HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Community Development Community Services 2013-02-28Preparation date: February 20, 2013
* Revision date:
NOTE: The Community Development / Community Services Committee reserves the right to consider
other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared.
AGENDA
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT / COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE
February 28, 2013
8:00 a.m.
Board Room, Town Hall
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
2. COMMUNITY SERVICES
a) Recommendation to the Board.
i) New Bond Park Event. Director Winslow.
b) REPORTS
i) Community Services Annual Report. Director Winslow.
ii) CVB Construction Update. Director Winslow.
iii) Verbal Updates and Committee Questions.
3. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
a) REPORTS
i) Community Development Monthly Report. Director Chilcott.
ii) Implementation of the November 2009 Zucker Systems Community
Development Department Operational/Organizational Review. Director
Chilcott.
iii) Courtyard Property Update. Director Chilcott.
iv) Sign Code Update – Highway 34 and Downtown. Director Chilcott.
v) Verbal Updates and Committee Questions.
4. ADMINISTRATION
a) REPORTS
i) CRF Confirmation – Adjusted 2013 Budget. Finance Officer McFarland.
ii) Verbal Updates and Committee Questions.
To: Community Development/Community Services Committee
Town Administrator Lancaster
Assistant Town Administrator Lowell Richardson
From: Bo Winslow, Fairgrounds and Events Manager
Date: February 28, 2013
RE: New Event – Bond Park
Background:
Colorado Events, based out of Boulder, has approached the Town to conduct an event
June 8-9 in Bond Park. Per Town policy, pg 27 of the Community Services Policy
Manual:
3.7 BOND PARK REGULATIONS
All regulations listed in the "Park Use Regulations" and the "Park Use Procedures" shall apply
to park use forms, boundaries, sound level control, signs, trash/litter, literature distribution,
damages, sales & licenses, irrigation, traffic control requests, and insurance requirements.
1. A use fee of $200 per day will be charged for all events in Bond Park. Event Organizers shall
pay the Town a fee of $20 per vendor for any event that has vendors. This is a one-time fee
per event or activity.
2. No new activities/events will be given use of the Park without approval from the Community
Development/Community Services Committee and Town Board.
This event company is planning what they call the Rocky Mountain Bazaar. The event
is a showcase of local exhibitors, selling art, handcrafted goods and other unique items.
The event is requesting operating times of 10-6 on Saturday, June 8 and 10-5 on
Sunday, June 9th. The event is also requesting set up time on Friday, June 7.
Memo
Community Services
The event will also need the closure of the 100 block of MacGregor Avenue (the paver
section) and the closure of the South side parking of Park Lane June 7-9.
Staff is requesting to review and approve all vendors of the festival. This is to make
sure the Town continues with festivals appropriate for the Estes community. The event
organizer will also go through the Town’s online event approval process.
Budget:
This is a new event and is unbudgeted. Revenues will be generated from park rental
of $200 per day, account number 222-5500-363.30-00, and vendor fees of $20 per
vendor, account number 222-5500-322.55-00, from those vendors without a Town
business license.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the Rocky Mountain Bazaar to the Town Board, to be
included as an Action Item at the March 12 Town Board.
To: Community Development/Community Services Committee
Town Administrator Lancaster
Assistant Town Administrator Richardson
From: Bo Winslow, Director of Community Services
Lori Mitchell, Senior Center Manager
Derek Fortini, Museum Director
Teri Salerno, Visitor Services Manager
Date: February 28, 2013
RE: Community Services 2012 Year End Report
Report:
The Community Services Department experienced a very busy and productive 2012.
Each Division worked diligently to meet Town Board goals and objectives, including
efforts to develop the local economy, assist with transportation needs during the busy
summer season and continue with the development of Stanley Park.
Fairgrounds and Events made final decisions on a Master Plan and designed a stall
barn. Staff also added 10 new events in 2012.
Senior Center staff is working on the Master Plan with the Museum and have their
hands full with the project. This is an exciting time for the team as they strive to involve
the community in a vision of what the future needs are for each facility. For 2013, the
Senior Center is also working on a Senior Expo/Wellness Fair and expanding fitness
and education programs with the increase in hours for the Program Coordinator
position.
The Museum increased staff by one beginning in 2013, adding a Collections Curator to
the team. This will allow for the collection to be properly inventoried and cared for and
allow the Education Curator to focus on expanding Museum education.
The Visitor Center continues work on a MOU with the Ambassador volunteers. This
MOU is expected to be finished this spring. Visitor Center staff also increased with the
Memo
Community Services
addition of a full time Shuttle Coordinator in 2013. Currently, construction is under way
with the replacement of several log post that had unusual cracks. After further
evaluation by engineers, it was determined they should be replaced.
Volunteers
In 2012, the Community Services Department utilized over 369 volunteers to assist in
meeting its goals and objectives. In addition to the Town’s annual Volunteer
Recognition luncheon each spring, each Division recognizes its volunteers with a variety
of smaller Division-based events throughout the year.
Fairgrounds and Events – Bo Winslow, Director
A primary goal of the Events Division is to work with entertainers and event planners to
schedule events that will enhance tourism as well as offer local residents a variety of
opportunities throughout the year. The Division supports many events throughout the
town and continues to look at new activities that would be a good fit for our community.
Staff works with many different types of events, putting forth an effort to maximize the
use of all the facilities. Staff brings in new events, places them alongside existing
events with a goal to expand the new event. For example, in the past, the Dressage
Show was scheduled alongside two other events; in 2013 it will be a standalone event
in the middle of August.
Total Attendance – Performance Park, Fairgrounds and Bond Park
Venue 2009 2010 2011 2012 Cumulative Total
Performance Park 10,163 12,184 8,838 4,543 35,728
Fairgrounds 114,244 142,996 110,795 145,732 513,767
Bond Park 103,559 117,580 117,524 121,437 460,100
Total 227,699 272,760 237,157 271,712 1,009,595
Highlights of 2012:
In Bond Park this year:
Cowboy Brad was back, singing campfire songs in Bond Park for about 1,725
people from June through August. This event is sponsored by downtown
merchants and the Town.
Bond Park hosted many great festivals such as the Scandinavian Festival,
Heritage Festival and Elk Fest. Each event was enjoyed by both locals and our
guests. New in Bond Park was the Mid Summer Festival. This event saw about
5,000 people in its first year. The Festival has new ideas to improve and grow.
Performance Park had an extremely busy schedule of music and theatrical
performances throughout the summer. The 2012 season in Performance Park kicked off
with a cold and wet Jazz Fest on May 15 &16 (433 attendees) and continued through
the last event in late August. Attendance numbers for Performance Park continue to be
down. Staff feels they continue to meet Division goals by offering something unique for
guests and locals to do in the evening.
The Fairgrounds at Stanley Park had a busy summer again as well. Overall, staff was
very pleased with the summer.
Ride the Rockies came through Estes Park in 2012. Many local nonprofit groups
came together to take care of this event as well as generate a little revenue for
themselves. This event had great structure which allowed for excellent success.
The Mounted Thunder group arrived for their second visit to Estes Park. This
mounted shooting event brings the entire family to participate. Participants fully
enjoyed their time and booked again for 2013. This is a great family event.
The Westernaires joined the Events schedule again for their second year after
being gone for over 10 years. This precision riding group travels around the U.S.
conducting shows of high speed precision, trick riding, Old West re-enactments
and much more. The Westernaires signed a five-year commitment with the
Town and we are happy to have them back. (One performance was cancelled in
2012 due to the Woodland Heights fire.)
Once again Rooftop Rodeo was recognized as an industry leader. It was
nominated in the competition for top five best medium size PRCA rodeos in the
Nation. Our Rodeo Committee continues to set the bar high in all areas of the
rodeo world.
The Colorado Dressage Association returned for its fourth year, attracting
international horses to the show. This show drew several of the top 20 horses in
the nation. This show also partnered with a local therapeutic riding stable and
had a sit-down lunch while watching freestyle dressage competition which
generated over $50,000.
In 2012 we increased the number of events from 26 to 36 as compared to 2011. The
strategies of double booking events to maximize the facility, and bringing in additional
shows during our slower times are working well. For 2013, there are six more new
events in development. Included in the plans are a Rocky Mountain Bazaar June 8-9,
an Event Derby July 5-7, a Chuck Wagon Cook-Off August 10, a Paint and Quarter
Horse Show August 9-11, a half marathon August 17 and the USA Pro Cycling
Challenge August 24
Parades in Estes Park continue to have great attendance. The Catch the Glow parade
drew great crowds with nice weather as an estimated 28,000 people lined Elkhorn
Avenue. The Rooftop Rodeo parade saw about 6000 people.
Wireless access and online ticket sales were approved by the Town Board for the
Fairgrounds in 2012. Both were a huge success. Our customers enjoyed having the
wireless access and encourage us to find ways to make it free. The online ticket sales
were also a great success, allowing staff to direct guests to the ticket website thus
avoiding lengthy phone time. This system generated $7,265 in processing fees, saved
staff time and allowed customers instant access to tickets. Minimal complaints about the
system were received. Over 11,000 people purchased tickets online this first year.
Note: Please see attached attendance figures and event P & L. Most of our numbers
are estimates. A formula is used each year to give us the most consistent information.
Estes Park Senior Center – Lori Mitchell, Manager
Collaborations
In 2012 the Senior Center fostered partnerships with several agencies and businesses:
Park School District, AARP, Aspen Club of the Poudre Valley Health System, Family
Medical Clinic, Estes Park Medical Center, Alzheimer’s Association, Good Samaritan,
Prospect Park Living Center, Disabled Resource Services, Estes Park Police Blue
Santa, Salvation Army, Larimer County Office on Aging, United Way of Larimer County,
Colorado State University Extension, Estes Park Home Care and Hospice, Estes Park
Public Library, Coldwell Banker Real Estate, Via Mobility Services, Estes Park Quota
Club Foundation, Restorative Justice, Poppy’s and Mama Roses, MedX of Estes,
International Karate Association, Life Rhythm’s Music Therapy, Estes Valley Sunrise
Rotary, Middle School Student Council and numerous other individuals as instructors,
etc.
Meals on Wheels and Fourth Street Café dining room
Staff monitors meal program usage and analyzes data related to the meal programs.
In 2012:
Meals on Wheels volunteers delivered 5551 meals as compared to 5158 in 2011.
The dining room served 7164 meals as compared to 7674 in 2011.
The dining room operated at 60% of capacity as compared to 63% in 2011.
The overall satisfaction rate from the meal survey was 99.5% for Meals on
Wheels and dining room services combined; the overall satisfaction rate was
96% in 2011. The target rate for overall satisfaction with the meal programs was
80%.
The Senior Center offered 14 special themed luncheons, suppers or feasts with
total attendance of 998. In 2011, we offered 18 events and had 1120 participants.
The Senior Center kitchen and the food service contractor, Catering for All
Occasions, received a rating of ”Good” at the 2012 inspection by the Larimer
County Department of Health and Environment, consistent with the prior year.
Although peak patronage of the meal program occurred in 2005 (14,730), the total
number of meals served in 2012 (12,715) is only 4% less than the total number served
in 1998 (13,280), when the Town took over operation of the Senior Center.
As a result of a 2011 meal program analysis, staff identified three key recommendations
for the future direction of the dining room program in 2012.
1. The dining room was renamed The Fourth Street Café at the Estes Park Senior
Center. This matches the trend seen in similar settings across the Front Range.
2. Improve the ambience and physical environment of the dining room. For 2012,
Estes Park Senior Citizens Center, Inc. was slated to provide $22,000 to support
capital improvements to the dining and serving areas of the Senior Center,
pending Town budget approval. This project was tabled indefinitely pending the
outcome of the Master Plan project.
3. Develop a marketing plan in cooperation with the food service contractor. That
plan included promotional events, incentives, the addition of new and varied
menu items, and an emphasis on offering a wide variety of food-related options.
Customers took greatest advantage of the meal ticket promotions which provided
two free meals when purchasing 20 meals at one time. Drawings and ticket
giveaways proved popular as well. All promotions were sponsored by Catering
for All Occasions, the Town’s independent food service contractor.
Programs, events and travel:
Staff analyzes attendance at programs, events, classes and day trips.
In 2012:
The Senior Center experienced 15,927 visits to programs as compared to
the previous all-time high of 17,653 in 2011.
The Senior Center experienced 26,039 overall visits to the Senior Center
as compared to the previous all-time high of 29,070 in 2011.
Note: Beginning in 2013, the total number of overall visits to the Senior
Center will include the Meals on Wheels number. For example, the 2012
overall number of visits to the Senior Center’s programs and services in
numbers of visits combined with the Meals on Wheels number would be
31,590. This change more accurately reflects the total volume of
business conducted by the Senior Center.)
Attendance at programs operated at 99% capacity as compared to 108%
in 2011. Attendance figures are subjective as related to a wide variety of
factors: subject matter, weather, health, month offered, time of day, etc.
Forty-nine general education programs were offered, as compared with
41 in 2011; of those offered, there were eleven series classes ranging in
length from one to 12 months as compared to ten series classes in 2011.
We offered 32 day trips and completed 19 trips with 256 participants.
Trips ran at 57% capacity, as compared to 81% capacity for 17 trips and
215 trip participants in 2011. In 2012, we made a conscious decision to
offer a greater number of trips to boost the variety and interest in the
offerings. In 2012, of the 13 trips that were cancelled, one was weather-
related and 12 were cancelled because they didn’t meet the minimum
number of riders required.
The Senior Center offered daily fitness programs (a total of 6 classes per week).
There were over 3,725 visits to fitness classes, a decrease of 8% from 2011. A
new class has been added for 2013, bringing the total to seven fitness classes
weekly.
There were 155 visits to Medicare counseling services; an increase of 16% from
2011.
The Estes Park Senior Center distributed 199 blizzard boxes to seniors; this is an
increase from the 183 boxes provided in 2011 due to a larger cash award
($4,400) from the Office on Aging.
The Family Medical Clinic provided 91 flu shots to seniors at the Senior Center
and Estes Park Home Care provided blood pressure clinics for 140 seniors.
One-hundred fifteen volunteers gave 8,457 hours of service including front desk
reception, board and committees, fundraising, gardening, Meals on Wheels,
special events, decorating, and much more. This is a 22% increase in the
number of hours from 2011.
Overall attendance for Senior Center services
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Cumulative
2008-2012
Overall
uses/visits
22,298
23,091 29,776 34,228 31,590 140,983
*In May 2010, the Senior Center installed an electronic attendance counter to capture a
more accurate number for visitation.
Program revenue and expense
The Senior Center offers fee-based programs, classes and trips to create a source of
revenue for the Center. Yet, a majority of programs and event remain free. Income from
program fees partially offsets operating expenses. In 2012, revenue from programs,
trips and classes was approximately $20,964 as compared to $19,234 in 2011. Policy
dictates that Senior Center fee-based programs, classes and trips meet minimum
numbers to break even. If the minimum numbers of participants is not reached, the
class or trip is cancelled and no expense is incurred.
Energy Efficiency projects
In 2012, during an Energy Efficiency evaluation of the Senior Center, Platte River Power
Authority determined that the Senior Center’s kitchen exhaust /make-up air system was
in need of repair and rebalancing. The evaluation found that corrections to this major
component of the Senior Center’s HVAC system would provide the largest energy
savings and improve the overall function of the building to the greatest degree. The
project was designed, three bids were obtained and improvements scheduled for
February 2012. Funding for this project was provided by Light and Power/Platte River
Power’s Energy Efficiency program. The cost for the improvements was $10,135. Cost
savings continue to be seen in utility bills and greater comfort has been achieved in the
kitchen and dining room areas.
Estes Park Senior Citizens Center Inc. (EPSCC, INC.)
EPSCC, Inc. provides an annual financial contribution for selected Senior Center
projects. The estimated contribution from EPSCC, Inc. to the Senior Center was
approximately $6,825. Originally, the contribution included an additional $22,000 capital
project (dining room remodel) but was tabled as noted earlier. In 2012, EPSCC, Inc.
membership reached 631 people. EPSCC, Inc. conducts fundraising breakfasts each
summer. There were 1,019 participants served in 2012 as compared to 1,232 in 2011.
United Way
In 2012, Senior Center revenue from United Way was approximately $7,500 as
compared to $10,069 in 2011. The original budgeted United Way revenue was $9,000
annually as part of a three-year contract award. The revised annual estimate for
revenue from United Way is approximately $5,100. The decrease is due to change in
funding strategies by United Way and is not reflective on the services provided at the
Senior Center. The Senior Center has received annual operating grants from the
United Way of Larimer County from 1998 to the present with cumulative grant awards
totaling over $113,000. These funds are used as operating support for Senior Center
Meals on Wheels and dining room meal programs. The Senior Center served over
189,547 meals since the United Way meal program grants began in 1998.
Community Thrift Shop
After a competitive application process, the Community Thrift Shop awarded the Senior
Center’s Meals on Wheels program a $3,500 grant for 2012 and a $4,000 grant for
2013. These awards are used to help fund the Meals on Wheels program and purchase
operating supplies for one year.
Larimer County Commissioners
The Commissioners award grants to several senior centers in Larimer County. The
Senior Center received $2,475 in 2012 for general operating support.
Colorado Senior Pro Charity Rodeo Association
This organization recently adopted the Senior Center’s meal programs for their
charitable donation program. In 2012, the Association donated $2,075 to the meal
programs and provided a large number of items for the Police Auxiliary’s Blue Santa
program in December 2012.
Public relations
Press materials are published in the 50 Plus Marketplace, the Prime Time for Seniors
newspaper, the Estes Park News and the Trail-Gazette, as well as on the Town
website, www.estes.org/seniorcenter. The Senior Center e-mail subscriber list
effectively reduces postage and copying expenses, and disperses information quickly to
approximately 600 subscribers.
Town facilities rental program
Senior Center staff manages three Town properties which are available for public rental:
The O’Connor pavilion at the Fall River Hydroplant picnic area, the Estes Park Museum
meeting room, and the Estes Park Senior Center. The Town’s facilities rental program
was implemented in 2004 for the Museum meeting room and Senior Center and in 2006
for the O’Connor pavilion. Rental income provides revenue for the Museum and Senior
Center and partially offsets operating and maintenance expenses for those sites.
2004 through 2012
Rental History
Senior Center
Museum
meeting room
O’Connor
Picnic Pavilion Total all sites
Number of
rental uses
*does not include the number of
community bridge groups 73 103 87 263
Number of
rental users (people)
*does not include individuals in
community bridge groups 3,569 4,506 5,878 13,953
Number of
non-rental uses 245 611 19 875
Number of
non-rental users
(people) 4,967 14,096 1,432 20,495
Total number of uses 318 714 106 1,138
Total number of
people 8,536 18,602 7,310 34,448
Cumulative
revenue $ 21,597.00 $ 14,825.00 $ 17,299.00 $ 53,721.00
Cumulative expenses
* minor expenses are not tracked $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 5,920.00 $ 5,920.00
2012 specific data Senior Center Museum Picnic area Total
rental uses 71121
rental users (# people) 254 376 1,661
non-rental uses 68 160 5
non-rental users
(# people) 864 2,634 232
total uses 75 171 26
total users (# people) 1,118 3,010 1,893
revenue $ 2,599.90 $ 1,808.00 $ 4,725.00
expenses Not tracked Not tracked $ 1,826.79
Estes Park Museum – Derek Fortini, Manager
Attendance
Total attendance for 2012 at the Estes Park Museum was 22,687, as compared to
22,412 in 2011. This number includes 11,796 gallery visitors, 6,210 programs and tour
participants, 3,010 Meeting Room rentals and other uses. The Historic Fall River
Hydroplant was open from May 29 through September 2, 2012 and hosted 1,671
visitors.
Total Attendance – Estes Park Museum & Historic Fall River Hydroplant
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Cumulative
2008-2012
Museum
Gallery &
Meeting
Room
17,966 17,827 17,821 21,060* 21,016* 95,690
Hydroplant 1,679 1,792 1,330 1,352 1,671 7,824
Total 19,645 19,619 19,151 22,412 22,687
103,514
*In July 2011, the Museum installed an electronic attendance counter to capture a
more accurate number for visitation.
Exhibits
A Sweet Past Time was on exhibit in the Main Gallery from April 27 through November
4, 2012. There were 86 people at the opening. Participants enjoyed root beer floats
and cotton candy in celebration of the new installation. A Sweet Past Time portrayed
the history of downtown businesses from the first Estes Park confectionary, the 1905
Kandy Kitchen, to nine shops dedicated to selling chocolate and sweets on Elkhorn
Avenue today.
Beyond the Baldpate: The Photographic Works of Charles Mace is on display in the
National Park Headquarters building until September 8, 2013. The opening on
September 28, 2012 attracted 110 visitors with Brian Roessler, grandson of Charles
Mace, and his family as the guests of honor. This exhibit provided an opportunity to
witness never-before-seen and newly-discovered images kept in private collections,
including original glass plate slides, large format photograph reproductions, and some
personal memorabilia of Estes Park’s professional photographer, Charles Mace.
