property owner.
33. What does the proposed maintenance component of the fee pay for?
All infrastructure in the Estes Valley’s storm drainage portfolio will require regular
maintenance to ensure optimal performance of the facilities over time. Maintenance is being
planned for completed projects. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs were not
specifically evaluated for each conceptual improvement project during the stormwater master
planning process. However, it is recommended that O&M costs be incorporated into a
holistic Stormwater Management Project for existing and new future infrastructure.
In general, O&M requirements should at a minimum consist of:
•Inspecting and cleaning storm drains, inlets, outlets, and driveway culverts.
90
•Inspecting, cleaning, and mowing regional detention and water quality facilities and their
associated appurtenant structures.
•Enforcing the inspecting, cleaning, and mowing of local/ neighborhood detention/ water
quality facilities and stormwater channels/ structures.
•Inspecting, cleaning, and generally maintaining master planned regional stormwater
channels and associated appurtenant structures including culverts and bridges.
Operation and maintenance requirements will be refined and customized to site specific
issues upon implementation of a Stormwater Management Project.
34. Seems that the Town should have the budget for this, so why another “tax” (fee)?
In 2018 the Town budgeted $11,000 for stormwater maintenance work. Based on the
Stormwater Master Plan, which is a concept plan, the estimated costs for needed
improvements is $79 million in 2017 dollars. The plan calls for funding this project over 30
years. Currently the Town does not have this in the budget.
The Town would have to significantly cut existing services to fund the Stormwater
Management Project with existing budgeted revenues.
35.Is this a tax and not a fee?
The standard for stormwater services is a utility fee and this has been upheld in court cases.
Also, with fees there is generally a nexus between the fee and the service. In this case it
would be the impervious area of parcels.
The leading Colorado case is Zelinger v. City and County of Denver. In this 1986 case, the
Supreme Court held that Denver’s storm drainage service charge was not a tax. The charge
was based on impervious coverage and used for the operation, maintenance, improvement
and replacement of Denver’s storm water drainage facilities.
36. What about lodging tax? Can any of this be used for stormwater? How much is
lodging tax?
The lodging tax, through a vote by residents, only supports the Local Marketing District.
37.How will home owners benefit from this project because it seems that downtown
businesses will benefit the most? Is it fair that the downtown businesses pay the least
amount (Table 4 Utilities Feasibility Study)?
In the 2013 Flood we observed how all members of our community are impacted directly or
indirectly by a flood. When the community spends money to improve the roads, bridges,
channels, and drainage infrastructure to remain functional during and after the predicted
future flood flows, all members of the community benefit by being able to access essential
medical, emergency, utility, food and transportation services. The recovery period is shorter,
and the economic loss reduced. If the cost of the new infrastructure and annual maintenance
are assigned to a smaller subset of our community, the individual property owner
91
contributions must increase, potentially jeopardizing the economic viability of the entire
program. The proposed Stormwater Utility offers an opportunity for all residents and all
visitors to contribute, thus keeping the individual fee as low as possible while still funding
the needed improvements.
Downtown Estes Park has a high density of buildings mostly on smaller property lots, each
with a high impervious area. The Downtown area is estimated to be only 40 acres with 90%
impervious area. The smaller acreage results in an estimated 2% contribution to the annual
project revenues from the downtown commercial properties.
38.How will you charge a fee for multiple condos located on one parcel with a HOA?
At this time, it is expected that each condo owner would receive a Stormwater Utility invoice
for their property and the Home Owners Association would also receive an invoice for the
common impervious areas which typically including parking, private roads and sidewalks.
39. What is the relationship between the properties near a river and fees?
None at this time. The calculation for the fees takes into consideration zoning area, acreage,
and an assumed impervious area. We are not excluding properties that are away from the
rivers because we believe this is a community problem with community benefits. However,
the Town is open to suggestions to other ideas for user fee allocation.
40. What will happen to the utility fee when projects are completed?
The expanded stormwater infrastructure will require maintenance funding in perpetuity to
perform its intended function. The Trustees and Commissioners will solicit public input,
discuss the community stormwater needs, and adjust the fees as deemed appropriate.
41. How would a home roof top be viewed if the water coming off the roof flows into
gutters that then drains the water onto the soil on the homeowners’ lot? This water
would soak into the ground and therefore not impact the "stormwater runoff". Will
this be part of the consideration when calculating the monthly stormwater fee for
homeowners? If not, can you please explain why?
The impervious areas are human-made elements (typically rooftop and paving) that stop the
water from falling directly on, and soaking into, an earthen "sponge" that would otherwise be
available to accept the water. Impervious surfaces reduce the amount of water the parcel can
soak up, resulting in a proportionate increase in the amount of water that theoretically would
leave the parcel when the soil sponge is full. Admittedly, it is a simplified model and does
not consider other real runoff influences such as the slope of the ground, soil type, vegetative
cover, etc. However, it is considered a fair, consistent and standard practice for prorating the
program costs among the 8471 parcels within the Estes Valley Development Code
boundary. This is industry standard. It is not intended to quantify the amount of runoff from
each parcel, rather to provide an equitable basis for calculating cost-sharing.