Community Case
The Museum lobby houses a display case in the lobby and invites the public to display
objects from personal collections. Three temporary exhibits were displayed in the
Community Case in 2012. One featured the history of the Estes Park Police
Department. Staff worked with Eric Rose and Peni Barnes of the EPPD to create the
exhibit. The second exhibit commemorated the Woman’s Club of Estes Park
centennial. The third Community Case exhibit, currently on display, shares postcards
illustrating the rise of tourism in Estes Park during the early twentieth-century.
Programs
There were 45 programs or tours offered in 2012 with 6,408 participants. Along with
traditional lectures, 2012 marked a year for experimentation with facilitated tours and
presentations. A “Circle Tour” was offered and revived the historic circle tours
championed by Roe Emery. Emery’s transportation company provided a loop from
Denver to Estes Park, over the divide to Grand Lake, returning to Denver. Beginning at
the Estes Park Museum, the “mini” circle tour traveled by-way-of Highway 7 to
Allenspark, down to Lyons, for a walking tour and lunch, and back by Highway 36.
During the tour, Historian Laureate Jim Pickering explained when and how the roads
were constructed and how the neighboring communities contributed to the vitality of
Estes Park, historically speaking.
Another new program with much success was a panel presentation on the history of
Bond Park. Utilizing historic photographs from the Museum collection and moderated
by staff, several longtime residents were selected to discuss their memories of Bond
Park; its uses, changes in aesthetics, and major events that took place. The last
experimental program of note was History Hour at the Wheel Bar. Staff provided
background research and photographs of the community landmark and third-generation
owner, Ty Nagl shared his family history with a tour at the end.
In 2012, Museum staff initiated and completed several outreach programs. Those
programs included partnering with Rocky Mountain Nature Association to offer
members-only gallery tours and collaborating with the Woman’s Club of Estes Park to
co-host a program celebrating their 100-year anniversary. Museum staff also led a
program utilizing Museum photographs at the Baldpate Inn’s Enchanted Evening
Series.
Collections management
Acquisitions
In 2012, 124 items were accessioned from 30 donors. Highlights include a tin aerial
tramway toy purchased on site in the 1950s, a water-color painting by the late Edward
E. Herrmann, and a nearly complete collection of Vacationlands.
The Museum also received two large donations. The first consisted of three trunks of
manuscripts, photographs, film and more belonging to Joe Mills.
The second large donation consisted of archives pertaining to the writing of the book
"Enos Mills: Citizen of Nature" by Alex Drumond. Due to the scale of these two
donations, the Museum is still in the process of associating catalog records and is not
included in this year's report. Also of note, the Estes Park Museum Friends &
Foundation Inc., purchased a 1911 painting by Richard H. Tallant, a prominent painter
from the turn-of-the-nineteenth-century.
Collections activities
Inventory
The Museum hired a temporary employee for 449 hours of work to complete an
inventory of the Museum’s collection of artifacts. The assistant had two primary goals: 1.
photograph as many objects as possible of the approximately 25,000 objects in the
collection; and 2. upload the digital photographs and verify the object location records in
the Museum’s database. A “wall-to-wall” collections inventory allowed staff to gain a
comprehensive picture of the various objects in the Museum’s possession.
Photographing each object and uploading images to the database gives staff better
access to each object’s information and reduces handling and stress of the objects. A
large-scale inventory was also considered necessary to assess the numerous objects in
storage that do not meet the Museum’s mission. These items will be nominated for de-
accession.
The assistant handled 11,148 objects and updated 2,499 catalogue records in the
database. There were hopes to get further with the project, but due to several
technological problems (failed memory drives, database upgrades, networking issues,
etc.) the project was not completed. The assistant, aware the project would not be
completed on-time, captured as many images of objects as possible and stored the
images in digital folders according to the physical storage unit. It will be the new
Collections Curator’s first task to upload the images to the database. This project will
acquaint the Curator with the collection and will aid in preparing to de-accession items
by the end of 2013.
Research
In 2012, staff responded to 44 research questions from the public, requiring 27 hours of
staff time. Staff strives to answer patron questions using Museum resources and if the
Curator is unable to yield enough information, she matches the patron with an institution
that can help further.
Grants
The Museum received a grant from the Rotary Club of Estes Park Foundation Inc. for
$400 to fund a second year of History on Call, a cell phone tour featuring historical
information on sites in downtown Estes Park. The sites included the Estes Park Visitor
Center, Town Hall, Rocky Mountain Traders, Grubsteak and Mrs. Walsh’s Garden and
an added sixth stop at the Fairgrounds transit hub shuttle stop.
There were no additional fees other than the visitor’s usual cell phone carrier’s package.
Callers accessed pre-recorded interpretations of the sites at any hour of the day, on
location or even privately to learn about Estes Park’s heritage. The sixth stop at the
Fairgrounds was introduced this year as a new variable to test use of History on Call
outside the downtown area. It turns out that this was the least used stop with only six
calls. Stop number one, located at the Visitor Center with the topic of the Stanley Hotel,
remained the most accessed stop with 55 callers.
History on Call was available to the public from June 1 to October 9, 2012.
Comparisons of usage:
Year Total Calls Individual Use Number of Stops
Accessed
Website
visits
2011 150 88 1.7 36
2012 125 102 1.2 45
Difference Down 16% Up 15% Down 29% Up 25%
While the idea of going beyond the walls of the Museum to reach people downtown is
valuable, staff concludes it would be most effective to reevaluate the cell phone tour.
Staff will assess alternate locations and/or methods of communicating cultural heritage
outside of the Museum.
Volunteers
The Estes Park Museum received the support of 59 volunteers in 2012. Volunteers
assisted with front desk operations, special events, as docents at the Hydroplant, during
programs, in collections, and installing exhibits for a total of 7,234 hours.
Seasonal staff
The Museum hired a summer seasonal to help with a number projects. The largest
contribution was researching information for interpretive panels that will be installed in
Bond Park spring of 2013. The panels will capture images of the site today, juxtaposed
with old photographs for comparison and education.
Estes Park Visitor Center – Teri Salerno, Manager
Visitor Center foot traffic
In 2012, the Visitor Center had 364,390 visits as compared to an all-time high of
401,692 in 2011. This represents a decrease of 9.3% or 37,302 from 2011.
At the 2012 half-year mark, visitation was about even with 2011, showing only a slight
decrease. Once the fires started, visitation sharply declined. The Visitor Center
experienced the largest percentage decreases in July and August; those months alone
accounted for 86.15% of the total decrease in numbers seen over the course of the
entire year, equating to over 32,000 fewer visits.
Month-by-month comparison of visitor counts: 2011 - 2012
Visitor Center foot traffic: 2006 - 2012
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Total
2012 31,464 101,192 184,459 47,275 364,390
2011 32,960 100,558 212,458 55,716 401,692
2010 19,877 76,080 179,627 49,394 324,978
2009 21,492 78,442 164,098 37,807 301,839
2008 16,797 64,642 144,648 37,433 263,520
2007 18,060 68,195 158,669 31,116 276,040
2006 8,999 54,602 139,046 29,522 232,169
Visitor Center telephone calls
In 2012, Visitor Services staff fielded 16,178 calls as compared to 20,699 in 2011, a
decrease of 21.8%. This is the largest percentage decrease in the number of calls from
one year to the next. Given the current landscape of public information now accessible
via personal devices, people are learning to locate the information they need on their
own.
Visitor Services staff play a vital role as a first contact for callers. Providing excellent
customer service is vital to our collective success and staff often finds themselves
“selling” Estes Park to some of those who do call.
Visitor Center telephone calls 2006 - 2012
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Total
2012 2,357 5,112 6,368 2,341 16,178
2011 3,119 5,946 8,779 2,855 20,699
2010 3,934 7,162 9,772 3,224 24,092
2009 3,931 7,608 11,035 3,796 26,370
2008 3,538 6,615 10,122 3,281 23,556
2007 3,899 6,575 10,521 3,360 24,355
2006 3,891 6,127 9,298 3,002 22,318
Visitor Center volunteers: The Ambassadors
Seventy-four volunteer Ambassadors gave 6,258 hours of time in 2012 as compared to
6,063 hours in 2011. In 2012, Ambassadors assisted guests at the front counter daily
starting on Monday, May 14, and continued through the third week in October. The
Ambassadors assist staff with walk-in visitors to the Center only on the weekends
starting the third weekend in October, continuing through mid-May.
Ambassador meetings
The Ambassadors meet monthly on the second Tuesday. Each meeting provides an
informational update along with an educational program by various organizations,
groups and Town departments. These monthly meetings provide the volunteers an
opportunity for fellowship and ongoing training. The meetings are consistently well
attended.
Fifth annual Ambassador & staff training: May 8, 2012
In early May, the fifth annual training was held for the Ambassadors and Visitor Services
staff to prepare for the busy summer season. There were eight staff and 51 volunteers
in attendance. This annual training session will continue to be offered before the start of
the busy summer season every year.
Lodging, retail, & shuttle route tours
Ambassadors and Visitor Services staff toured a total of 45 lodging properties over
three days during the first two weeks in May.
The first week in June, staff and volunteers toured 29 retail businesses.
Retail and lodging tours are organized through an invitation process. Businesses are
selected to participate in either tour based on a first-come, first-served basis, weighted
against other criteria: 1) most recent year last toured; and 2) the total times on the tour
since the tours began. New businesses and those never before on the tour are always
given first priority.
In early June, Rocky Mountain Transit took staff and volunteers on a tour of all of the
shuttle routes for the coming season. Feedback from participants confirmed the tour’s
success; therefore, plans are underway to provide this tour again in 2013.
Retail sales
In 2012, Visitor Center retail sales totaled nearly $34,500, down from the 2011 total
sales of $39,192. Retail items included: books, post cards, DVDs that promote the area
and calendars.
Total retail sales revenue by year
2005 $17,675
2006 $39,299
2007 $43,554
2008 $36,485
2009 $42,582
2010 $40,175
2011 $39,192
2012 $34,499
Visitor Center hours and days of operation
The Visitor Center was open between Saturday, May 19 and Sunday, September 30,
with daily hours of: 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and from 9:00 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. Starting on October 1, 2012 and continuing through mid-May,
2013, the Visitor Center is open from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday,
and from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Sunday.
In 2013, the Visitor Center will extend hours to open daily one hour earlier at 8:00 a.m.
starting Saturday, May 18 through Sunday, September 29.
Community Services Department – 2012 summary
As you can see this is a very busy Department. The team works hard to see that the
bar is set high and goals are met. Each staff member is a vital part of how this all
works. We feel as though it is the unique diversity of the team that allows us to do all
we do. Our team is excited about 2013 and sees great things in the future for the
Department. We feel we can provide the high-quality, reliable services that are
expected in the community. With proposed new development, master site plans and a
parking garage we feel we are doing our part in being a premier mountain resort
community.
2011 Actuals 2012 ActualsEVENT PROJECT REVENUES EXPENSESPROFIT/ LOSSREVENUES EXPENSESPROFIT/ LOSSREVENUES EXPENSESPROFIT/ LOSSREVENUES EXPENSESPROFIT/ LOSSREVENUES EXPENSESPROFIT/ LOSSJazz Fest SEJAZZ $0 ($37,166)($37,166)$2,500 ($34,633.00)($32,133)$2,800 ($37,805)($35,005)$2,500 $39,451($36,951)$2,500 $41,699($39,199)Wool Market SEWOOL* $85,575 ($113,468)($27,893)$74,745 ($100,048.00)($25,303)$87,276 ($124,163)($36,887)$82,120 $116,897($34,777)$70,054 $127,970($57,916)Miniature Horse ShowSEMINI* $3,858 ($8,050)($4,192)$7,624 ($8,027.00)($403)$6,254 ($8,807)($2,553)$3,781 $8,815($5,034)$2,990 $10,806($7,816)Rooftop Rodeo SEROOF* $150,416 ($188,569)($38,153)$149,840 ($181,556.00)($31,716)$172,569 ($202,408)($29,839)$186,319 $210,785($24,466)$195,427 $218,807($23,380)Elk Fest SEELK* $15,884 ($30,754)($14,870)$16,542 ($29,922.00)($13,380)$18,971 ($34,057)($15,086)$17,218 $33,162($15,944)$19,584 $34,215($14,631)Arabian Horse Show SEARAB* $11,512 ($11,888)($376)$13,569 ($11,811.00) $1,758 $10,733 ($13,242)($2,509)$5,428 $12,905($7,477)$2,654 $14,983($12,329)Christmas Parade SECHRI* $7,360 ($66,663)($59,303)$8,150 ($65,421.00)($57,271)$1,850 ($71,564)($69,714)$6,000 $72,258($66,258)$7,591 $75,464($67,873)Dressage Horse ShowSEDRES* $7,374 ($7,951)($578)$10,155 ($7,931.00) $2,224 $10,601 ($8,694) $1,907 $12,262 $8,685 $3,577 $12,494 $10,902 $1,592Hunter Jumper Shows SEHUNT* $163,656 ($118,344) $45,312 $189,421 ($121,586.00) $67,835 $179,829 ($126,558) $53,271 $152,957 $130,239 $22,718$145,400 $130,595 $14,805Scottish Festival SESCOT* $2,612 ($66,976)($64,364)$1,077 ($63,806.00)($62,729)N/A ($68,899)($67,576.00)$1,587 $71,742($70,155)$2,227 $76,519($74,292)Draft Horse Show SEDRFT N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ($7,247)($7,247.00)$50 $7,188($7,138)$0 $10,902($10,902)Other Events SEOTHE* $60,461 ($70,932)($10,471)$81,403 ($68,150.00) $13,253 $83,743 ($75,947) $7,796 $82,646 $75,626 $7,020 $65,073 $78,413($13,340)Downtown Events SEDOWN* $966 ($54,081)($53,115)$656 ($52,434.00)($51,778)$16,610 ($58,325)($41,715)$968 $58,633($57,665)$290 $62,308($62,018)Special Events SES N/A ($225,331)($232,983)N/A ($225,903.00)($234,023.00)N/A ($243,795)($234,254.00)$2,033 $243,952($241,919)$1,074 $192,281($191,207)Westernaires SEWEST$14,449 $14,449 $8,254 $16,091($7,837)Senior Rodeo SEOLDT N/A N/A N/A N/A $8,765 ($7,247) $1,518 $9,798 $7,188 $16,986 $12,171 $16,091($3,920)Winterfestival SEWINT$0 $9,931($9,931)TOTAL $509,673 ($998,341)($498,152)$555,680 ($971,229)($423,668)$600,001 ($1,067,420)($477,893)$580,115 $1,097,526($503,035)$547,783 $1,127,977($580,194)Downtown Events: Events at Bond Park and Performance Park.Other Events: Small,, one-time events. Includes fireworks revenues and expense, but not attendance. Special Events: General maintenance and office work not assigned to a project.This does not include PD and PW expenses ATTENDANCE2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Jazz Fest 1,235 1,500 1,250 628 433Wool Market 7,258 7,850 8,000 7,791 7,470Miniature Horse Show200 283 275 250 200Rooftop Rodeo 8,560 10,773 11,642 13,489 14,015Elk Fest 9,000 10,000 11,000 11,500 15,000Arabian Horse Show 350 500 400 168 60Christmas Parade 18,000 25,000 22,000 20,000 28,000Dressage Horse Show350 400 538 527 550Hunter Jumper Shows 5,000 4,200 3,500 3,000 3,680Scottish Festival 75,000 50,000 80,000 45,000 65,000Draft Horse Show N/A N/A 1,000 1,500 1,500Other Events 6,395 6,401 5,754 N/A N/ADowntown Events 85,898 110,073 125,984 122,640 123,968Special EventsWesternaires 1,525 600Senior Rodeo 1,000 1,200 1,400Winterfestival 1,000 4,000 9,000Totals 217,246 226,980 273,343 233,218 270,8762008 Actuals 2009 Actuals 2010 Actuals EVENTS REVENUES, EXPENSES AND ATTENDANCE 2008‐2012
Rooftop Rodeo2009 2010 2011 2012Total Revenues 149,840$ 172,569$ 186,319$ 195,427$ ExpensesPersonnel 48,627$ 57,249$ 52,356$ 53,060$ O & M 132,929$ 145,159$ 158,429$ 165,747$ Public Works 174$ Total Expenses 181,556$ 202,408$ 210,785$ 218,981$ Profit/Loss (31,716)$ (29,839)$ (24,466)$ (23,554)$ Event Attendance 10,773 11,642 13,489 14,015Volunteer Hours 6728 6527 5882 7528Event description and justification: The Rooftop Rodeo is an event that is sponsored and produced by the Town. This event falls into the following 3 categories: brings participants to Town, another activity for the visitor to do and large local attendance. This event is supported by Estes Park Western Heritage Inc; a friends organization of the rodeo. It is a newly formed organization that has a MOU with the Town. As a leader in the nation, Rooftop Rodeo offers 87 years of history and tradition to its participants, both locally and nationally.Revenues come from Sponsorships (solicited by the Town Staff and rodeo friends group), Ticket sales for admissions to rodeo, feed sales to contestants and vendor fees. Expenses are rodeo stock contract, purse money and other associated fees.
Jazz Fest*2011 & 2012 attendance numbers are off due to inclement weather.2009 2010 2011 2012Total Revenues 2,500$ 2,800$ 2,500$ 2,500$ ExpensesPersonnel 7,481$ 8,808$ 8,055$ 8,163$ O & M 27,152$ 28,997$ 31,396$ 33,536$ Total Expenses 34,633$ 37,805$ 39,451$ 41,699$ Profit/Loss (32,133)$ (35,005)$ (36,951)$ (39,199)$ Event Attendance 1,500 1,250 *628 *433Volunteer Hours N/A N/A N/A N/AEvent description and justification: Jazz Fest is an event that is sponsored by the Town. This event falls into 4 categories: brings people to Town, another activity for the visitor to do, early season event and local attendance.A producer is hired to produce Jazz Fest. This producer hires musicians, sound tech and books lodging for the event. Staff supports producer. This event brings in mostly Front Range and local attendance. Sponsorships come from local businesses.Revenues come from sponsorships. Expenses are from producer contract, costs to hire musicians and sound technicians.
Wool Market2009 2010 2011 2012Total Revenues 74,745$ 87,276$ 82,120$ 70,054$ ExpensesPersonnel 44,886$ 52,846$ 48,329$ 48,978$ O & M 55,162$ 71,317$ 68,568$ 78,992$ Total Expenses 100,048$ 124,163$ 116,897$ 127,970$ Profit/Loss (25,303)$ (36,887)$ (34,777)$ (57,916)$ Event Attendance 7,850 8,000 7,791 7,470Volunteer Hours 1,052 7,151 6,797 7251Event description and justification: The Estes Park Wool Market is an event that is sponsored and produced by the Town. This event falls into 4 categories: brings people to Town, offers another activity for the visitor, early season event and community involvement. This event also is known as one of the top wool/fiber shows in the Nation. Revenues come from animal entry fees, animal pen fees, vendor fees, workshop fees and sponsorships. Expenses are tent rental, purse money, ribbons, teachers and judges fees.
Miniature Horse Show2009 2010 2011 2012Total Revenues 7,624$ 6,254$ 3,781$ 2,990$ ExpensesPersonnel 3,741$ 4,404$ 4,027$ 4,082$ O & M 4,286$ 4,403$ 4,788$ 6,724$ Total Expenses 8,027$ 8,807$ 8,815$ 10,806$ Profit/Loss (403)$ (2,553)$ (5,034)$ (7,816)$ Event Attendance 283 275 250 200Volunteer Hours N/A N/A N/A N/AEvent description and justification: The Miniature Horse Show is an event that comes to Town and rents the Fairgrounds. This event falls into 3 categories: brings people to Town, another activity for the visitor and local participation. This event has been with the Town for more than 20 years and is currently paired with other events at the Fairgrounds on the same weekend. Revenues come from facility rental: arenas, stalls, buildings, RV spots and feed sales. Expenses come from normal facility use such as: manure disposal, arena prep and other associated costs.
Elk Fest2009 2010 2011 2012Total Revenues 16,542$ 18,971$ 17,218$ 19,584$ ExpensesPersonnel 18,703$ 22,019$ 20,137$ 20,408$ O & M 11,219$ 12,038$ 13,025$ 13,807$ Public Works 103$ Total Expenses 29,922$ 34,057$ 33,162$ 34,318$ Profit/Loss (13,380)$ (15,086)$ (15,944)$ (14,734)$ Event Attendance 10,000 11,000 11,500 15,000Volunteer Hours 826 560 199 150Event description and justification: Elk Fest is an event that is sponsored and produced by the Town. This event falls into 4 categories: brings participants to Town, another activity for the visitor , late season event, and local attendance.Revenues from this event come from sponsorships, vendor fees, viewing tour ticket sales and merchandise sales. Expenses come from entertainment and merchandise.
Arabian Horse Show2009 2010 2011 2012Total Revenues 13,569$ 10,733$ 5,428$ 2,654$ ExpensesPersonnel 3,741$ 4,404$ 4,027$ 8,163$ O & M 8,070$ 8,838$ 8,878$ 6,820$ Total Expenses 11,811$ 13,242$ 12,905$ 14,983$ Profit/Loss 1,758$ (2,509)$ (7,477)$ (12,329)$ Event Attendance 500 400 168 60Volunteer Hours N/A N/A N/A N/AEvent description and justification: The Arabian Horse Show has been with the Town for over 20 years. This is an event that comes to Town and rents the Fairgrounds.. This event falls into 3 categories: brings participants to Town, another activity for the visitor and local attendance.Revenues come from facility rental: arenas, stalls, buildings, RV spots and feed sales. Expenses come from normal facility use such as: manure disposal, arena prep and other associated costs.This event has been declining over the last few years and will now be paired with another event for 2013, in hopes to generate more participation as well as help with shared expenses. Staff attributes decline in participation to both the economy and poor show management. The show has experienced several changes in show management and it is going to take some time to get back on track. Staff continues to work with the show to develope it to its full potential.
Catch the Glow Parade2009 2010 2011 2012Total Revenues 8,150$ 1,850$ 6,000$ 7,591$ ExpensesPersonnel 33,665$ 39,634$ 36,247$ 36,734$ O & M 31,756$ 31,930$ 36,011$ 38,730$ Police 2,720$ Public Works 1,185$ Total Expenses 65,421$ 71,564$ 72,258$ 79,369$ Profit/Loss (57,271)$ (69,714)$ (66,258)$ (71,778)$ Event Attendance 25,000 22,000 20,000 28,000Volunteer Hours 233 67 206 195Event description and justification: The Catch the Glow Parade has been going down Elkhorn Avenue for 25 years. This is an event that is produced by the Town. This event falls into 4 categories: brings people to Town, another activity for the visitor, late season event, and local attendance.Revenues are generated by sponsorships of the different Town produced floats. Expenses are for float design, supplies and construction.
Dressage Show2009 2010 2011 2012Total Revenues 10,155$ 10,601$ 12,262$ 12,494$ ExpensesPersonnel 3,741$ 4,404$ 4,027$ 4,082$ O & M 4,190$ 4,290$ 4,658$ 6,820$ Total Expenses 7,931$ 8,694$ 8,685$ 10,902$ Profit/Loss 2,224$ 1,907$ 3,577$ 1,592$ Event Attendance 400 538 527 550Volunteer Hours N/A N/A N/A N/AEvent description and justification: The Dressage Show is in its 4th year with the Fairgrounds. This is an internationally recognized show that brings competitors from all over the world (horse and rider). This is an event that comes to Town and rents the Fairgrounds.. This event falls into 3 categories: brings participants to Town, another activity for the visitor and local attendance. This event has been paired up with 3 other events in the past and in 2013 will be by itself August 16‐18. This is a goal of staff; to bring in new events develope them and have them either stand alone or bRevenues come from facility rental, manure disposal, feed and shavings sales. Expenses come from staff time, arena prep, manaure disposal and other associated costs.
Hunter/Jumper Shows2009 2010 2011 2012Total Revenues 189,421$ 179,829$ 152,957$ 145,400$ ExpensesPersonnel 29,924$ 35,230$ 32,219$ 32,652$ O & M 91,662$ 91,328$ 98,020$ 97,943$ Total Expenses 121,586$ 126,558$ 130,239$ 130,595$ Profit/Loss 67,835$ 53,271$ 22,718$ 14,805$ Event Attendance 4,200 3,500 3,000 3,680Volunteer Hours N/A N/A N/A N/AEvent description and justification: The Hunter/Jumpers show is an event that come to Town and rents the Fairgrounds. This show has signed an agreement with options through 2021. This event has the greatest net revenues of all events currently booked at the fairgrounds This event falls into 3 categories: brings participants to Town, another activity for the visitor and local attendance.Revenues come from facility rental. The event currently rents the entire facility for one lump sum for 4 weeks. Expenses come from staff time, manure disposal, trash, arena prep and other associated expenses. This event also rents flowers, trees, and shrubs from the Town and at the end of the show
Scottish Irish Festival2009 2010 2011 2012Total Revenues 1,077$ 2,038$ 1,587$ $2,227ExpensesPersonnel 14,962$ 17,615$ 16,110$ $16,326O & M 48,844$ 51,284$ 55,632$ $60,193Public Works $1,338Police $10,006Total Expenses 63,806$ 68,899$ 71,742$ $87,863Profit/Loss (62,729)$ (66,861)$ (70,155)$ ($85,636)Event Attendance 50,000 80,000 45,000 65,000Volunteer Hours N/A N/A N/A N/AEvent description and justification: The Scottish Irish Festival is an event that is sponsored by the Town and is a private event. This event falls into 4 categories: brings people to Town, another activity for the visitor , late season event, and local attendance. This event is also known as one of the largest festivals of it's kind in the Nation. Revenues come from feed sales. Expenses come from rental of rooms for performers and other associated event expense including PD and Public Works.
Other Misc. Events2009 2010 2011Total Revenues 81,403$ 83,743$ 82,646$ ExpensesPersonnel 33,665$ 39,634$ 36,247$ O & M 34,485$ 36,313$ 39,379$ Total Expenses 68,150$ 75,947$ 75,626$ Profit/Loss 13,253$ 7,796$ 7,020$ Event Attendance N/A N/A N/AVolunteer Hours N/A N/A N/AEvent description and justification: These are miscellaneous shows, in which the Events Department does not breakdown and/or track on an individual basis. Revenues are from misc. feed sales, misc facility rentals, misc sponsorships, misc vendor fees and PRPA grant for economic development. Expenses are from small or new events that are not tracked at this time. This would include events such as: Bond Park Craft and Arts Shows, Sr. Rodeo, Alpaca Market, Tribute to John Denver Concert and Safety Fair.
Downtown Events2009 2010 2011 2012Total Revenues 656$ 16,610$ 968$ 290$ ExpensesPersonnel 26,184$ 30,827$ 28,192$ 28,571$ O & M 26,250$ 27,498$ 30,441$ 33,737$ Total Expenses 52,434$ 58,325$ 58,633$ 62,308$ Profit/Loss (51,778)$ (41,715)$ (57,665)$ (62,018)$ Event Attendance 110,073 125,984 122,640 123,968Volunteer Hours N/A N/A N/A N/AEvent description and justification: These are events that take place in Bond Park and at Performance Park. Revenues are generated from staff time as an attendant at the various events at Performance Park. (Note: 2010 number in revenues was deposited in wrong project code and should have been placed in Other Misc. Events). Expenses in this area represent staff time at events in the Downtown area, utilities at the different venues and other associated expenses.
Special Events2009 2010 2011 2012Total Revenues‐$ ‐$ 2,033$ 1,074$ ExpensesPersonnel 100,994$ 118,903$ 108,740$ 81,631$ O & M 124,909$ 124,892$ 135,212$ 110,650$ Total Expenses 225,903$ 243,795$ 243,952$ 192,281$ Profit/Loss (225,903)$ (243,795)$ (241,919)$ (191,207)$ Event Attendance N/A N/A N/A N/AVolunteer Hours N/A N/A N/A N/AEvent description and justification: This category are the expenses and revenues that occur with the fairgrounds and are not assigned an event.Expenses in this area are not assigned a specific event as they are normal every day operating expenses. The one exception is the Fourth of July fireworks show is in this category.
Draft Horse Show2009 2010 2011 2012Total Revenues‐$ ExpensesPersonnel 4,082$ O & M 6,820$ Total Expenses 10,902$ Profit/Loss (10,902)$ Event Attendance 1,500Volunteer Hours TBDEvent Description and Justification: This show is privately run. It was started because of the growing popularity as well as to offer a nice support event for other events. This event grows each year and continues to be a great support event. The event is also conducted at the end of August which is a time when things do start to slow down slightly.This event does not generate any revenues to the facility. It is an event that is heavily attended by our local residents as well as many from out of town. Expenses are shavings, staff time and prize fund.
Westernaires2009 2010 2011 2012Total Revenues 8,254$ ExpensesPersonnel 8,163$ O & M 7,928$ Total Expenses 16,091$ Profit/Loss (7,837)$ Event Attendance 600Volunteer Hours N/AEvent description and justification: The Westeraires have been a long time part of the facility and were gone for over 10 years. They are a great support event where the facility can do horseshows during the day and have the Westernaires perform at night. Westernaires provide and evening event for the locals, our guests as well as bring people up from the valley. Revenues come from ticket sales. Expenses are staff time, shavings and feed. Revenues are shared with Westernaires once a negotiated revenue is reached. (Woodland Heights fire caused cancellation of second show, hence the loss)
Winterfestival2009 2010 2011 2012Total Revenues‐$ ExpensesPersonnel 8,163$ O & M 1,768$ Total Expenses 9,931$ Profit/Loss (9,931)$ Event Attendance 9000Volunteer Hours TBDEvent description and justification: This event is a private event held at the fairgrounds. This event was started to create winter economy. This events meets several event criteria, draws people in from out of town, promotes overnight stay, local community involvement and late season event.Revenues from this event come from facility rental. Per Town Board $5,000 was put in the Events budget to cover expenses. This money was used for transportation and to cover facility rental.
Event Numbers 2007‐2012Performance Park 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012May 15-16 Jazz Fest 1,395 1,235 1,500 1,250 628 433June 12 Pensacola Childrens Choir N/A N/A New in '10 60 N/A N/AJune 13 Estes Park Jazz Big Band 250 250 250 300 150 150June 13 Youth Orchestra of the Rockies 60 80 N/A N/A N/A N/AJune 14 Revelation Choir N/A N/A New in '10 50 N/A N/AJune 15 Soul Seekers N/A N/A N/A 50 N/A N/AJune 16 Wednesday Night Concert Series N/A 175 N/A N/A 100 100June 18 High Praise Concert N/A N/A New in '10 100 N/A N/AJune 23Wednesday Night Concert Series – Dick Orleans N/A 325 125 150 100 125June 24Thursday Night Live - Longmont Concert Band N/A N/A 142 336 20 35June 28 Estes Park Jazz Big Band 250 250 250 N/A 50 50June 30Wednesday Night Concert Series – Kelly Aspen 250 350 175 75 150 125July 1 Thursday Night Live - Kings of Swing N/A N/A 62 120 100 100l/i/July2 Tea PartyN/A New in '09 300 300 150 N/AJuly 4 Estes Park Village Band 300 400 400 350 400 350July 6 Calico & Boots N/A N/A New in '10 100 N/A N/AJuly 6 Candidate Forum N/A N/A New in '10 300 N/A N/AJuly 7Colorado Music Festival Orchestra Patriotic Concert 600 400 N/A N/A N/A N/AJuly 7 Wednesday Night Concert Series N/A 250 N/A N/A 200 200July 8Thursday Night Live - Crossroads Summer Song Fest N/A N/A 150 200 150 150July 10Supporters of the Performing Arts (SOPA) -Chased N/A N/A New in '10 100 N/A N/AJuly 14Wednesday Night Concert Series - Vic Anderson 150 300 100 75 150 75
Event Numbers 2007‐2012Performance Park continued… 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012July 15Thursday Night Live - Highland Brass Quintet N/A N/A 72 252 150 125July 17 SOPA - McPhly N/A N/A New in '10 150 N/A N/AJuly 17-18 Soggy Noodle Acting Troupe N/A New in '09 275 N/A N/A N/AJuly 19 The Incredible Circus MAT 350 400 N/A N/A N/A N/AJuly 21 Yeahbut Shoehead Band N/A New in '09 175 N/A N/A N/AJuly 21Wednesday Night Concert Series – Max Wagner N/A 200 200 125 250 300July 25 312th Army Band N/A N/A New in '10 100 N/A N/AJuly 25 Estes Park Jazz Big Band N/A N/A 250 100 150 250July 25 The Chosen Ones N/A New in '09 30 N/A N/A N/AJuly 28Wednesday Night Concert Series - Kim Lankford 125 175 75 100 200 75July 29Thursday Night Live – Estes Park Village Band N/A N/A 140 485 150 125July 30 High School Leadership Training Concert N/A N/A New in '10 75 N/A N/AJuly 31 Estes Valley Workforce Benefit N/A N/A New in '10 100 N/A N/Ald//i//July31 Mad Hatters N/A N/A New in '10 50 N/A N/AAug. 1 Call of the Brass N/A New in '09 15 N/A N/A N/AAug. 4Wednesday Night Concert Series – Elk Hallow 175 150 200 75 100 125Aug. 5 Thursday Night Live - Jeff VanDevender N/A N/A 258 134 150 125Aug. 7 SOPA - Metropolitian Jazz OrchestraN/AN/A New in '10 100 N/A N/AAug. 11Wednesday Night Concert Series – Laurie Dameron N/A 150 135 50 100 150Aug. 12Thursday Night Live - Dick Zavodny Polka Band N/A N/A 301 311 150 150Aug. 14 Bluegrass Gospel Festival N/A New in '09 75 200 N/A N/AAug. 18Wednesday Night Concert Series – Dennis-Tobias Band N/A 100 115 150 543 350
Event Numbers 2007‐2012Performance Park continued… 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Aug. 19 Kids Paint Out N/A N/A New in '10 45 N/A N/AAug. 19Thursday Night Live - Estes Park Village Band N/A N/A N/A 546 100 250Aug. 21 SOPA - Mark & Tia N/A N/A New in '10 150 N/A N/AAug. 22 Estes Park Jazz Big Band 200 200 200 100 125 125Aug. 25Wednesday Night Concert Series - Ron Ball N/A 100 100 150 150 150Aug. 26 Thursday Night Live - Brad Fitch N/A N/A N/A 700 150 225Sept. 19 Peregrine Road & Friends Concert N/A New in '09 75 N/A N/A N/ATotal: 8,119 9,506 10,163 12,184 8,838 4543Fairgrounds at Stanley Park Events2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012May 22 Safety Fair 400 750 500 400 500 350May 26-28 Circus3000May 29-31 Antique Show 1,600 1,600 1,659 1,660 1,569 1500June 10-13 Wool Market 8,600 7,258 7,850 8,000 7,511 7326J10 11WlMkWkh291227224200280144June 10-11 Wool Market Workshops 291 227 224 200 280 144June 14 Ride the Rockies1200June 19 Gymkhana 35 35 50 40 35 35June 17-18 Mounted Shooting New in '11 350 400June 18 Cat Show New in '11 200 N/AJune 23-27 Miniature Horseshow 338 200 283 275 250 200June 24-25 Westernaires New in '11 1,525 *600July 1-4 Arabian Horseshow 398 350 500 400 168 60July 3 Community Block Party1500July 4 Red, White, and Cool 4th of July Celebration 2500July 6-11 Rooftop Rodeo 8,028 8,560 10,773 11,642 13,489 14,015July 6-11 Rodeo Contestants 416 553 604 641 706 735
Event Numbers 2007‐2012Fairgrounds at Stanley Park Events2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012July 6 Rooftop Rodeo Parade 4,000 3,500 5,000 5,000 6,000 6,000July 17-18 Team Penning 225 250 N/A 150 150 200July-Aug.21 Hunter Jumper Horseshow 4,533 5,000 4,200 3,500 3,000 3680Aug. 3 Marshall Tucker Band Concert300Aug. 5 Michael Martin Murphey Concert New in '11 350 N/AAug. 14-16Colorado Junior Rodeo Association - State Rodeo Finals New in '08 1,000 1,000 N/A N/A N/AAug. 19-20 Suri Network 35 40 50 50 N/A N/AAug. 20-22 Dressage Horseshow New in '08 350 400 538 527 550Aug. 20-21 Colorado Senior Pro Rodeo N/A N/A New in '10 1,000 1,200 1400Aug. 22 Draft Horseshow N/A N/A New in '10 1,000 1,500 1500Aug. 28 Gymkhana 45 40 35 40 70 N/ASept. 4-5 Barrel Race New in '11 200 225Sept. 4-5 Alpaca Market 1,500 2,000 2,250 2,000 2,100 2000Sept. 4-5 Sheriff's Posse Rodeo 125 N/A N/A 150 N/A N/ASept. 4 John Denver Tribute Concert 1,000 680 857 1,300 904 900S912Scottish Festival (Fairgrounds and Stanley Pk)70 00075 00050 00080 00045 00065 000Sept. 9-12 Park) 70,000 75,000 50,000 80,000 45,000 65,000Sept. 21-24 Snow and Ice Conference 1,000 970 1,000 1,000 1,200 1000Nov. Catch the Glow Parade 20,000 18,000 25,000 22,000 20,000 28,000Total: 124,576 128,371 114,244 142,996 110,795 145,732Bond Park Events 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Jan. 16-17 Winter Festival N/A N/A New in '10 1,000 4,000 9,000Feb. 20-21 Dog Pull 200 125 300 250 300 350April 15 Tea Party N/A N/A 150 300 N/A N/AMay 16 Parade of Years at Senior Center until 2010 100 200 150May 29-30 Art Market 36,000 24,500 25,000 36,000 20,000 20,000
Event Numbers 2007‐2012Bond Park Events 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012June 13 Estes Park Marathon Kids Fun Run N/A 275 300 300 275 250June 13-15 Cowboy Sing Along 200 avg 150 avg 200 150 100 125June 20-22 Cowboy Sing Along 200 avg 150 avg 200 150 120 120June 27-29 Cowboy Sing Along 200 avg 200 avg 200 150 135 140June 26-27 Scandinavian Festival 8,000 8,000 8,000 10,640 20,000 16,000July 4 Coolest Car Show 2,500 2,500 3,000 3,200 3,500 3500July 4-6 Cowboy Sing Along 200 avg 200 avg 200 150 300 250July 11-13 Cowboy Sing Along 200 avg 200 avg 200 150 210 240July 18-20 Cowboy Sing Along 200 avg 200 avg 200 150 213 200July 20-22 Mid Summer Festival5,000July 25-27 Cowboy Sing Along 200 avg 200 avg 200 150 200 200July 30 Praise in the Park N/A New in '09 150 175 150 175Aug. 1-3 Cowboy Sing Along 200 avg 200 avg 200 150 200 225Aug. 8-10 Cowboy Sing Along 200 avg 175 avg 200 150 150 225Aug. 14 Auto Extravaganza 1,050 cancelled 1,500 2,000 120 N/AAug. 15-17 Cowboy Sing Along 200 avg 175 avg 200 150 140 125Aug. 21-22 Heritage Festival 4,000 6,500 7,000 3,000 5,500 3,000iih k/ill dAug. 27 Praise in the ParkN/A New in '09 150 105 cancelled150Sept. 4-6 Labor Day Arts & Crafts Show 35,000 N/A 15,000 16,000.0 20,000 18,000Sept. 18-19 Fine Arts Guild Art Show 15,000 16,000 17,000 18,000.0 15,000 15,000Sept. 25-26 Autumn Gold 11,000 11,500 12,000 12,000 13,200 12,000Oct. 2-3 Elk Fest 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 11,500 15,000Total: 122,757 80,408 103,559 117,580 117,524 121,437All gray highlighted areas are actual numbers. All other numbers are estimates.
Community Development
Memo
To: Community Development/Community Services Committee
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Alison Chilcott, Community Development Director
Date: February 24, 2013
RE: Community Development Monthly Report
Background:
BUILDING SAFETY: Promote a safe built environment to (1) minimize loss of life and injury to the
general public and emergency responders; and (2) reduce property damage and destruction.
9 Building permit reports are attached. Permitting activity was slow; however
inspection activity is very high. Building Inspector Traufield averaged 18 inspections
per day in January. This includes inspections for open permits due to expire on
March 31st.
9 Staff created a Building Permit Feedback form (attached). Building permit feedback
cards are included in all building permit packs, i.e. on all permitted job sites, and in
the office
9 Expired Permits: Letters have been mailed to property owners and contractors
notifying them that permits will expire on March 31st. 208 permits remain open, down
from 290 last month.
ESTES VALLEY LONG RANGE MASTER PLANNING: Create more convenient, equitable,
healthy, efficient, and attractive places for present and future generations. Articulate a desired future to
inform decision-making today.
9 Staff created an outline for the Comprehensive Plan modernization (attached).
PLANNING FOR THE PRESENT: Provide for the coordinated and harmonious development of
the Estes Valley, which will, in accordance with present and future needs, best promote health, safety,
order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare, as well as efficiency and economy.
9 Staff created a Development Review Feedback form (attached). These will be
distributed to applicants and available in the office.
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OPERATIONAL/ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW
9 Staff prepared a final implementation report on the Community Development
Operational/Organizational Review by Zucker Systems in 2009.
ENHANCING PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES
9 Community Development staff reviewed feedback from the Enhancing Planning and
Building Services meetings and drafted next steps for Town Administrator
Lancaster’s input.
9 Community Development staff have incorporated discussion of our Core Services
and Values into initial meetings with customers to set the tone for our working
relationship.