92
42.Estes Valley Stormwater Management Project’s preferred revenue (option 3A)
consists of both property fees and a 0.4% sales tax which starts in 2024. The
presented project revenue would exceed cost + contingency by about 40+%. Why
collect unneeded money? There are also significant errors in the estimated parcel
fees and thus the projected revenue.
The forecast model of collecting revenue in excess of the $128 million needed for a 30 year
program is inappropriate and the Town has adjusted this accordingly. By removing the
vacant parcels and outlier fees for large lots from the cost model, the excess revenue
projection has been eliminated. We expect the fee structure and program scope would be
periodically evaluated and revised (using the established appropriate public processes) as real
costs and needed program scope adjustments are learned over the duration of the
program. Exact funding and project cost needs cannot be predicted 10, 20 or 30 years in
advance of the work. The 30% contingency is appropriately included for this reason.
The Town will be completing additional impervious area measurements needed to refine the
cost model accuracy. We anticipate this will be completed this summer.
D.Other
43. Is this part of the Loop Project?
No. This is a separate project that the Town Board of Trustees asked Town staff to consider
following the 2013 Flood. The Downtown Estes Loop project will deliver stormwater
infrastructure projects valued at about $5 million that would otherwise have to be added to
the costs of the proposed Stormwater Utility.
44. Why not take this to the public for a vote?
The Stormwater Master Plan proposes to include parcels located within the Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC) Boundary which includes Town limits and unincorporated
Larimer County. A public vote would include residents within the Town limits only or all
Larimer County registered voters. It would not be considered fair or representative if these
groups of voters made the funding decision for the Estes Valley property owners.
It would also not be representative for only Town residents to vote on something that would
also impact some residents in unincorporated Larimer County.
45.Given that Estes Valley residents can vote in elections for the Recreation, School
and Hospital Districts, why is it not possible for citizens to vote for this stormwater
project, especially given the magnitude of this project?
We agree that Estes Valley residents who reside within the boundaries of an established
District such as Recreation, Fire, Hospital, and sewer, etc. can vote on matters pertaining to
those specific Districts. None of the existing Districts or other governmental agencies have
expressed an interest to assume management of stormwater matters which could create an
93
opportunity to vote. Without a specific district for stormwater it is not possible to have a
vote for the Estes Valley Development Code boundary. A stormwater management district
would need to be established for voting privileges. Also, the County is not supporting the
formation of new stormwater district. Thus we are proposing a Town-managed stormwater
utility.
The Town and County staff and policy-makers will consider this project when we are
confident that we possess a reasonable understanding from our constituents’ views of this
project. We feel one of the best tools to obtain this information is the current questionnaire
(close date July 17) and a subsequent questionnaire after the modeled user fees are presented
to each property owner later this year (after completion of additional impervious area
measurements needed to refine the cost model accuracy). We want to have a substantial
number of responses before we consider the results sufficient to meaningfully guide the
policy decision-making.
46.How would a Stormwater Utility impact the floodplain areas shown on the new
draft floodplain maps?
The Town, Larimer County, and the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB)
introduced the draft floodplain maps created by the Colorado Hazard Mapping Program
(CHAMP) for the Big Thompson River, Fall River, Fish Creek, Black Canyon Creek and
Dry Gulch at a public meeting on May 30, 2018. The proposed stormwater infrastructure
projects, particularly on Fall River and Big Thompson River, could significantly reduce the
size of the future flood risk areas.
47. What zoning area is my property?
A zoning map can be found on the Town’s website, www.estes.org/maps
48.Is my property in the proposed area for the Stormwater Management Project?
The Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Boundary map can be found at Estes.org,
search by typing in “maps” click on “Maps | Town of Estes Park” and scroll to “Estes Valley
Development Code Boundary” and click on this. Here is a link to the maps page that you can
scroll to the EVDC map: www.estes.org/maps. Another map on the same webpage is the
Zoning Map that might provide more details.
49. Who do I contact regarding floodplain maps?
Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) contracted with AECOM to draft the
floodplain map. Here are contacts regarding this project.
Thuy Patton, CFM
Floodplain Mapping Coordinator
1313 Sherman St., Rm. 718 Denver, CO 80203
P: (303) 866-3441 x3230
thuy.patton@state.co.us
94
Remmet deGroot, CFM, GISP
AECOM Project Manager
6200 S Quebec Street Greenwood Village, CO 80111
P: (303) 796-4633
remmet.degroot@aecom.com
Stephanie DiBetitto, CFM
CWCB Community Assistance Program Coordinator
1313 Sherman Street, Suite 721 Denver, CO 80203
P: (303) 866-3441 x3221
stephanie.dibetitto@state.co.us
Town contact
David Hook, Engineering Manager
Public Works Department
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200
Estes Park CO 80517
970-577-3586
dhook@estes.org
95