ENHANCING CODE COMPLIANCE SERVICES
9 Community Development staff are scheduling Enhancing Code Compliance
Services community meetings in March and April. We want to learn from residents
and business owners what a successful code compliance program would look like.
ADDITIONAL UPDATES
Board and Commissions
9 Staff advertized to fill five volunteer board positions on the Estes Park Board of
Appeals. Consisting of design professionals and contractors, the Board of Appeals
hears and decides appeals of decisions made by the Chief Building Official. The
Estes Park Board of Appeals meets as needed in order to advise the Town Board on
matters relating to construction codes, and to facilitate amendments and adoption of
construction codes as directed by the Town Board. The closing date is March 4,
2013.
Finances
9 Staff will report on 2012 year-end financials, January and February 2013
expenditures and revenue in March when as soon as budget reports are available
from Finance.
2013 BUILDING PERMITS - DETAILED REPORTJANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL YEAR TO DATERESIDENTIAL PERMITS(101) New Single Family DetachedAttached 0 Square-footage0 Valuation0(103) New Duplex0 Square-footage0 Valuation0(104) New 3-4 Family0 Square-footage0 Valuation00(438) Add/Alt/Conv Garages/Carports0 Square-footage - if applicable0 Valuation0(434) Add/Alt/Conv1212 Square-footage - if applicable0 Valuation $60,732$60,732Total New Square Footage0Total Remodel/Add Square Footage0 # PERMITS12 VALUATION$60,732COMMERCIAL PERMITS(213) New Hotels, Motels, Cabins0 Square-footage0 Valuation0Minor Repair/Remodel(318) New Rec. Bldg.0Boiler/Furnace/Heater 1 1(319) New Religious Bldg.0Stove/Fireplace(434) Residential Add/Alt/Conv also includes the Misc permits belowCurrent Month Year to DateCommercial Additions, Alterations, Misc. Permits, 5, 28%Residential Additions, Alterations, Misc. Permits, 12, 67%Demolition, 1, 5%Building Permits Year to Date(322) New Service & Repair0Roof44(324) New Offices, Banks, Prof0Water Heater(327) New Retail0AC/Cooler Square-footage0Water/Service Line/Plumbing Valuation0Gas Line/Propane 2 2(437) Add/Alt/Conv55Sewer Line Square-footage 16691,669Window/Siding 1 1 Valuation $96,537$96,537SolarTOTAL88Total New Square Footage0Total Remodel/Add Square Footage0# PERMITS5Minor Repair/Remodel 1 1VALUATION$96,537Boiler/FurnaceOven Hood/FireplaceDEMOLITION PERMITSRoof22# PERMITS 1 1Water HeaterVALUATION $3,500 3,500AC/CoolerWater/Service Line/Plumbing/BackflowGas Pipe/LineTOTAL # PERMITS18 18Construction TrailerTOTAL VALUATION$160,770 $160,770SolarAntennaOTHER PERMITS NOT INCLUDED IN VALUATIONWindow/SidingFLOODPLAIN DEV. PERMITS0TOTAL33**Note: 50.00 charge for FPDPs0VALUATION0NOTES: New square footage = new construction (example: new home, new detached garage, etc)GRADING PERMITS0Remodel/Alt/Add square footage = remodel of existing structure or addition to an existing structureVALUATION0Add/Alt/Conv = additions, remodels, misc permits(437) Commercial Add/Alt/Conv also includes the Misc Permits below Current Month Year to Date
MONTHPERMITS ISSUED 2012VALUATION2012FEES COLLECTED 2012FEES WAIVED 2012PROJECT NAMEFOR WAIVED FEESMONTHPERMITS ISSUED 2013VALUATION2013FEES COLLECTED 2013FEES WAIVED 2013PROJECT NAMEFOR WAIVED FEESJanuary41 $595,132 $9,857 $125EP Library DistrictJanuary18 $160,770 $3,554 $0February32 $653,004 $6,981 $3,124The NeighborhoodBlack Canyon Inn-permit delayFebruaryMarch43 $977,106 $17,008 $0MarchApril35 $895,145 $12,058 $2,338The NeighborhoodAprilMay49 $1,115,163 $15,582 $727Moraine Ave Parking LotMayJune34 $1,446,563 $16,779 $0JuneJuly42 $1,210,534 $11,294 $7,082The Neighborhood (2) ($5998)Light & Power Bldg. Roof ($624)Police Dept A/C ($125)Library A/C ($335)JulyAugust52 $1,619,191 $22,040 $0AugustSeptember36 $910,985 $10,689 $126Town of Estes Park A/CSeptemberOctober38 $986,249 $8,992 $896Town of Estes Park Police Dept. RemodelOctoberNovember66 $2,946,388 $36,884 $1,098Town of Estes Park Pavilion - E ElkhornBoy Scouts Temp ShelterNovemberDecember17 $806,856 $12,582 $0DecemberYEAR TO DATE 485 $14,162,316 $180,746 $15,516 YEAR TO DATE 18 $160,770 $3,554 $0% Change from 2011-3% 19% 10%% Change from 2012-56% -73% -64%TOWN OF ESTES PARK BUILDING PERMIT SUMMARY20132012
Exceeded Expectations Met Expectations Did Not Meet Expectations Not ApplicableBuilding Plan Review Other Dept. Plan Review Customer
Service
Building
Inspection
BUILDING PERMIT FEEDBACKHow Are We Doing?We value your opinion. How were the services you received?
What are we doing well? What can we do better?
For your convenience, please drop this card in the Utility
Payment Box at the Estes Valley Library, or bring it to the
Community Development Department at Town Hall, 170
MacGregor Avenue, Room 210, Estes Park, CO 80517
970‐577‐3726 ♦ www.estes.org ♦ building@estes.org
If you would like staff to follow up with you, please provide your name and
contact information.
Thank you for your time and feedback!
Our core values are:♦♦♦Integrity♦ Teamwork♦Innovation and Creativity♦ Professionalism♦Problem Solving♦ Customer Bill of RightsCustomer Bill of Rights♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦The Division of Building Safety promotes a safe built environment to: 1) minimize loss of life and injury to the general public and emergency responders; and 2) reduce property damage and destruction.Exceptional customer serviceTreating others as we would like to be treatedWe Believe our Customers Have the Right to...Be greeted with a smile;Be treated with courtesy and respect;Timely service when seeking service in person and by phone;Receive service from knowledgeable, competent, and cooperative staff;Complete, accurate, reliable information and feedback;Consistent and fair application of codes and rules:Formally appeal staff decisions;Communicate their appreciation or their dissatisfaction about staff, Department policies, procedures, or reuqirements;Expect our staff to explore alternatives and find creative solutions.In order to facilitate this Bill of Rights and provide our customers the highest level of service, We Expect that Our Customers Will…Treat staff with courtesy and respect;Represent their projects accurately and honestly;Submit accurate, complete, and code‐compliant plans at the beginning of the approval process;Inform staff of plan changes or project modifications in a timely manner;Obtain appropriate permits before beginning projects;Build their projects safely according to approved plans and in compliance with codes and rules:Ask questions when they do not understand code rquirements or staff communications.
Use Professional Quality Photo(s) for Cover Example above from Visit Estes Park’s 2011 Annual Report Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan
IImmaaggee ffrroomm DDaavviiddssoonn,, NNCC CCoommpprreehheennssiivvee PPllaann UUssee ggrraapphhiiccss ttoo ccoonnvveeyy cchhaapptteerr ccoonntteenntt.. Estes Valley Comprehensive PlanChapter 1: Insert Title Here 1 Modernization The modernized Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan will convert the 1996 pre‐internet text based plan Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan to a modern, dynamic web design e.g. City of Virginia Beach with updated facts and figures. It will have: 9 Clear and concise language. 9 Short sentences & paragraphs. 9 Columns & white space 9 Text boxes & bold color to emphasize points 9 Hyperlinks to documents 9 Landscape orientation to avoid scrolling (1 page per screen) 9 Professional photos, data visualization & infographics From To Infographic from The Estes Valley’s Economic Future: The Path Forward Staff Has Staff researched award‐winning comprehensive plans to identify key design elements of modern plans. Ease of web access and viewing is mandatory. Staff Commits To 9 Present drafts of the Economic Overview, Land Use, Mobility and Circulation Chapters by June. 9 Use professional desktop publish software; Adobe InDesign. Not used for this document 9 Provide periodic updates to Planning Commission, Town Board, & County Commission.
Exceeded ExpectationsMet ExpectationsDid Not Meet ExpectationsNot ApplicablePlanning ReviewPublic Works ReviewOther Dept. ReviewCustomer ServiceDEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEEDBACKHow Are We Doing?What are we doing well? What can we do better?We value your opinion on our development review services ― review of development plans, special reviews, plats, rezonings, and variance applications. Current applications can be found at www.estes.org/currentapplications gThank you for your time and feedback!Project Name: For your convenience, please drop this card in the Utility Payment Box at the Estes Valley Library, or bring it to the Community Development Department at Town Hall, 170 MacGregor Avenue, Room 210, Estes Park, CO 805179705773721♦♦li@If you would like staff to follow up with you, please provide your name and contact information.970‐577‐3721 ♦ www.estes.org ♦ planning@estes.org
Our core values are:♦♦♦Integrity♦ Teamwork♦Innovation and Creativity♦ Professionalism♦Problem Solving♦ Customer Bill of RightsCustomer Bill of Rights♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦Obtain appropriate permits before beginning projectsBuild their projects safely according to approved plans and in compliance with codes and rulesAsk questions when they do not understand code rquirements or staff communicationsRepresent their projects accurately and honestlySubmit accurate, complete, and code‐compliant plans at the beginning of the approval processInform staff of plan changes or project modifications in a timely mannerExpect our staff to explore alternatives and find creative solutionsIn order to facilitate this Bill of Rights and provide our customers the highest level of service, We Expect that Our Customers Will…Treat staff with courtesy and respectConsistent and fair application of codes and rulesFormally appeal staff decisionsCommunicate their appreciation or their dissatisfaction about staff, Department policies, procedures, or requirementsTimely service in person and by phoneReceive service from knowledgeable, competent, and cooperative staffComplete, accurate, reliable information and feedbackWe Believe our Customers Have the Right to...Be greeted with a smileBe treated with courtesy and respectThe Planning Divisioncoordinates review of development within the Estes Valley.We work with a Development Review Team which reviews plans for compliancewith the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), including zoning, subdivision,drainage/floodplain, transportation, & fire protection standards. We alsocoordinate plan review with external affected agencies such as the SanitationDistricts, State Department of Transportation, & US Army Corps of Engineers toensure statutory regulations and standards are considered and addressed whereappropriate, engineering specifications are complied with, and developmentregulations and standards specified in the EVDC are met.Exceptional customer serviceTreating others as we want to be treated
Community Development
Memo
To: Community Development/Community Services Committee
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Alison Chilcott, Community Development Director
Date: February 28, 2013
RE: Implementation of the November 2009 Zucker Systems Community
Development Department Operational/Organizational Review.
Background:
In 2009 Zucker Systems conducted an operational/organizational review of the
Community Development Department (attached). This is a final report on
implementation status.
Zucker Systems found numerous positive features in the Community Development
Department including:
9 Well-qualified staff
Staff expertise and qualifications continue to improve.
9 Processes are well thought out and timelines met or exceeded state and
national standards.
In some cases timelines have been shortened even further. We continually improve
processes based on customer feedback. Guides describing processes have been
created and improved. Improvements are ongoing.
9 The joint planning for the Estes Valley is an excellent approach and one of the
best seen.
The Town and County renewed the intergovernmental agreement to continue joint
planning for the Estes Valley.
Implementation Highlights
9 Direction Setting - Community Development established core services, core
values, a customer bill of rights, and work plans for the department.
9 Staff Development - Staff training and development now includes soft skills. Staff
are also better cross-trained. Staff development and training is ongoing.
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
9 Development Review - Development Review Team weekly meetings were
established; interdepartmental communication improved. Review agencies and
departments are more involved throughout the entire review process.
Communication with applicants is more frequent and productive.
9 Building Codes - 2009 International Building Codes and local amendments were
adopted with stakeholder input and Contractor Association support.
9 Code Compliance - A Code Compliance Officer/Planner I has been hired will begin
work creating a successful code compliance program on March 18th.
More Work Needed
• Customer Surveys – Zucker Systems focus groups and customer surveys identified
areas where improvement is needed. Planning and Building customer service
improvements are ongoing and include work with Lynn Pollard on Enhancing
Planning and Building Services, including Code Compliance.
• Development Review and Permitting Software - Functional development review
and permitting software for Community Development activities is needed.
Preparation for conversion to an Enterprise Resource Program is ongoing.
• Geographic Information Systems - A Geographic Information mapping system
with current information, accessible by all Community Development staff, will be in
place by the end of the year.
• Lack of Planning - In 2013 the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan will be
modernized. The Town Board and Town Administration are focusing on strategic
planning and visioning for the communities.
While this is a final report on the Zucker Systems review, Community Development staff
will continue to be actively engaged in suggesting and implementing operational and
organizational improvements.
Community Development
Department
Operational/Organizational Review
Estes Park, Colorado
By
Zucker Systems
Paul Zucker, President
1545 Hotel Circle South, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92108
(619) 260-2680
www.zuckersystems.com
paul@zuckersystems.com
November 2009
Estes Park i Zucker Systems
Table of Contents
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................. 1
A. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 1
1. INTER-GOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT .................................................................... 1
2. LACK OF PLANNING ................................................................................................ 2
3. TIMING OF REVIEWS ............................................................................................... 2
4. TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 3
5. PLANNING PROCESSES ............................................................................................ 3
2. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ............................................................... 4
A. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE .............................................................................. 4
B. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 4
C. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 6
3. ISSUES RELATED TO ENTIRE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT ......................................................................................................... 10
A. ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING ......................................................................... 10
B. COMMUNICATION .............................................................................................. 13
C. MANAGEMENT AND MISSION ............................................................................ 16
D. STAFFING ........................................................................................................... 17
E. TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................... 17
F. TRAINING .......................................................................................................... 20
4. BUILDING DIVISION ..................................................................................... 22
A. POSITIVE FINDINGS ........................................................................................... 22
B. ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES ................................................................................. 22
C. PLAN CHECK ..................................................................................................... 28
D. BUILDING INSPECTION ...................................................................................... 31
E. SIGNS ................................................................................................................. 33
5. PLANNING FUNCTION .................................................................................. 34
A. POSITIVE FINDINGS ........................................................................................... 34
B. ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES ................................................................................. 34
Estes Park ii Zucker Systems
C. PROCESS ISSUES ................................................................................................ 37
D. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ................................................................................... 38
E. DEVELOPMENT PLANS ....................................................................................... 40
F. PLANNING .......................................................................................................... 42
G. PLANNING COMMISSION .................................................................................... 43
H. TOWN BOARD AND COUNTY COMMISSIONER APPLICATION ACTION ............... 45
6. EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS ......................................................................... 48
7. CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS ......................................................................... 50
A. MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL ........................................................................... 50
B. PLANNING COMMISSION .................................................................................... 51
C. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ................................................................................... 52
D. FOCUS GROUP – APPLICANTS ............................................................................ 52
E. FOCUS GROUPS – CITIZENS ............................................................................... 54
F. CUSTOMER SURVEYS ........................................................................................ 55
List of Tables
Table 1 Table of Recommendations .............................................................................. 7
Table 2 Community Development Staffing ................................................................. 11
Table 3 Billable Hour Analysis .................................................................................... 17
Table 4 Building Permit Activity ................................................................................. 26
Table 5 Planning Applications in Community Development Department .................. 35
Table 6 Estes Park Development Decision Authorities ............................................... 36
Table 7 Number of Employees Responding to Questionnaires .................................. 48
Table 8 Negative Responses To Four Questions ......................................................... 62
List of Figures
Figure 1 Methodology Overview ................................................................................... 5
Figure 2 Community Development Organization ....................................................... 10
Figure 3 Monthly Permit Activity ................................................................................ 27
Figure 4 Board of Adjustment Process ........................................................................ 39
Figure 5 Development Plan Process ............................................................................ 41
Figure 6 Planning Commission Process ...................................................................... 44
Figure 7 Process for County Commissioner Application Action ................................ 45
Figure 8 Process for Town Board Application Action ................................................ 46
Estes Park iii Zucker Systems
Figure 9 Process for County Commissioner Final Plats ............................................. 47
Figure 10 Process for Town Board Final Plats ............................................................ 47
Figure 11 Customer Survey Responses ....................................................................... 57
List of Appendices
Appendix A Persons Interviewed ............................................................................... 65
Appendix B Employee Short Questionnaire ............................................................... 67
Appendix C Employee Long Questionnaire ............................................................... 72
Estes Park 1 Zucker Systems
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. BACKGROUND
This study was initiated by the Estes Park Town Administrator for an
Operational/Organizational Review of the Town’s Community Development
Department.
We found numerous positive features in the Community Development Department
including:
Both the Building and Planning staff are well qualified, particularly for a small
community.
Processes are well thought out, generally documented and meet normally
acceptable national time standards.
Because of the way processes are laid out, timelines are generally met as
advertised.
The Comprehensive Plan and Development Code, while needing up-dating, are
good documents.
This report includes 55 recommendations for improving the Community Development
Department. While all the recommendations are important, we believe there are five
key areas or groupings that need the highest priority as follows:
1. INTER-GOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
Findings
The Inter-governmental agreement creating the joint Planning Commission, Joint
Board of Adjustment, staffing by the Town’s Community Development Department
and joint Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and Development Code is an excellent
approach, one of the best we have seen. The agreement was adopted on February 1,
2000 with a 10-year term, so it will need to be renewed.
Recommendations
The Inter-governmental agreement should be renewed, Recommendation 2.
During the renewal possible additional functions should be examined,
Recommendation 3.
Estes Park 2 Zucker Systems
2. LACK OF PLANNING
Findings
The Town Trustees, Planning Commission, Town Administration, staff of the
Community Development Department and the citizen focus group all believe that
there has been insufficient long range planning over the last decade. The
Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1996 and the Development Code in 2000. The
date for these documents would tend to confirm this issue. Irrespective of the quality
of the Comprehensive Plan, many feel that the strategy to carry out the Plan has been
lacking.
Recommendation:
The Community Development Department should prepare a formal planning
work program for adoption by the Town Trustees, Recommendation 49.
The Community Development Department should take a more aggressive role
in communicating and setting clear planning priorities for the Department,
Recommendation 10.
3. TIMING OF REVIEWS
Findings
Overall, the Town’s planning reviews and building reviews meet or exceed both State
and National standards. Most planning reviews take place on pre-set published
schedules. Building plan check follows a 10-day residential and 20-day commercial
check with next day inspection schedules. However, there are a number of areas
where processes can be improved and timelines shortened. Also, reviews don’t always
meet the published or suggested timelines.
Recommendations:
Discussions should continue with the Contractors Association regarding the
number of building plan check comments, Recommendation 29.
Timelines should be set for re-checks of building plans, Recommendation 30.
Timelines for residential remodels should be reduced to five days and
commercial tenant improvements reduced to 10 days, Recommendation 31.
All performance standards should be met 90% of the time and all departments
reviewing building permits should follow the same or lesser timelines than the
Building Division, Recommendations 32 and 34.
Estes Park 3 Zucker Systems
4. TECHNOLOGY
Findings
The Community Development Department is using an outdated permitting system that
has limited capabilities, particularly in relation to gradually moving to e-government
applications. Most communities today use field computers for building inspectors
which is not the case in Estes Park. Additionally, there are a variety of smaller
technology issues that need correcting.
Recommendations
A technology review should be conducted for the permitting software,
Recommendation 18.
A field computer and printer should be purchased for the Building Inspector,
Recommendation 19.
A variety of smaller technology issues should be resolved, Recommendation
11, 13, 14, and 16.
5. PLANNING PROCESSES
Findings
The Planning Process is well documented and works from a pre-set schedule. The
timelines being used are well within normal Colorado and national standards.
Nevertheless, there are a few items that could improve the process.
Recommendations
Distribute copies of plans to affected agencies at the time of application rather
than later in the process, Recommendation 45.
Notify the public of BOA items as soon as it is clear that the item will go to
public hearing, Recommendation 46.
Substantially change the process for staff approved Development Plans to
shorter timelines, Recommendation 48.
Modify a few of the steps for items going to the Planning Commission and also
the Final Plat process, Recommendation 50 and 51.
Estes Park 4 Zucker Systems
2. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
A. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
This study was initiated by the Estes Park Town Administrator for an
Operational/Organizational Review of the Town’s Community Development
Department. Specific areas for examination included:
Staffing levels
Consistency of management practices
Internal and external customer service practices
Staff qualifications
Relations with Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment and Town Board
The RFP for the study was issued June 9, 2009 with proposals due July 6, 2009.
Zucker Systems was notified of having been selected for the study on July 15, 2009.
The Board of Trustees approved the contract on August 25, 2009. Paul Zucker,
President of Zucker Systems spent time in Estes Park September 28, 29, and 30, 2009.
B. METHODOLOGY
Zucker Systems used a proprietary, well-tested, integrated methodology for this study,
as shown in Figure 1. We brought our extensive experience to the study, worked
closely with staff, and solicited input and observations from customers and policy
makers. The methodology is built on interrelating records, observations, and
interviews. Each is necessary for valid studies. National research has shown that each
one of these three—if relied upon exclusively—can be subject to substantial error. For
example, record systems are often found to be as high as 50% in error, or the wrong
things are measured. We used observations and interviews to verify records. Records
and interviews were used to verify observations. Records and observations were used
to verify interviews. Each group of people, shown in Figure 1, was an important part
of the process.
Estes Park 5 Zucker Systems
Figure 1
Methodology Overview
Specific activities conducted for this study included the following:
Customer Input
Two customer focus groups of 13 people.
A mail survey to 115 applicants for development approvals or permits.
Policy Maker Input
Interview with the Mayor and six Town Trustees.
Interview with five Planning Commission members.
Interview with three Board of Adjustment members.
Staff Input
Meeting with Town Administrator and Deputy Administrator.
Group meetings with six managers and staff who also completed a short
anonymous questionnaire.
A long employee questionnaire completed by seven staff.
Individual interviews with people listed in Appendix A.
Various meetings with staff to discuss issues and processes.
Meetings, Observations and Research
Review of the planning and permitting systems.
Review of forms, handouts, policies, files, and ordinances.
Observation of staff at work.
Observation of the public counters and reception areas.
Estes Park 6 Zucker Systems
Tour of Town offices.
Review of draft report by various Town officials.
C. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This assessment found many exemplary features within the Community Development
Department and the Town as well as a number of areas where improvement is
possible.
Areas of Strength
Both the Building and Planning staff are well qualified, particularly for a small
community.
Processes are well thought out, generally documented and meet normally
acceptable national time standards.
Because of the way processes are laid out, timelines are generally met as
advertised.
The Comprehensive Plan and Development Code, while needing up-dating, are
good documents.
Opportunities for Improvement
Problem areas and opportunities for improvement are described throughout this
report. What we consider to be five key areas, or themes, are discussed in the
Executive Summary, the first chapter in this report.
Table 1 summarizes the 55 recommendations and opportunities for improvement
made throughout this study. To assist the reader, each summarized recommendation is
cross-referenced to the page on which the supporting text appears. Although all of
these recommendations are important, each was given a priority number in order to
help the Town with implementation. There are 19 priority number one
recommendations, 20 priority number two recommendations and 16 priority number
three recommendations. We assume that existing staff will implement many of the
recommendations and the cost, except for new staffing, generally should be absorbed
through greater efficiency.
To further help the Town and departments in implementation, we have also coded all
the recommendations. “Phase One Actions” are recommendations, which we believe
should be completed in the first nine months. “Phase Two Actions” we believe should
be completed within 18 months.
There are 37 Phase One Action recommendations. Some of these are given priority 1,
2 or 3. However, that does not mean that only the priority 1 recommendations should
Estes Park 7 Zucker Systems
be addressed. There are 18 Phase Two Action recommendations. The departments
should develop a detailed implementation plan with time targets for these
recommendations.
For each recommendation, we also indicate a responsible party for implementation.
While the above priorities and action schedules should help the Town with its
implementation plan, it’s essential to initially focus on the five key priorities
discussed in the Executive Summary.
Table 1
Table of Recommendations
# Recommendation Responsibility Page Priority Phase One Actions Phase Two Actions 1. Agree on an implementation plan
Town Adm. & Director of
Community
Development
9 1 X
ISSUES RELATED TO ENTIRE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
2. Renew Intergovernmental Agreement for planning area Town Trustees and County
Board 12 1 X
3. Consider adding functions to Community Development
Department
Town Adm. And Town
Trustees 12 2 X
4. Consider merging several Town functions Town Adm. And Town
Trustees 13 3 X
5. Expand communication opportunities Community Development
Department 14 2 X
6. One planner and one building staff to be available in the
office during business hours
Community Development
Director 14 2 X
7. Up-date handouts and web site Community Development
Department 15 2 X
8. Have monthly department-wide meeting Community Development
Department 15 3 X
9. Adopt policy to return phone calls and emails same day Community Development
Department 16 2 X
10. Set clear priorities for the Department Community Development
Department 17 1 X
11. Carefully review new copy machine features and
possibly up-grade prior to signing new lease CD Director 18 2 X
12. Town Administration should develop a Town-wide
approach and policy re electronic files Town Administrator 18 2 X
13. Up-grade phone for Administrative Assistant CD Director 18 3 X
14. Have same GIS software for entire Department Community Development
Department 19 2 X
15. Review GIS maps for accuracy and need for additional
layers
Community Development
Department and Town
Administrator
19 2 X
16. Have same MS Software for all related functions Town Administrator 19 3 X
Estes Park 8 Zucker Systems
# Recommendation Responsibility Page Priority Phase One Actions Phase Two Actions 17. Adopt procedures for up-dating web site Community Development
Department 19 2 X
18. Conduct technology review of permitting software
IT Director, Community
Development Department, and
Consultant
20 1 X
19. Purchase field computer and printer for Building
Inspector Town Administrator 20 1 X
20. Expand training budget to 2% of personnel budget Town Trustees 21 3 X
BUILDING DIVISION
21. Reduce the number of amendments to the “I” codes Chief Building Official 23 2 X
22. Clearly communicate existence and process for Building
Code Appeals Board Chief Building Official 23 2 X
23. Building Code Appeals Board to meet no later than 14
days after appeal Chief Building Official 23 3 X
24. Cross train all Building Division staff Chief Building Official 24 3 X
25. Use overtime and stand-by consultants when necessary
to meet performance standards Chief Building Official 25 2 X
26. Adopt policy to prohibit outside plan preparation by
Department staff Chief Building Official 25 3 X
27. Analyze possible use of Impact Fees Planning Division 27 3 X
28. Review building permit fees and decide on subsidy Chief Building Official and
Town Trustees 28 3 X
29. Discuss with Contractors Association number of plan
comments Chief Building Official 29 1 X
30. Set plan re-check timelines of 2 days residential and 4
days commercial Chief Building Official 30 1 X
31. Set residential remodel timeline of 5 days and 10 days
for commercial TIs Chief Building Official 30 1 X
32. Develop handout for over-the-counter permits Chief Building Official 30 3 X
33. Meet performance standards 90% of the time Chief Building Official 31 1 X
34. All departments or divisions reviewing building permits
to meet same performance standards
Chief Building Official and
Town Administrator 31 1 X
35. Prepare checklist showing commercial inspections Building Inspector 32 3 X
36. Take stronger role in coordinating Certificates of
Occupancy Chief Building Official 33 2 X
37. Make next day inspection 95% of the time Building Inspector 33 1 X
38. Add email address request to Sign Application form Plans Examiner 33 2 X
PLANNING FUNCTION
39. Consider creating a Senior Planner position Town Administrator 34 3 X
40. By pass Planning Commission for Boundary Line
Adjustments
Community Development
Department, Planning
Commission, Town Trustees
and County Board
37 3 X
41. Resolve a variety of processing timing issues Community Development
Department 37 2 X
42. Simplify planning sign offs for Building Permits Community Development
Department and County 38 3 X
Estes Park 9 Zucker Systems
# Recommendation Responsibility Page Priority Phase One Actions Phase Two Actions 43. Review building plans for zoning conformance within
two working days Planning Division 38 3 X
44. Determine number of copies for BOA application as part
of the Sketch Plan process
Community Development
Department 40 2 X
45. Distribute copies to affected agencies at time of
application Planning Division 40 1 X
46. Notify public of BOA items as soon as it is clear they will
go to public hearing Planning Division 40 2 X
47.
Reduce number of BOA cases and timelines either by
ordinance amendment or delegating smaller cases to
staff
Planning Division and Board
of Adjustment 40 2 X
48. Substantially change process for staff approved
Development Plans to shorten timelines Planning Division 42 1 X
49. Prepare a formal planning work program Community Development
Director 43 1 X
50. Modify process for items going to the Planning
Commission
Community Development
Department 45 1 X
51. Modify Final Plat process Community Development
Department 46 1 X
52. Review employee questionnaires as part of staff
meeting
Community Development
Director 49 2 X
53. Engineering/Public Works Director and the Town
Administrator to review customer questionnaires
Engineering/Public Works
Director and Town
Administrator
61 1 X
54.
Community Development and Engineering/Public Works
to meet to discuss the negative responses to customer
survey
Community Development
Department and
Engineering/Public Works
Department.
62 1 X
55. Review customer questionnaire responses and
determine improvement areas
Community Development
Department 64 1 X
Before the Town begins implementing this study, we suggest that it take the following
action.
1. Recommendation: The Town Administrator and the Director of the
Community Development Department should review the study and agree
on an implementation plan, which should include:
An agreed-upon timetable and work program.
Costs estimates and method of funding.
Confirmation by the Mayor and the Town Board of Trustees.
The Community Development Department already has many important tasks they are
undertaking and may find the 55 recommendations overwhelming. However, as
improvements take place and staff becomes empowered to change, the Town may be
surprised at how fast implementation can occur.
Estes Park 10 Zucker Systems
3. ISSUES RELATED TO ENTIRE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
A. ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING
Overview
The Community Development Department is one of 13 Town Departments. It has a
staff of seven organized in two divisions and headed by a Director. The Director
previously reported to the Town Administrator but through a recent change, now
reports to the Deputy Town Administrator. The staff organization is shown in Figure
2 and staff responsibilities are shown in Table 2.
Figure 2
Community Development Organization
Director
Planner II Planner II
Administrative
Assistant
Chief Building
Official
Plans
Examiner
Building
Inspector
Estes Park 11 Zucker Systems
Table 2
Community Development Staffing
Intergovernmental Planning and Development
Planning in Estes Park is unusual by national standards in that the Town and Larimer
County established the Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) by
Intergovernmental Agreement effective September 16, 1997. This agreement
delegated planning for the Estes Valley planning area to the Planning Commission
with final actions by the Town Board and Larimer County Commissioners. While
unusual, this approach is not without national precedence. Zucker Systems has
worked with and analyzed joint city/county planning organizations throughout the
country and found 75 of them.
The Estes Park Planning Commission and the Larimer County Planning Commission
adopted the joint Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan in 1996. Additionally, a joint
Estes Valley Development Code was adopted by the Town and County in 2000.
An additional Intergovernmental Agreement was adopted on February 1, 2000. This
agreement:
Incorporated the prior agreement.
Established a joint Board of Adjustment.
Established certain annexation agreements or procedures.
Established staffing for the EVDC by the Town’s Community Development
Department (CDD) along with some financial contributions by the County.
Classification
Number of
Positions Responsibilities Reports To
Director 1 Manages Department
Deputy Town
Administrator
Chief Building
Official 1
Manages the building permit and inspection function. Conducts
plan checks and inspections as needed, handles small over-the-
counter permits, handles some of the complex inspections,
conducts inspections for overflow workload.
Community
Development
Director
Plans Examiner 1
Reviews all building plans, issues sign permits, helps with daily
traffic and is cross trained to handle a few building inspections.
Chief Building
Official
Building Inspector 1 Inspects all construction and handles inspection data entry.
Chief Building
Official
Planner II 2
Reviews all planning applications, presents reports to Planning
Commission, Board of Adjustment, Town Board and County
Board.
Community
Development
Director
Administrative
Assistant 1
All office management functions, minutes for the Planning
Commission and Board of Adjustment.
Community
Development
Director
Estes Park 12 Zucker Systems
Specified that the CDD shall provide code enforcement of the EVDC within
the Planning Area.
Related functions remain separate within the Town and the County including
Flood Plain Regulations, Sign Regulation, Building Permits, Engineering, and
Drainage.
The Agreement shall remain in force and effect for a period of ten years from its
effective date meaning a new or extended agreement will be required by February 1,
2010. The above approach is excellent and the agreement should be continued.
2. Recommendation: The joint Town/County planning for the Estes Valley
planning area should be continued and the Intergovernmental Agreement
should be renewed.
As noted previously, we believe the Town and County approach through the
Intergovernmental Agreement is excellent. Through our national study, we are well
aware of the political and governmental issues that arise through such cooperative
arrangements. While outside the scope of this current study, there may be benefits in
relation to efficiency, customer service and implementation of the Comprehensive
Plan by expanding the functions covered in the current Intergovernmental Agreement.
First priority could be to have the Community Development Department assume the
building permit and inspection function in the entire planning area. This would be a
relatively easy shift and one found in a number of other communities. More difficult,
but perhaps still worth considerations would be some modifications related to the
engineering functions.
3. Recommendation: As the Intergovernmental agreement is extended,
consideration should be given to possibly adding functions to the
Agreement, particularly responsibility for building permits and
inspection.
Town Organizational Structure
There are many ways to organize the planning and development functions for small
communities. However, we virtually always recommend that a Community
Development Department be created to handle planning activities, review of
applications for development, building plan review and building inspection. This
matches the current organizational structure in Estes Park and should be continued.
There are other related functions that are often included in Community Development
Departments. This contract did not include an analysis of such functions but we will
highlight them here for possible future study by the Town. These functions include:
Estes Park 13 Zucker Systems
Redevelopment
Housing
Code Enforcement
The Code Enforcement function was moved from the Community Development
Department to the Town Police Department in August 2007. We are not certain how
this relates to the Intergovernmental Agreement which places this function in the
Community Development Department. While there are a few cities that place code
enforcement in the Police Department, this is clearly not the norm.
We received numerous comments from Community Development staff concerning
having code enforcement in the Police Department. They see code enforcement as
“being behind locked doors”, lacks a good working relation with the building and
planning functions and enforcement tends to be slow and lax. We also received a few
complaints from the focus groups. We were not under contract to review this function
so our comments are not based on a direct analysis but on second-hand information.
We do note that the sign enforcement function has been moved back to Community
Development.
4. Recommendation: In the future, should the Town consider organizational
changes, consideration should be given to the possible merging of
Redevelopment, Housing, Code Enforcement, and Community
Development.
B. COMMUNICATION
General Public, Elected and Appointed Official
Staff indicated some concerns about overall communication with the general public as
well as with elected and appointed officials. One option would be for an occasional
open house or public training session about planning and building. Opportunities for
an inspector ride-along or a Town tour related to Planning and Development could be
useful. For example, we were given a one hour tour of the Town and found it very
enlightening about various Town planning and development issues. This would be a
good education tool for citizens.
Based on our various interviews, there is a particular need to close the communication
gaps between elected and appointed officials and the Department. The direction of the
Town and philosophy has evidently been changing which has created some
communication gaps.
Estes Park 14 Zucker Systems
5. Recommendation: The Community Development Department should
consider additional communication opportunities.
Customer Office Visits
Drop in customers generally expect to be able to talk with a knowledgeable staff
person. While the Community Development Department appears to do a reasonably
good job at being available, there are times where planning or building staff are not
available. Since the Department has three planners and three building staff, the goal
should be to have at least one planner and one building staff available in the office at
all times the office is open.
6. Recommendation: The Community Development Department should
attempt to have one planner and one building staff available in the office
at all times the office is open to the public.
Handouts, Forms and Web Site
The Department has numerous handouts and an extensive web page. Overall, these
are a good start. Communication enhancements should emphasize helping those less
familiar with the development review process, such as citizens and first-time or only-
one-time developers. Some of the handouts need additional graphics or clarified text
to help explain key concepts, and some of the terminology being used should be
changed. For example, many of the documents refer to the Building Department
rather than the Building Division. A few documents refer to the Zoning Ordinance
rather than the Development Code. Similarly, the website could benefit from an
enhanced process chart that includes all phases of the review process from pre-
application to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The present process chart gives
an incomplete picture since it fails to show any review steps beyond the public
hearing. We were also told that at times the website is not up-to date. Additionally,
care must be taken so that the handouts and the website match precisely.
Given the lower volume of development applications, this is also a good time to
review all the handouts and forms. Staff suggested amongst others the following:
Fencing is incorrect and needs updating.
Building height needs improvement.
Condo handout is confusing.
Improve illustrations. In some cases, incorporate the more elaborate
illustrations already found in the Development Code.
Estes Park 15 Zucker Systems
The Building Division needs clarification regarding what specific information
should be included in setback and elevation certificates. Some concerns related
to this topic were also indicated in the contractor’s focus group.
A good citizen oriented handout explaining the various aspects of the Town’s
development process.
7. Recommendation: Department documents, handouts and the web site
should use appropriate terms and be completely up-to-date. New handouts
and revisions should be completed as appropriate.
Meetings
Although meetings can be overdone, properly done, they are still a good source of
communication. We note the following:
There is a standing meeting every Friday at 10 a.m. between Community
Development and Public Works. This is excellent and should be continued.
The Town Administrator meets with Community Development on a quarterly
basis. This is excellent and should be continued.
There are no standing Department-wide or Division meetings. It was suggested
that the Department is so small that when they need a meeting they just call
one. However, we believe a standard monthly or bi-weekly meeting of the
entire Department could be useful. Topics for this meeting could include the
relations between the Building and Planning Division, the Department’s
Mission, and a variety of training opportunities.
8. Recommendation: The Community Development Department should
consider starting a monthly or bi-weekly standing Department-wide staff
meeting.
Phone Calls and Emails
Unlike most of our studies, we did not receive customer complaints about staff not
returning phone calls and emails. Nevertheless, we think it’s useful for the
Department to have a well understood policy. The informal policy appears to be that
all calls be returned the same day. However, the Building Division’s informal policy
appears to be that only calls received before noon need to be answered that day. Our
suggestion is that all phone calls and emails be returned the same day received
irrespective of when they come in, i.e. no one goes home at night until all phone calls
and emails have been returned. While most staff appear to be responsive to phone
Estes Park 16 Zucker Systems
calls and emails, we did get feedback that one or two staff may be less so than others.
The Director should emphasize the importance of this policy with all staff.
9. Recommendation: The Department should have a policy that all phone
calls and emails be returned the same day received.
C. MANAGEMENT AND MISSION
The Mission of the Community Development Department is:
The mission of the Community Development Department is to adhere to a high
standard of professional expertise and ethical conduct, while providing a high
level technical service to the citizens of the Estes Park. This includes a
commitment to efficient, fair, consistent, and timely execution of Departmental
responsibilities in the administration of the adopted Codes and Zoning
Regulations of Estes Park, and also the recognition that friendly, accessible
customer relations are fundamental to maintaining the small town quality of
life that our resident and visitors enjoy and expect. This mission must be
accomplished within the context of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, with
the goal of protecting and enhancing the natural and man-made physical
character of Estes Park for future generations.
Overall, this is a useful mission but it seems like the long range planning
responsibilities of the Department could benefit from additional emphasis.
Managing a Community Development Department is a difficult task in most
communities. It is particularly difficult in a community like Estes Park where
different factions in the community want different things. Various people we
interviewed characterize the Town like this:
There are basically two groups; one is the retirees (45%) who want little
change, the rest is everyone else.
Another suggested that it is mostly the “newbies” that don’t want change.
Several suggested that the Planning Commission and Board of Trustees are
getting more active and staff has not yet adjusted to the new style. There is also
a relatively new Town Administrator and Mayor.
One faction is simply people who are anti-government.
We received numerous comments concerning the management direction of the
Department including:
The Department is not adequately working on planning tasks or long range
planning, there is a lack of vision.
Estes Park 17 Zucker Systems
Additional attention to Planning Commission and Board of Trustees goals
would be helpful.
There appears to be inconsistency in code interpretations.
It appears that increased communication between the Department, Town
Administration, Planning Commission, and Board of Trustees would be helpful.
10. Recommendation: The Community Development Department should take
a more aggressive role in communicating with the Town Administration,
Planning Commission and Town Trustees with a focus on setting clear
priorities for the Department.
D. STAFFING
A normal approach to staffing analysis starts with the calculation of billable hours.
These are the actual hours employees are available for work as shown in Table 3. A
40 hour work week results in 2080 hours. Holidays, vacation, and sick leave are
deducted from this along with two 15 minute breaks per day. Additionally, since
virtually no one is 100% efficient we normally use 80%. As can be seen in the table,
this means that Community Development employees are available from a low of 1289
hours per year to a high of 1455. Current work load volumes and the lack of data on
staff time per tasks did not make it possible to use this information for this study.
However, the data can be used in the future for staff analysis.
Table 3
Billable Hour Analysis
E. TECHNOLOGY
The Department has a good color copy machine and printer, uses dual screens for
most computers, has standard office space and related equipment, and has access to a
large scanner in Public Works. Various staff have begun scanning records and
Floating Holidays 242424242424 6
Vacation 160 146 114 10 149 232 42
Sick Leave 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Net 1790 1804 1836 1940 1801 1718 1926
Breaks 112 113 115 121 113 107 120
Second Net 1678 1691 1721 1819 1688 1611 1806
80% 1343 1353 1377 1455 1351 1289 1445
Estes Park 18 Zucker Systems
creating electronic files which is excellent. However, there are a variety of areas that
need improvement including:
Copy Machine
The Community Development Department has a high volume of paperwork.
New copy machines continue to introduce many features that are substantial
time savers. The Department’s current lease is up in March 2010 so this would
be an ideal time to examine the possible up-grading of equipment.
11. Recommendation: A careful review of new copy machines should be
undertaken before the Department undertakes a new lease in March 2010.
Files
The Community Development functions are very paper intensive and the
Department is running out of file space. The traditional government response
has been simply to buy more file cabinets. Some of the staff, virtually on their
own, have begun to scan documents and use electronic documents when
possible. However, changes in the permitting systems and likely GIS will also
be required to begin to move to the paperless office. Additionally, if electronic
plans are submitted, there is need for large screens, plan check software, and
staff training to make an efficient system. A policy and approach for all Town
departments may be needed to address this issue.
12. Recommendation: Town Administration should develop a Town-wide
approach and policy related to electronic files and filing systems.
Main Phone Line: The main phone line comes into the Administrative
Assistant’s phone but there is no way for her to know if staff is on their lines.
An expanded phone should be available for this station.
13. Recommendation: The Department should up-grade a phone to include
multiple lines for the Administrative Assistant.
GIS: The Town’s GIS system was started as part of the Comprehensive Plan
process. Planning and Public Works share ESRI products which is excellent
software. The Town and County share a base map. Public Works has a GIS
technician that is partially available to Community Development. Within
Community Development, the Director has different GIS access than doe the
two planners. This appears to be a licensing or software issue that should be
corrected.
It also appears that the GIS layers need to be improved or added. For example,
Estes Park 19 Zucker Systems
we were told that the Town does not have an up-to-date street map or zoning
map. These are normal features of a good GIS system. There also appears to be
confusion with some addressing, particularly in the County area and staff may
have to access multiple sources. Most communities now use GIS as the basic
source for addressing. A good GIS system is used by other Town functions in
addition to Community Development and should receive attention at a high
level.
14. Recommendation: The GIS software should be up-graded so the entire
Community Development Department has the same software.
15. Recommendation: The information available in the GIS system should be
reviewed with layers corrected and new layers added as appropriate.
MS Office: Different staff within Community Development have a different
version of MS Office. Additionally, Town Administration and Public Works
have their software up-dated on a different schedule from Community
Development. These different systems can create efficiency and
communication issues. A better approach is to up-date all related systems and
software at the same time.
16. Recommendation: The Town should have the same MS Software for all
related functions.
Web Site: Staff complain that the web site is frequently out of date or has
incorrect information. This could relate to inadequate policy on up-dating, lack
of training, or lack of staff time. We were also told that the current website up-
date software (Front Page) is a relatively old version which could also
complicate the issues. Solving this is beyond the scope of this study but it does
appear to warrant attention. Out-of-date information on the website should
never be allowed.
17. Recommendation: The Department should adopt new procedures to assure
that the web site is up-to-date at all times.
Permitting System: The Department uses a permitting system called PT Win.
This is an older, outdated and limited system that is not well supported. The
national trend in permitting is to go to the paperless office where permits are
accepted electronically, plans are distributed and plan checked electronically,
processes are monitored and end files are all electronic. This also will require
Estes Park 20 Zucker Systems
the Town to accept credit cards over the Internet. The Department has been
trying to move into more electronic files and has done a good job of cobbling
together several approaches with limited resources. For example, the
Department now is sending affected agency mailings via email rather than hard
copy.
Ideally, PT Win would be replaced by a more contemporary and robust system.
However, such systems are not inexpensive and can be difficult to install. We
recently assisted a small city with 15 employees purchase and install a new
system at a rough cost of $500,000. For Estes Park the cost could easily be
$100,000. Given Estes Park’s low volume of development activity and current
budget issues, this would not appear to be a practical solution.
We also understand that roughly two years ago PT Win released a new up-
graded version called URSA. It appears that this system could be purchased in
the range of $3,600 to $10,000. We have not examined the new systems but the
Town should undertake such a review. As an option, the Town might hire a
technical expert to look at existing systems and electronic efforts by the
Department to determine if less expensive fixes are available or if the new PT
Win should be purchased. For example, our technology expert, or similar
consultants could likely conduct such a survey at a reasonable cost of $5,000 to
$10,000.
18. Recommendation: The Town’s IT Department or a consultant should
conduct a review of the permitting and related systems for the Community
Development Department. This should include a review on the new
version of PT Win.
Field Computers: A high percent of communities are now equipping their
building inspectors with field computers and printers. This can substantially
increase productivity and assist in records keeping. Although the systems work
best with contemporary permitting systems, we believe such a system can work
with existing Department processes.
19. Recommendation: The Town should purchase a field computer and printer
for the Building Inspector.
F. TRAINING
Both the planners and building staff have pursued a variety of training activities,
mostly in relation to state and national organizations. There is a Mountain Town
Estes Park 21 Zucker Systems
Planners conference that would always be useful for the planners. Additional GIS
training would be helpful. Building staff need training as related to the proposed new
codes. As a rule of thumb we suggest that 2% of the personnel budget be set aside for
training. The ISO review of building departments suggests 2% of the entire budget.
As a percent of the personnel budget, the 2010 Town budget indicates 1.3% for the
planning positions and 1.5% for the building positions.
20. Recommendation: The budget should be modified to provide 2% of the
personnel budget for training.
Estes Park 22 Zucker Systems
4. BUILDING DIVISION
A. POSITIVE FINDINGS
The following are positive findings for the Building Division:
The staff is well qualified, particularly for a small community.
The plan check standard timelines are good.
Next day inspections with a 4 p.m. cut off are good.
Combination inspections are used.
A comprehensive email list of stakeholders related to the Building Division
functions.
Use of a Checklist for plan review.
Staff is actively involved with industry peers and associations.
A score of 3.0 on The Insurance Services Office, Inc analysis in 2006.
B. ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES
Current and Proposed Codes
The Town currently operates with the following codes:
International Building Code (IBC), 2003 Edition.
International Existing Building Code (IEBC), 2003 Edition.
International Mechanical Code (IMC), 2003 Edition.
International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC), 2003 Edition.
International Plumbing Code (IPC), 2003 Edition.
International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), 2003 Edition.
National Electrical Code (NEC), 2005 Edition.
Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), adopted November 3, 1999;
effective February 2000.
The Town has also adopted a number of local amendments to these codes.
The Department is currently in the process of recommending the adoption of eight
specific 2009 International Codes, with amendments. The new Colorado Energy Code
will also be important. A variety of meetings are being held with the industry to
discuss these codes along with a variety of training opportunities. The Department has
Estes Park 23 Zucker Systems
developed a comprehensive email list to assist in communication of these issues. This
is generally a good process which is far superior to the prior code adoption where
industry indicated that they were not adequately aware of everything being proposed.
Local Code Amendments
The Town has currently adopted 85 pages of local amendments to the codes. This is
much more than what we recommend or the norm. It creates problems for contractors
and developers who work in multiple communities and also makes the use of stand-by
consultants for plan check and inspection more difficult. Additionally, it adds to staff
training issues. The national goal is to reduce local amendments as much as possible.
The amendments we were given were for the 2003 versions of the “I” Code. Possible
amendments to the proposed 2009 I Code are currently being discussed. Many of the
amendments for the 2003 code simply repeated almost exactly the code language and
thus simply created confusion for the customers. We are not able to do a detailed
analysis of all the amendments but recommend the number for the 2009 code be
substantially reduced.
21. Recommendation: The Building Division and Town should work to reduce
the number of local amendments to the I codes.
Board of Appeals
The Town has a Building Board of Appeals as specified in the current adopted codes
and is proposing the same in the new codes. The applicant focus groups members
indicated they were not aware of the Board, who is on it, or the processes. Given the
industry concerns about some of the Building Division interpretations, it is important
that the industry understand the process. Additionally, we note that the current process
appears to require the Board to meet within 10 days of the filing of an appeal while
the proposed language specifies that “written notice of hearing shall be given to all
parties concerned at least fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing. It is possible that
these could mean the same thing, one being working days and another calendar days.
In any case, we believe the meeting should be held no later than 14 calendar days
after an appeal.
22. Recommendation: The existence of a Building Code Appeals Board and its
processes should be clearly communicated to the public and the industry
including reference on the web site and in handouts.
23. Recommendation: The Building Code Appeals Board should meet no later
than 14 calendar days following an appeal.
Estes Park 24 Zucker Systems
ISO Review
The national Insurance Services Office, Inc. rate every community’s building function
periodically for assisting in setting insurance rates. This is an insurance underwriting
and information tool and is not intended to analyze all aspects of a comprehensive
building code enforcement program. Nevertheless, it is one source the Town can use
in analyzing the building permit and inspection program.
The last analysis was sent to the Town on May 8, 2006. Communities are rated on a
scale of 1 to 10 with one being the best. Estes Park received a rating of 3 which is a
good rating. We occasionally see ratings of 1 or 2 but not very often. Several points
are of interest in the ratings including:
The maximum possible points were received in relation to the codes.
ISO uses 2% of the operating budget as a target for training so the Town
received only 9.6 points out of a possible 13.3.
Certification of employees was generally satisfactory but with the desire for a
comprehensive examination of the performance in certified areas.
The Building Official received a score of 3 out of a possible 4 due to the lack
of a Masters degree.
Design professional received a score of 0 out of a possible 2, since there are no
registered architects or engineers on staff.
Contractor licensing and bonding received a score of .25 out of a possible 1.0.
Staff participation in public awareness programs and in code development
activities received a score of 2.7 out of a possible 3.0.
Policies and procedures had a score of .20 out of a possible .20.
Plan Review scored high with a combined score of 21.6 out of a possible 23
which is excellent.
Field Inspection had a combined score of 20.62 out of a possible 23 which is
excellent.
Staffing
The three staff of the Building Division have excellent credentials with many of the
desired certifications. Given the small number of staff it is helpful if all staff is
qualified for permit intake, plan check and inspection. To some extent, this is already
the case, however, additional cross training and certification is possible.
24. Recommendation: The Building Division should continue and where
feasible expand having all staff cross trained and certified for plan intake,
plan check, and inspection.
Estes Park 25 Zucker Systems
It is not practical to conduct a detailed staffing analysis with the current low volume
of activity. The staff has already been reduced by the elimination of a Permit
Technician. Should activity levels fall even lower, it is possible that a staff of two
would be sufficient. However, if budgets allow, it is useful to retain the current
staffing levels. Should activity levels return to higher levels as previously
experienced, the three staff should be sufficient to handle the agreed upon
performance standards for both plan check and next day inspection. Should this not be
possible, the use of overtime or stand-by consulting plan checkers and inspectors
should be used, rather than adding to the staff.
There is no given ratio for the staff in a building division. However for medium sizes
cities it is common to have four (4) or five (5) inspector, one (1) Plan Checker, one
(1) or two (2) counter techs one (1) clerical person and a Building Official. For most
small cities the Building Official is often the Plan Checker or he or she will send out
the plans to a consultant for review.
25. Recommendation: Use of overtime and stand-by consultants should be
used as necessary to meet plan check performance standards and next day
inspections.
In the past, the Plan Checker was authorized to do private plan drawings so long as it
was for projects outside the Town. However, this could result in a conflict of interest
if the same developer was also developing in the Town. Although no such contracts
are currently underway, the Division should develop a new policy to prohibit such
activity.
26. Recommendation: The Building Division should develop a policy to
prohibit outside plan preparation by Town Plan Checkers.
Permit Activity
Five years of Building Permit activity is shown in Table 4. The five year average for
major permits was 98 permits ranging between a low of 57 to a high of 167. The
estimate for 2009 at 21 permits is a 78 percent drop from the five year average and
75% drop from 2008. . Similar data is not available for the minor activities but the
three year average is 543 permits with a low of 530 and a high of 559. The estimate
for 2009 at 420 permits is a drop of 27 percent from the five year average and a 25%
drop from 2008.
Estes Park 26 Zucker Systems
Table 4
Building Permit Activity
We plotted three years of permit data on Figure 3 to examine peak periods. As can be
seen, and as would be expected, the winter months have the lowest amount of permit
activity. The Department needs to always be prepared for the peak summer seasons
and handle staffing accordingly.
Type of Permit 2004** 2005** 2006 2007 2008 2009*
2009
Est.**
Single Family 45 45 32 37 17 12 16
Duplex 26 18 9 14 10 4 5
Multi-Family 12 43 8 18 51 0 0
Commercial 15 61 8 17 6 0 0
Sub-total for major 98 167 57 86 84 21
% Change +70%- -66% 51% 12% -75%
Res. Add/Alt/Conv 268 309 325 146 200
Footing & Foundation 118968
Comm. Add/Alt/Conv 113 118 127 67 92
Footing & Foundation 65211
Grading Permits 7 10 7 4 5
Demolition Permits 3 22 22 6 8
Floodplain Dev. Permits 14445
Sign Permits 84 98 121 61 63 80*** 101
Sub-total for minor 530 537 559 420
% Change 1% 4% -25%
Grand Total 587 623 643 620
*Eight months only
***9.5 months
**Data taken from different source and may not be consistent with the 2006 and later data. Data is
estimated based on 2008 percentages
Estes Park 27 Zucker Systems
Figure 3
Monthly Permit Activity
Fees
The County has impact fees but the Town does not. However, we understand that this
topic is currently being discussed by the Town. Given the County and Town’s joint
approach to the planning area, it would seem rational to have similar impact fees in
both areas.
27. Recommendation: The Town should continue its analysis of the possible
use of Impact Fees.
Building permit and sign fees in much of the country pay 100% of the costs plus
overhead and in some cases even produce excess revenue. In the past the Town has
chosen to subsidize these fees. In 2008 the fees covered 78% of direct cost, 51% in
2009, 40% in 2009 revised budget and are projected at 36% in 2010. This trend can be
read in two ways. Either the fees are too low or at the current rate of activity, staffing
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberPermits# of permitsBuilding Permit Summary
2008
2007
2006
Estes Park 28 Zucker Systems
and costs are too high. Given the likely return to higher activity levels over the next
few years and the difficulty in attracting and retaining quality staff, we are not
inclined to recommend additional staff reductions at this point in time. We do suggest
that the Town examine its fee structure to see if changes are warranted.
We were told that the County has organized its building permit fees on an Enterprise
Fund basis. Under such systems fees generally cover both direct and indirect costs.
We were unable to examine this in detail. However, a quick review of the County
fees, indicate that they may actually be slightly lower than the Town fees. Given the
relation of the County and Town in the joint planning area, it would normally be
desirable to have the same fee structure cover both areas.
28. Recommendation: The Town should review its building permit fees and
decide how much subsidy is reasonable or desirable and how these fees
should relate to the similar County fees.
C. PLAN CHECK
The Town’s plan check is primarily handled by a Plans Examiner with back-up as
needed by the Chief Building Official. In the past, some consultants have also been
hired to do plan check during times of high activity.
The process being used is relatively standard and has the following features:
Handouts: The Division has numerous handouts and forms for various
construction types. A handout and checklist indicates the number of plans
required along with plan details. These are available in hard copy in the lobby
and many are on the web site. These are more extensive than we find in many
communities.
Permit Intake: A Permit Tech has previously taken in permits and handled the
process, however this position was eliminated and the activity is now spread
over several people. Permits cannot be applied for electronically over the
Internet although this is new direction being followed in many communities.
The Technician had prepared a useful policy and procedures manual.
Plan Review Checklist: The Plan Checker has and uses a Residential Plan
Review Checklist and is in the process of preparing one for commercial. This
is a good feature recommended by the ISO review but many communities and
plan checkers do not use them.
Comments on Plans: Once the plans are checked a memo is emailed or faxed
to the applicant indicating changes required to the plans. We reviewed several
of these memos. One was for a house and included 16 correction items.
Another was for a residential remodel and included 20 main items. However, it
Estes Park 29 Zucker Systems
included 46 sub-items. A third single family house had 31 items. The last one
reviewed was for a commercial establishment and included 74 items.
We had our CBO read the plan check comments and he had the following
observations:
3 I read the plan check comments/question list and yes they ask for a lot.
However, it also appears that the questions that are asked are not very clear. I
understand what is being asked but only because I have been doing this a long
time.
3 The questions (not comments or corrections) are just that in the form of a
question and should be in a form of a statement or correction letting the
contractor know exactly what is being asked for and what is incorrect. I would
suggest that they be a little more direct with the plan review correction notice
and not be so round about which leads to a lot of more corrections and a lot of
more time spent on the plan check process.
3 I think their format is wrong and not clear enough. All the corrections
and/or questions asked might be correct but a lot of the items requested could
be handled in the general notes section of the plans and some seem to be a little
nitpicky.
The Contractors Association and our focus groups believe that too much detail
is being required on the plans. They indicate that the detail is much more
extensive than required in other jurisdictions. Staff indicates that they have
added items to the plans that have traditionally been problems in field
inspection. While it does appear that comments are more detailed than we
often see, they do cover important code items. A dialogue has begun between
the Contractors Association and staff to try to resolve these issues.
29. Recommendation: Staff should continue discussions with the Contractors
Association with the possible outcome being to reduce the number of plan
correction comments and details required on the plans.
Timelines: Timelines have been set for plan review of 10 working days for
residential first review and 20 working days for commercial first review. The
focus groups indicated that these are acceptable timelines so long as they are
consistently met. They indicated a number of instances where that has not been
the case. These timelines are within normal industry standards, however a few
communities use five days for residential and 10 or 15 for commercial. Most
plans require at least a second check and no standard has been set for these
checks, although staff indicate that they are normally completed in a few days.
Estes Park 30 Zucker Systems
There are no separate timelines set for re-models and additions or commercial
tenant improvements. These should be processed faster than the new work. We
suggest five days for most residential and 10 days for most commercial. These
are not code requirements but are standards that we feel should be met.
Finally, a variety of minor permits are actually handled over-the-counter. This
is a good feature which we highly support. However, a clear list should be
established to indicate which projects are available for this service.
The current written policy is “The length of time required for plan review
depends on the level of construction activity in the Town at the time of
submittal.” This is not a good policy. Instead, we recommend that all timelines
be met 90% of the time. Whenever it becomes clear that workload or staffing
will not allow meeting this timeline, overtime or stand-by consultants should
be used.
We checked the actual records for the last seven months of plan check for nine
single family houses. The average time for first check was 19.4 days which
exceeds the stated 10 day standard. Only 10.5% met the 10 day standard.
Second checks were generally completed in two days which is excellent.
During June of this time period, both the CBO and the Plan Checker were
gone.
We also checked actual records for the last four months of plan check for eight
minor permits. The average time for first plan check was 4.7 days. Seven of the
eight plan checks made the 10 day standard or 87.5%. Second checks were
completed in one or two days.
30. Recommendation: The timelines for plan check first check should be 10
working days for new residential and 20 days for new commercial. Re-
checks should be two days for residential and four days for commercial.
31. Recommendation: The timelines for residential remodels or additions for
plan check first check should be five working days and 10 days for
commercial tenant improvements with two days for any re-check.
32. Recommendation: A policy and handout should be prepared indicating the
plans and permits that can be reviewed and issued over-the-counter.
Estes Park 31 Zucker Systems
33. Recommendation: Performance standards should be met 90% of the time
and overtime or stand by consultants should be used when it appears the
standards cannot be met.
Other Division or Department Reviews: In addition to Building Division
review, reviews are generally required by the Planning Division, Engineering
Department, Water Department, Light and Power Department, Health
Department and Sanitation Department. All of these reviews should be
coordinated by the Building Division and each reviewing Division or
Department should meet the same or lesser review times than the Building
Division.
34. Recommendation: All Divisions or Departments reviewing building
permits should meet the same standards being used by the Building
Division. These reviews should be coordinated by the Building Division.
Pre-Construction Checklist and Meeting: Once plans are approved, the Plan
Checker prepares a pre-construction checklist and a preconstruction meeting is
held. This is a good procedure.
D. BUILDING INSPECTION
The Town’s building inspection is primarily handled by one building inspector with
back-up by the Chief Building Official as needed. In the past, some consultants have
also been hired to do inspection during times of high activity.
The process being used is relatively standard and has the following features:
Customer Service: The approach is customer service oriented, educating and
working with customers.
Progress Inspections: In additions to normal inspections used in many
communities, the Inspector on request will also do progress inspections.
Inspection Call In: Inspections are called in and recorded on a special line. If
requests are made by 4 p.m. an attempt is made for the next day inspection.
Next day inspections are a national norm and should be completed at least 95%
of the time.
Equipment: The inspector has a Town vehicle and cell phone which is good
and standard. Many communities are now using field computers and printers
which substantially increase efficiency and record keeping. A recommendation
for this appears earlier in this report.
Estes Park 32 Zucker Systems
Inspection: One set of plans is left at the job site for use by the Inspector. A
hand printed Inspection Record is left on the site after inspection. This record
is scanned into electronic files at the end of the day. In addition to looking at
building code issues, the Inspector will examine items related to the
Development Code and contact the Planning Division as issues arise.
Occasionally he may also note a Public Works issue and contact Public Works.
If an inspection is called but the site is not ready, a re-inspection fee may be
charged. This is a standard feature used by many communities.
The inspector is a combination inspector which is excellent. Electrical
inspections are done by the State. They have an inspector at a desk in Public
Works on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. This process appears to work
fine.
The Division has a handout indicating 45 required residential inspections.
However, many of these can be made at the same time. As an example when
you do a framing inspection you also look at the rough electric, rough
plumbing, rough mechanical and so on. When you do an electrical inspection
(for a house as an example) you inspect the rough electric, meter box, ground
wire, bonding wire, wire sizes, wire attachments to the studs, the protection of
the wire installation etc.. So a lot of the listed inspections are completed or
looked at while other items are also being inspected. Cities often do this to
keep tract of everything that is inspected (since most of these items are
required by the codes to be inspected) and utilize these numbers for activities
reports, and other reports and for budgeting information
No checklist exists for commercial. We believe checklists are helpful and a
similar list should be prepared for commercial projects.
35. Recommendation: A checklist should be prepared listing required
commercial inspections. This should be worked out in consultation with
the industry.
Certificate of Occupancy: After a final inspection, Building may issue a
Certificate of Occupancy, however, before doing so the applicant is required to
get approval of other local government departments such as Planning,
Engineering, Health, etc. While this approach is used by many communities,
we believe a better approach is for Building to indicate the other Divisions or
Departments that a Certificate is ready to be issued and ask for their approval.
The applicant is involved only where there are exceptions.
The Division has a Final Inspection checklist which is a good process.
Estes Park 33 Zucker Systems
36. Recommendation: The Building Division should take a more active role in
coordinating all Divisions or Departments in relation to Certificates of
Occupancy.
Workload: The current inspection workload is two to nine site visits per day
which can be multiple inspections. During busy time up to 15 per day were
made but some of these were rushed. A normal target would be 12 to 13 per
day. The key is to always conduct next day inspection.
37. Recommendation: Next day inspection should be made 95% of the time.
When these cannot be made the Building Official or Plan Checker should
help out or stand-by consultants and overtime should be used.
E. SIGNS
The Building Division has been in charge of issuing sign permits but not enforcement.
However, recently the sign enforcement function was moved to the Building Division.
There is an application form for sign permits which are issued over-the-counter. The
form does not include a place for an email address and that should be corrected.
38. Recommendation: The request for an email address should be added to the
Sign Application form.
In the past sign enforcement has been by complaint only. However, the Town
Administrator and Trustees have indicated a desire for a more pro-active type of sign
enforcement. The lack of uniform enforcement was also discussed as a problem in the
citizen’s focus group. A Sign Code Task Force has been working on the sign issues
and has issued a Summary report. It is clear that the new direction and enforcement
will entail additional workload but the amount will not be clear until pro-active
enforcement is underway. Given current workloads, the Division can likely absorb
this additional work, however, over time some supplemental staff could be required.
Estes Park 34 Zucker Systems
5. PLANNING FUNCTION
A. POSITIVE FINDINGS
The following are positive findings for the Planning function:
The Community Development Director and both Planner II’s all have Masters
Degrees in planning and are all AICP members. This is unusual for small
communities.
The various processes are well laid out and documented, some of the best we
have seen.
Because of the way processes are laid out, timelines are generally met as
advertised.
The Comprehensive Plan and Development Code, while needing up-dating, are
good documents.
Several handouts are available.
B. ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES
Staffing
The Town is fortunate in having two Planner II’s that have master’s degrees in
planning, are AICP members, and each has eight or nine years of experience in Estes
Park. If the Town wants to retain this level of expertise, it may be appropriate to
develop an additional career ladder by creating one or two Senior Planner positions.
The Planner II has a salary range of $4,213 to $5,687 per month. The Senior Planner
position has a range of $4,426 to $5,975. The annual increase would be a low of
$2,556 to a high of $3,456. These are relatively minor amounts and the use of the
Senior Planner class should be considered.
39. Recommendation: The Town should consider creating one or more Senior
Planner positions.
One of the Planners tends to focus on County issues and the other on Town issues,
however there is some interchangeability.
Application Workload
The volume of work and planning applications for the Community Development
Department is shown in Table 5. The three-year average for both the Town and
Estes Park 35 Zucker Systems
County is 95 items with a low of 71 and a high of 130. The estimate of 45 for 2009 is
a reduction of 53% over the three-year average.
We did not attempt to calculate the staff time required for each permit type. However,
in a peak year there were 130 items or 2.5 per week. With two planners this amounted
to an average of 1.25 items per week. This is a relatively low volume of activity and
well within the ability of current staffing levels.
The three-year average for the Town is 52 with a low of 40 and a high of 73. The
estimate of 37 for 2009 is 29% below the three-year average.
The three-year average for the County is 32 with a low of 31 and a high of 34. The
estimate of 8 for 2009 is 75% below the three-year average.
Table 5
Planning Applications in Community Development Department
Decision Authority
The decision authority for various planning and development activities in Estes Park
is shown in Table 6. All items can eventually be appealed to the Town Trustees or
Larimer County Commissioners with the exception of Variances where the Board of
Adjustment is the final authority.
Town Co. Town Co. Town Co. Town Co. Town Co.
Dev. Plans 1341133922233
Sub. Prelim. 60220201010
Sub. Final 56310100000
Amend Sub.or BLD 1293662101111
Condo Prelim. 65110202030
Condo Final 321613184160210
Rezoning 80420500000
PUD 00000000000
Variances 2820610188135374
Misc. 498543551010
Sub-Total 13073314031423428 637 8
% Change -45% 0% 1% 10% -12% -76%
Total Town &
County 130
*Nine months
2009* 2009 Est.
10471763445
Activity
2005 Town
& Co.
2006 2007 2008
-20% -32% 7% -41%
Estes Park 36 Zucker Systems
Table 6
Estes Park Development Decision Authorities
The Community Development Department staff is given initial decision authority on
Building Permits, Change of Street Name, Small Development Plans, Signs,
Temporary Uses, Separate Lot Determinations and Use Classifications.
The Planning Commission is given initial decision authority on Development Plans.
For many other items they serve in a review function.
These processes generally follow national standards and are a good approach. There is
only one item that may be worth changing. Boundary Line Adjustments are reviewed
both by the Planning Commission and Town Board or County Commissioners.
However, like final maps for subdivisions, we see no reason why these need to be
reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Action Pre-App Staff Plan Comm.
Town Board or
County
Commissioners Bd. Of Adj.
Public
Works
Comm.
Amended plat Yes R R D
Annexations Yes R R D
Building permits, comm.. &
mult. family Building may require D
Building permits, single family Building may require D
Boundary line adjustment Voluntary R R D
Change of street name
Building Division
Staff - D R
Code Amendments Yes R R D
Condominium, preliminary Yes R R D
Condominium map,final, supp. Voluntary R no D
Development plan, small, by
right Yes D
Development plan, large, by
right Yes R D
Easement or right-of-way
vacation Yes R D R
Lot Consolidation Land
Consolidation Plat Yes R
No, if plat combines
unplatted parcels D
PUD Yes R R D
PUD, final Voluntary R no D
Rezoning petition Yes R R D
Separate Lot Determinations Voluntary D
R = Review
D = Decision
Estes Park 37 Zucker Systems
40. Recommendation: Boundary Line Adjustments should proceed from Staff
to the elected officials with no need to be reviewed by the Planning
Commission.
C. PROCESS ISSUES
Many of the various processes are outlined in the following sections. The processes
are all detailed in the Development Code and staff has prepared numerous forms and
handouts explaining the process. The timelines are generally pre-set at time of
application and all of this is excellent. We did receive a number of comments from
staff. Although we did not have the opportunity to do independent verification, the
comments are worth noting:
Applications are logged, files created, and then passed on to a planner. This
process does not always take place in a timely basis. Normally, we believe the
planner should receive the file no more than one day after receipt.
It may take several weeks after case completion for cases to be properly filed.
This adds to time needed to find files. A detailed policy and schedule should be
developed for this process.
Public Works is often late in getting reviews back to Community
Development. This may be understandable given the small size of Public
Works staff but can severely impact the process. Additionally, staff indicates
that at times Public Works comments are too vague. Meetings should be held
with Public Works to address these issues.
41. Recommendation: The Community Development Department should
examine and resolve the variety of process timing issues outlined above.
Building Permit Review for Development Plan Conformance
The Department reviews building permits for Development Plan Conformance for
both Town and County building permits. The applicants are required to bring their
plans to the Department for this approval. While applicants have not complained
about this process, it is not the norm. The normal approach is that plans are submitted
to the building department or division and circulated to planning for approval. This
would be easy to accommodate for Town permits, however, County permits present a
different issue, given the location of County offices. However, if the County can scan
the plans and send them electronically, the same process used in the Town could work
for the County.
Estes Park 38 Zucker Systems
42. Recommendation: The Department should review the way planning sign
offs are handled on Building Permits with the goal of simplifying the
process for the applicants.
The number of reviews for Town projects was 144 for 2008 and 85 for 2009 through
nine months. For 2008, 150 building plans were reviewed in the County. It requires
staff 10 minutes to an hour for each review. Using totals for 2008 there were 294
plans reviewed. This is just slightly over one a day and is well within staff’s capacity.
While there is no policy on review times, they are normally completed in two or three
days. It is useful to have these reviews completed early in the process in case issues
impacting the building permit are discovered. We suggest two days be set as the
standard.
43. Recommendation: Planners should review building plans for zoning
conformance within two working days.
D. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Overview
A five-person with one alternate Board of Adjustment has final decision making
authority over variance requests within the Estes Valley. They meet once a month on
the First Tuesday at 9:00 a.m.
Process
The Town uses a well developed process as shown in Figure 4.
Estes Park 39 Zucker Systems
Figure 4
Board of Adjustment Process
It takes nine (9) weeks from the Sketch Plan submittal to the Board hearing.
Additional time may be required in plans are not complete. Overall we think this is an
excellent process and we received no customer complaints for the focus group and
Board members interviewed indicated satisfaction with the Community Development
Departments performance.
We did spot several items that could be changed including:
The plans are distributed to affected agencies after staff has finished a
completeness review. However, input from the agencies could impact the staff
decision on completeness. Instead copies could be distributed to affected
agencies at the time of submittal. It could be argued that staff doesn’t yet know
how many copies will be required (step 6). However, the number of required
copies could be determined as part of the Sketch Plan (step 1) and the required
copies furnished as part of the application (step3). In order to give agencies the
Sketch Plan Pre-Application
Meeting
Submittal
Deadline
Sign Posting
& Field Study
Applicant Corrects
Deficiencies
Minimum of 2
weeks prior to
submittal
5
days
8
days No
Mailing to
Affected Agencies
& Adjacent
Property Owners
2
days
Yes 2 days
Plan is
Complete
Publication Date7
days
3
days
Staff Reports Due13 Plats due
for BOA Parcels
Affected Agency
Comments Due
1 day
Packets to BOA
BOA Meeting
5 days
Copies Due for
Mailing to Affected
Agencies
5
days
1 2 3
4 5
67 9
8
10
11 12
13
14
Estes Park 40 Zucker Systems
14-day review time, completeness could be delayed to step 7 without
impacting the timeline.
44. Recommendation: The number of required copies for BOA applications
should be determined as part of the Sketch Plan process and required to
be submitted at time of application.
45. Recommendation: Copies should be distributed to affected agencies at the
time of application.
We believe the public should be notified as early in the process as possible
which would normally be when completeness is finished and it is clear the item
with go to hearing. Thus steps 9 and 10 could be moved up to correspond to
step 7. Based on these changes, we believe a week could be cut out of the
process resulting in an eight (8) rather than nine (9) week process. Staff would
need to work out the details in relation to the newspapers and other staff tasks.
46. Recommendation: The public should be notified of BOA items as soon as it
is clear that an item will go to public hearing.
We reviewed typical staff reports and found them to be excellent with good use
of color photographs.
While the nine week timeline is consistent with the timelines in many
communities, it is still a long time when there is a relatively minor item. The
past items before the BOA should be reviewed. When a high percent of items
are approved or typical items are always approved with similar conditions,
these are candidates for streamlining. Either the ordinance could be changed to
no longer require a variance, or additional minor variances could be approved
by staff. Staff approvals could be accomplished in half the time or less over the
current process.
47. Recommendation: Board of Adjustment cases should be reviewed to
determine if the ordinance could be changed to no longer require a
variance or if additional minor variances could be approved by staff.
E. DEVELOPMENT PLANS
There are three types of Development Plans in Estes Valley including:
Estes Park 41 Zucker Systems
1. Smaller projects that are permitted by right may be approved by the Community
Development Department. Legal notice must be published and neighboring
property owners are notified but a public hearing is not required.
2. Large-scale developments but still for uses permitted by right are reviewed by the
Planning Commission through a public hearing process.
3. Proposals that involve uses allowed only by Special Review are heard by the
Planning Commission who makes a recommendation to the Town Board of
Trustees or Larimer County Board of County Commissioners.
There are a variety of handouts and submittal forms that apply to these processes. The
Development Plan process for the smaller projects where staff approval is allowed is
shown in Figure 5. Development Plans going to the Planning Commission follow the
same route as other Planning Commission item.
Figure 5
Development Plan Process
The time required from Sketch Plan (step 1) to Staff Decision (step 7) is roughly 11
weeks. It may take an additional month to complete mylars, however they may be
completed much earlier. This is a long process for what is essential a staff approval. A
number of changes could improve this process including:
As currently structured submittals are allowed only once a month. We see no
reason why submittals shouldn’t be allowed either by-weekly or even weekly.
This alone could cut two to three weeks out of the process.
The copies should be mailed to affected agencies (step 6) immediately upon
the application being received. This would allow affected agencies to
participate in the application completeness process (step 4).
Staff is taking 41 days to make a decision (step 6) to (step 7). Normally two to
three weeks should be sufficient for staff analysis, thereby reducing the
timeline by another three to four weeks.
Sketch Plans
Required
Pre-Application
Meeting Required
Submittal
Deadline
Copies Due for
Mailing to Affected
Agencies
Development Plan
Mylars Due
Staff Report &
Decision
Completed by
14
days
7
days
14
days
41
days
30
days
Additional
Submittals
Required
Application
CompleteNo Yes
123678
45
Estes Park 42 Zucker Systems
48. Recommendation: The process for staff decisions on Development Plans
should be substantially changed as outlined above.
F. PLANNING
The Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1996 which means the research
for the Plan preceded that date. This was an excellent effort in that the plan covers
both the Town and County areas and was adopted by both the Town and County.
Major portions of the Plan were implemented through the adoption of a joint
Development Code in 2000. Although we are not under contract to review these
documents, the dates alone would be an indication that a review is likely in order.
The citizen focus group indicated that either the Plan should be reviewed or some feel
that the problem is that the strategy to carry out the plan was never completed. Many
of the Trustees we interviewed also believe that the plan needs to be up-dated.
Likewise, both staff and the community know that a variety of items in the
Development Code need to be reviewed and improved.
The Town also undertook an effort roughly five years ago resulting in a report called
the 2017 report. This effort looked at the economy of the area and made a number of
recommendations. However, it appears that there has not been good follow up to this
effort.
The amount of planning vs. permitting and development being done in a community
varies substantially depending on local issues and needs. As a rule of thumb we often
indicate that at least a third of the budget should be devoted to mid to long range
planning. In the last number of years, the Community Development Department, by
its own admission, has done very little if any long range planning. The Department
does not have a work program for such planning. The Planning Commission and
Board of Trustees have suggested the need for a work program but to date it has not
been prepared. The Planning Commission has had a study session where a list of
some 33 items was prepared.
Given the downturn in development applications, this would be an excellent time for
the Department to begin more long-range planning. We suggest that a detailed list of
possible planning projects be prepared. This list should include the amount of staff
time or consulting costs that each item would entail and which items current staff
resources could handle. The list should be reviewed by both the Planning Commission
and Board of Trustees. The Trustees should adopt the program and it should include
timelines for accomplishing all the agreed upon projects.
One of the tasks the Town will face is the potential high cost to complete some of
these planning efforts. For example, a full review of the Comprehensive Plan could
Estes Park 43 Zucker Systems
easily cost $500,000. A better approach might be to conduct a less expensive review
of the Plan that would highlight a limited number of areas needing up-dating or
correcting. A similar process might be used in relation to the Development Code.
Staff could do a review and highlight areas needing attention. Or, a consultant could
be hired to do a quick review of the code. This could likely be accomplished with a
$20,000 to $40,000 budget.
49. Recommendation: The Community Development Department should
prepare a formal planning work program for adoption by the Board of
Trustees.
G. PLANNING COMMISSION
Overview
A seven person joint Town/County Planning Commission is responsible along with
the Community Development Department for planning in the Estes Valley. The
Commission meets once a month on the Third Tuesday at 6:00 p.m. A study session
which is open to the public is held before each Commission meeting.
Process
The Town uses a well developed process as shown in Figure 6. A variety of forms and
handouts are used in this process.
Estes Park 44 Zucker Systems
Figure 6
Planning Commission Process
This is generally a well developed and good process with a number of possible
exceptions including:
Copies of the application are mailed to affected agencies (step 15) after staff
declares the application complete (step 12). However, the agencies should
participate in this process. Copies should be distributed to affected agencies
immediately upon receipt (step 11).
While there is a meeting of affected agencies before the application is
submitted, there is no meeting after submittal. Many organizations have one
meeting during pre-application and another during the formal process. This is
particularly critical for major or controversial projects. This meeting would
take place either before, or as part of Step 21.
Larimer County does not participate in the pre-application meeting. However,
this can lead to issues later in the process.
Whenever the two month standard timeline cannot be met, staff overtime or
consultants should be used to meet the timeline.
Sketch Plan
Required
Assigned to
Planner
Plan to Affected
Agencies
Copies Mailed
Building Division
01
Planners Write
Meeting Notes &
Give to Applicant
1-2
8 days
Application
Complete
Submittal
Deadline14
Staff Reports
To Applicant
Comments Back
to Staff
Copies Due for
Mailing to
Affected Agencies
Staff Report
for Planning
CommissionApplicant Corrects
Application
Meeting of
Affected Agencies
& Applicant
Sanitation District
Water
Department
Colorado
Department of
Transportaton
Larimer
County Planning
Department
Yes
No
Building Division
Sanitation District
Water
Department
Colorado
Department of
Transportaton
Larimer
County Planning
Department
Modify if
Needed
Planning
Commission
Meeting Date
1 2 3
4
5
6
7
8
91011
12 14
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 22 23 24
25
Estes Park 45 Zucker Systems
50. Recommendation: The process for items going to the Planning Commission
should be modified as outlined above.
Timelines
We checked the actual timelines from application date to the Planning Commission
meeting for nine months. Of the 10 items, eight made the normal two month timeline,
one required three months and one required six months. One of the 10 items was
continued an extra month by the Planning Commission.
H. TOWN BOARD AND COUNTY COMMISSIONER APPLICATION ACTION
Preliminary subdivisions, final plats and condo applications follow a well developed
process. Handouts and application forms are available to assist in the process.
Subdivisions and Condos
Once items are approved by the Planning Commission they follow a pre-set schedule
for action by the Town Board or County Commissioners as shown in Figure 7 and 8.
This is a relatively standard process and we have no additional recommendations.
Figure 7
Process for County Commissioner Application Action
Submittal Deadline
Minimum of 54
days prior to BCC
Meeting
Plats
Completeness
Deadline
Affected Agency &
Adjacent Property
Owner Mailing
4 business days after
completeness review
Submittal Deadline
Supplemental
Condo Map
Staff Report Due
35 days after
submittal
Affected Agency
Comments Due
Publication Date
Board of County
Commissioners
Meeting
3rd Monday of month
Revisions Due for
Board of County
Commissioners
3 weeks prior to BCC
meeting
Copies Due for
Mailing to Affected
Agencies
2
days
1
day
8
days
2
days
2 weeks1 day
Mylar(s) Due60 days
max
Estes Park 46 Zucker Systems
Figure 8
Process for Town Board Application Action
Final Plats and Supplemental Condo Maps
Once items are approved as ready for the Town Board or County Commission they
follow a pre-set schedule for action by the Town Board or County Commissioner’s
final action as shown in Figure 9 and 10. This is a relatively straight forward process
but several possible changes should be examined. These changes would need to be
examined in light of state law, local ordinances, newspaper deadlines and local
practice.
Affected agencies could be notified at submittal so they can participate in the
completeness review.
The publication date could occur shortly after submittal to give the public
additional notice time.
51. Recommendation: Possible changes to the Final Plat process as outlined
above should be considered.
Submittal Deadline
39 days prior to TB
Completeness
Deadline
Submittal Deadline
Supplemental
Condo Map
Copies Due for
Mailing to Affected
Agencies
Affected Agency &
Adjacent Property
Owner Mailing
Publication Date
Min. 2 wks prior to
TB
Affected Agency
Comments Due
Revisions Due for
Town Board
8 days prior to TB
meeting
Staff Report Due
34 days after
submittal date
Town Board
Meeting
4th Tuesday of
month
Mylar(s) Due no
later than
60 days after TB
meeting
varies
2 days8
days
2
days
7
days
2 weeks
0
days
Estes Park 47 Zucker Systems
Figure 9
Process for County Commissioner Final Plats
Figure 10
Process for Town Board Final Plats
Planning
Commission
Revisions Due for Board of
County Commissioners
Meeting
3 weeks prior to BCC
meeting
Staff Report for
County
Commission
Development Plan
Mylars Due
Max 30 days from
approval
Final Plat/Map
Mylars Due
Board of County
Commissioners
Meeting
3rd Monday of
month
Max
60 days
Planning
Commission
Revisions Due for
Town Board
Meeting
30 days after
Staff Report for
Town Board
Development Plan
Mylars Due
Max 30 days from
approval
Final Plat/Map
Mylars Due
Town Board
Meeting
4th Tuesday of
month
Max
60 days
Estes Park 48 Zucker Systems
6. EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS
Two confidential questionnaires were completed by the employees in the Community
Development Department.
A short, closed-ended questionnaire (shown in Appendix B) was completed at a staff
meeting by six employees and collected by the consultants. The raw scores and tallies
of this survey are also shown in Appendix B.
A longer, eight-page questionnaire (shown in Appendix C) was completed by all
seven staff and mailed or emailed to the consultants in San Diego to assure
confidentiality. Information obtained from these questionnaires was essential to our
analysis. The number of questionnaires returned is shown in Table 7. In most of our
studies, only half of the employees that complete the short questionnaire take the time
to complete the long questionnaire. Having 100% complete the questionnaire in Estes
Park was excellent. The employee responses on the long questionnaire were very
thoughtful and some of the best we have seen in our various studies.
Table 7
Number of Employees Responding to Questionnaires
The short questionnaire also asked employees to list pet peeves and give suggestions
for improvements. These comments were used as part of our analysis for this report
and are also shown in Appendix B.
The short, closed-ended questionnaire consisted of a series of statements to be rated
by the respondents. Responses were tallied and averaged and the raw scores are
displayed in Appendix B. The statements were designed to elicit the mood and
feelings of each employee about overall division or department excellence. For each
of the 28 statements, the employee was asked to respond as follows:
1 – Strongly Disagree 4 – Somewhat Agree
2 – Somewhat Disagree 5 – Strongly Agree
3 – Neutral 6 – Not Applicable
Generally, the higher the rating (i.e., 4’s and 5’s) the better the employee perceives
the subject area and the more excellent the division or department.
We’ve conducted this survey for many planning and building departments and
divisions. Generally, a score below 3.0 is an indication of issues that need to be
Function Number of Short
Questionnaires
Average Response
to Short
Questionnaire
Number of
Responses With
Averages Under 3.0
Number of Long
Questionnaires
All Staff 6 4.28 0 7
Estes Park 49 Zucker Systems
addressed. We like to see average scores in the high 3’s and 4’s. We believe that the
scores give a reasonably accurate assessment of the employee’s view of their division
or department. The average score for the six employees was 4.28. Only one employee
had an average score below 4.0 which was 3.85. These are some of the highest and
best employee scores we have seen in our many surveys.
Only Question 14 (We have an efficient records management and documentation
system in our Department.) had an average score below 3.0 at 2.83. Two of the six
employees felt this was a problem. As the Department gradually moves to electronic
files, this issue should improve.
Other questions of interest included:
One employee answered the lowest score of “1” to Question 7 (We have a
strong emphasis on training in this Department.) and Question 8 (Management
in this Department discusses objectives, programs and results with employees
regularly.). Since there were only six employees and the questionnaire was
anonymous, we cannot isolate this employee, however management should
attempt to address this issue.
Two employees answered “2” to Question 17, (I am kept abreast of changes
that affect me). Since there were only six employees and the questionnaire was
anonymous, we cannot isolate these two employees, however management
should attempt to address this issue.
52. Recommendation: The Department should review the employee
questionnaire as part of a Department staff meeting.
Estes Park 50 Zucker Systems
7. CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS
In today’s environment, governmental performance is measured by customer
satisfaction. In order to determine the Community Development Department’s
performance, we used several techniques consisting of interviews with the Mayor and
Town Board members, Planning Commission members, Board of Adjustment
members, two customer focus groups, and a mail surveys to applicants.
This Chapter includes a summary of customer comments. The intent of this customer
input was to elicit views and opinions on positive and negative aspects of activities
and to seek ideas for change that will improve and enhance the Community
Development Department. However, as would be expected, the focus was on
perceived problems.
In considering the results, the reader must bear in mind that, unlike documents and
statistics, the views expressed by individuals are subjective and may reflect personal
biases. Nonetheless, these views are at least as important as objective material
because it is these people, with their feelings and prejudices that work with or are
often affected by Town activities. A second important consideration is that in
analyzing the material, it may not be as important to determine whether a particular
response is “correct” as it is to simply accept a response or try to determine why
customers feel the way they do. Tom Peters, the noted management consultant, has
said that in relation to customer service, “Perception is everything.” In other words,
perception is reality to the person holding the perception.
It should be noted that the purpose of this chapter is to report on the customer input so
that the reader of the report can view the comments as customer perceptions without
our editing. These comments are not the conclusions of the consultants. Using our
methodology as described in Figure 1, the customer comments are taken as one form
of input to be merged by input of others and our own judgment. Our specific response
is in the form of the various recommendations included in this report.
A. MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
We met the Mayor and six Town Board members in individual confidential meetings
in order to gain a perspective on the Community Development Department and
governmental direction for the Town. There was not unanimous opinion on all topics
but a few points of interest follow.
Building Permits
Some feel that the plan check process is out of hand with too much detail being
required. It appears there is an attempt to reproduce the code on the drawings.
Estes Park 51 Zucker Systems
Comprehensive Plan and Ordinance
The Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1996 and research on the Plan pre-dated that
time. As such, it is time to review or up-date the Plan.
Planning Commission
There has been a need for better communication between the Planning Commission
and the Trustees. This is being addressed with quarterly meetings.
Processes
It would be useful to have more standard processes.
Staff
The Community Development Department staff is generally considered as excellent,
very professional. However, some staff could do a better job of making presentations
before the Trustees. A few staff at times come off as arbitrary. Some members of the
public are concerned about staff inconsistency and fear of retribution if one
complains.
Better leadership is also needed in the Department. Occasionally the Trustees are
blindsided by staff or a large public spectacle may result from something that should
be minutia. Some feel that the Department does not adequately listen to the Trustees
and the direction they are setting or simply want to do things their own way.
B. PLANNING COMMISSION
We met with five Planning Commission members in individual confidential meetings
in order to gain a perspective on the Community Development Department. There
was not unanimous opinion on all topics but a few points of interest follow.
Building Division
The Building Division is concerned for the letter of the law, but at the same time
looks for ways that the contractors can complete their projects. Communication with
the industry has not always been good but has improved with the work on the new
building code.
Code Enforcement
There is great inconsistency in code enforcement.
Estes Park 52 Zucker Systems
Development Code
The Development Code needs to be up-dated. Staff is working on parts of this but
some don’t feel the staff is good at code amendments. It is suggested that the
Department should have the Trustees agree on a problem statement before starting on
a code amendment.
Planning Division
Staff is excellent but what is needed is more hardnosed leadership. The needs and
priorities for the Town are not well addressed. Staff has lots of history about the Town
which is useful.
The staff reports and presentations to the Commission are good.
Work on routine items is excellent. The problems occur on non-routine items where
more leadership is needed. Long-range planning has been lacking and the
Comprehensive Plan needs to be up-dated.
The Planning Commission’s position does not always get accurately reported to the
Trustees.
C. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
We met with three Board of Adjustment members in individual confidential meetings
in order to gain a perspective on the Community Development Department. The
members feel that the Board of Adjustment operates well and staff work for the Board
is excellent.
D. FOCUS GROUP – APPLICANTS
Seven people who had been applicants in the Town’s development and permitting
process met on September 29th for two hours at the Town Hall. The meeting was held
in confidence and no staff members were present. The group included architects
contactors, designers, and engineers. Focus group comments are included below.
Topics are arranged in alphabetical order.
Many members belong to the newly activated Estes Valley Contractors Association.
They submitted some written material which was used as background for this report.
Board of Adjustment
The Board of Adjustment is seen as working well.
Estes Park 53 Zucker Systems
Board of Appeals
There may be a Board of Appeals for the Building Code but no one knows who they
are.
Building Code Amendments
In the past, local amendments to the Building Code were adopted by the Town and the
industry was not aware of the adoption process. It feels like more and more
requirements are being adopted.
Building Official
The Building Official knows the code and is willing to discuss issues.
Building Plans
More detail than is necessary is being asked to be on the plans. This varies from most
other communities. The list of comments is long and not always clear.
Certificates of Occupancy
This process works well.
Grading
Grading is being requested at a fine resolution that is not reasonable during actual
construction.
Image of the Town
Some out-of-town architects have indicated that they no longer wish to work in Estes
Park due to the regulations and processes for building permits. Boulder County has a
reputation of being very difficult but it is worse in Estes Park.
Industry Relation to Building Division and Community Development
Department
The Focus Group members indicated that a constructive dialogue has begun with the
Community Development Department.
Inspections
The level of detail for inspections and the number of inspections is much more than
required in other communities. It used to be that five inspections were required but
Estes Park 54 Zucker Systems
now it is 30. It would be useful to have an on-site meeting with various review parties
prior to beginning construction.
Major Projects
The Town has had a number of major projects that were not well handled. Needed is a
way to expose these projects to the Trustees and Planning Commission before they
get out of hand.
Planning and Project Reviews
While the process generally works okay, a number of improvements could be made
including resolving major issues at the Planning Commission level and not adding
more conditions after approval.
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission has been frustrated for years, wanting to have more
direction from the Trustees. In the past, staff and the Planning Commission have
worked on code amendments that the Trustees were not interested in.
Pre-Application Process
The pre-application process is generally okay but at times the reviews could be better.
Sealing Penetrations
The Division had been requiring all penetrations to be sealed with fire caulking which
is very expensive. When they were called on it, it was stopped.
Timing of Plan Check
The suggested two weeks for residential plan check and three weeks for commercial
is acceptable. However, the timelines are not always met.
E. FOCUS GROUPS – CITIZENS
Six citizens and business owners met on September 29th for two hours at the Town
Hall. The meeting was held in confidence and no staff members were present. The
group included residents and small business owners. Focus group comments are
included below. Topics are arranged in alphabetical order.
Estes Park 55 Zucker Systems
Community Development Department
The Department is not getting the direction they need from the Planning Commission
and the Trustees.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan is good but there is no strategy to implement it.
“Curtain”
The group spent considerable time on a topic they characterized as a “curtain.” The
question is who is running the Town. Communication seems to be getting better but is
still a problem. Everything in Town is run through and by committees. There is no
clear way to “get into the process.” All the issues stem from the lack of a community
vision.
Enforcement
There is lack of enforcement on signs and banners. There is no consistency in
enforcement and selective interpretation. Projects are approved that do not meet the
code. Interpretations may change meeting to meeting, depending on the audience.
Lack of Planning
The biggest issue discussed was the perceived lack of planning being undertaken by
the Community Development Department. The Town’s growth plans are not clear.
The Department’s agenda is not clear. Their interpretation of the codes is not always
right and they often seem to be acting as an advocate for the developer. In general,
there is a lack of vision in the Town. The Department tends to be more adversarial
than cooperative or collaborative.
Perspectives
There are three groups in the town, Citizens (often retirees), Business people, and
Developers. The economic development team made an attempt to set a direction but
this was not successful.
F. CUSTOMER SURVEYS
A mail survey was used in this study to obtain applicant customer input. The survey
was sent to 115 applicants for development approvals or permits. Three surveys were
returned with incorrect addresses so 112 surveys actually went to applicants. Twenty
three surveys were returned for a return rate of 21%. This is within our normal return
Estes Park 56 Zucker Systems
rate of 15 to 25 %. However, for survey purposes we normally want to see at least 30
surveys in the analysis.
The overall response to the surveys is shown in Figure 11. Question 4 through 26
were designed so that checking a “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” category is a sign of a
satisfied customer. A “Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree” is a sign of a dissatisfied
customer. The percentages shown in the last column to the right indicate the percent
of respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed with the question statement. The
“Not Applicable” category was excluded from this calculation.
Estes Park 57 Zucker Systems
Figure 11
Customer Survey Responses
Estes Park 58 Zucker Systems
Estes Park 59 Zucker Systems
Estes Park 60 Zucker Systems
Normally, when negative responses of “Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree” exceed
15%, the responses indicate an area of possible concern. Less than 15% normally
indicates this category of question is satisfying the customers. Percentages higher than
15% but below 30% are areas that should be examined for possible customer service
concerns. Negative percentages of 30% or higher indicate areas needing early
Estes Park 61 Zucker Systems
attention since roughly one third or more of the customers have concerns about
service.
Some believe that only customers who have problems will return a survey of this
type. While it is likely that customers with problems may be more likely to return the
surveys, our experience with this and dozens of similar surveys indicate that they still
produce valid information. For example, we’ve worked in other communities where
the negative responses seldom exceeded 15%.
It should also be noted that a survey of this type is not a scientific, statistically
controlled sample. Nevertheless, when high numbers of respondents express concerns,
they are indications of problems that need to be addressed.
The questionnaires also asked applicants to indicate suggestions and areas for
improvement. Eighteen of the 23 respondents provided suggestions which we used as
part of our analysis.
Seventeen of the questions related to Building, Engineering/Public Works, and
Planning. With the following results:
Engineering/Public Works
Engineering had negative responses of 25% or greater on all 17 questions,
exceeded 30% negative on 14 questions and 50% or more negative on 10
questions. Three questions exceeded 60% negative. These are some of the
worse negatives we have received in our many surveys of other organizations.
In Question 29 we asked if there were coordination problems between different
functions. Of the 16 responses, 13 indicated coordination problems with
Engineering.
We were not under contract to review the Engineering/Public works
Department but given these low scores, complaints from staff about slow
review times, and the customer comments shown in Appendix D, there is
clearly a subject matter that the Town needs to address.
53. Recommendation: The Engineering/Public Works Director and the Town
Administrator should review the customer questionnaires and develop a
program to address these concerns.
All Divisions
All three functions had extreme negative responses on Questions 4, 10, 11,
and 13 as shown in Table 8.
Estes Park 62 Zucker Systems
Table 8
Negative Responses To Four Questions
Building Engineering Planning
Question 4, “I understand the Town’s Development
Review and Plan Check processes. They are
straightforward and not unnecessarily cumbersome or
complex
48% 68% 50%
Question 10, “Plan checking turnaround time is
acceptable
38% 63% 50%
Question 11, “Codes and policies are applied by staff
in a fair and practical manner
33% 63% 37%
Question 13, “If project processing is delayed, the
delay is typically justifiable. Projects are not delayed
over minor issues,”
35% 44% 38%
Average Percent for Four Questions 38.5% 59.5% 43.8%
These are serious negative responses and the three functions should brainstorm how to
respond.
54. Recommendation: The Community Development Department and the
Engineering/Public Works Department should meet to discuss the
negative responses to Questions 4, 10, 11 and 13 and devise an approach to
address these issues.
Building Division
The Building had negative responses of 25% or greater on 9 of the 17
questions, and 30% or greater negative on 5 questions. They had no questions
exceeding 50% negative. The one question not previously discussed was
Question 14.
3 Question 14, “The Town of Estes Park is just as fair and practical in its
application of regulations as other neighboring cities in the function of
Building,” had a negative score for Building of 30%.
The building function had very positive responses on a number of questions
including:
Estes Park 63 Zucker Systems
3 Question 5, When making an application, I have generally found the Town
staff to be responsive and helpful in the functions of,” was 90% positive for
Building.
3 Question 15, “Staff was courteous from the functions of,” was 100%
positive for Building.
3 Question 17, “The Town staff was easily accessible when I needed
assistance in resolving problems in the functions of,” was 91% positive for
Building.
3 Question 18, “I found the handouts supplied by the Town to be useful and
informative in explaining the requirements I must meet for the departments of”
was 86% positive for Building.
3 Question 19, “Inspectors rarely found errors in the field during
construction that should have been caught during the plan checking process
from the departments of,” was 95% positive for Building.
Planning Function
Planning had negative responses of 25% or greater on 10 of the 17 questions,
exceeded 30% negative on 9 questions and 50% or more negative on one
questions. Three questions exceeded 60% negative. The Questions with 30% or
more negative in addition to those already discussed include the following five
questions:
3 Question 5, “When making an application, I have generally found the Town
staff to be responsive and helpful in the functions of,” was 32% negative.
3 Question 7, “In general, Town staff has provided good customer service in
the function of Planning,” was 33% negative.
3 Question 8, “In general, Town staff anticipated obstacles early on and
provided options where they were available in the function of Planning”, was
37% negative.
3 Question 9, “Development plan checking is complete and accurate.
Additional problems did not surface later that should have been caught in the
initial review in the functions of,” was 40% negative.
Question 16, “The conditions of approval or plan check corrections applied to
my project were reasonable and justified from the functions of Planning,” had
a negative score of 44%.
The Planning function had very positive responses on a number of questions
including:
Estes Park 64 Zucker Systems
3 Question 15, “Staff was courteous from the functions of,” was 89% positive
for Planning.
3 Question 19, “Inspectors rarely found errors in the field during
construction that should have been caught during the plan checking process
from the departments of,” was 89% positive for Planning.
3 Question 20, The Town’s website provides comprehensive and useful
information in the functions of,” was 89% positive for Planning.
55. Recommendation: The Community Development Department staff should
review the customer questionnaire and determine areas where they can be
responsive to customer concerns.
Question 21 to 26 related to the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment and
Town Trustees. While the scores were generally positive, Question 21, “The Planning
Commission treated me fairly,” had a negative score of 26%. Question 25, “The Town
Trustees treated me fairly,” had a negative score of 22%.
It is also interesting to note that only 44% of those who responded found input from
the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment and Town Trustees useful in the
hearing process.
Estes Park 65 Zucker Systems
Appendix A
Persons Interviewed
Estes Park 66 Zucker Systems
Mayor and Board of Trustees
Bill Pinkham, Mayor
Richard Homeier, Trustee
Chuck Levine, Trustee
John Ericson, Trustee
Eric Blackhurst, Trustee
Jerry Miller, Trustee
Dorla Eisenlauer, Trustee
Planning Commission
Doug Klink, Chairman
Rex Poggenpohl, member
Ron Norris, member
Alan Fraundorf, member
John Tucker, member
Board of Adjustment
Bob McCreery, member
Wayne Newsom, member
John Lynch, member
Town Administration
Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator
Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator
Community Development Department
Bob Joseph, Director
Alison Chilcott, Planner II
Dave Shirk, Planner II
Karen Thompson, Administrative Assistant
Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official
Carolyn McIndaffer, Plans Examiner
Claude Traufield, Building Inspector
Public Works Department
Scott Zurn, Director
Estes Park 67 Zucker Systems
Appendix B
Employee Short
Questionnaire
Estes Park 68 Zucker Systems
Town of Estes Park
Community Development Department
EMPLOYEE QUESTIONNAIRE
In the boxes below, enter the appropriate number for each statement according to this
guide.
1 – Strongly Disagree 4 – Somewhat Agree
2 – Somewhat Disagree 5 – Strongly Agree
3 – Neutral 6 – Not Applicable
1. This Department seeks to identify problems quickly. [ ]
2. When problems are identified, this Department moves quickly to solve
them. [ ]
3. This Department has an effective process for listening to citizen or
client concerns. [ ]
4. The concern for employees in this Department is more than lip service. [ ]
5. Good service is the rule rather than the exception in this Department. [ ]
6. Managers in this Department encourage and advance new ideas from
employees. [ ]
7. We have a strong emphasis on training in this Department. [ ]
8. Management in this Department discusses objectives, programs and
results with employees regularly. [ ]
9. There is free and open communication in this Department between all
levels of employees about the work they are performing. [ ]
10. Employees in this Department treat citizens with respect. [ ]
11. This Department encourages practical risk-taking and supports positive
effort. [ ]
12. This Department has a clear sense of what its programs are trying to
accomplish. [ ]
Estes Park 69 Zucker Systems
13. We do our jobs very well in this Department. [ ]
14. We have an efficient records management and documentation system
in our Department. [ ]
15. I am satisfied with the type of leadership I have been receiving from
my supervisor in this Department. [ ]
16. I have enough time to do my work as it needs to be done. [ ]
17. I am kept abreast of changes that affect me. [ ]
18.
There is good teamwork and communication between the different
divisions or departments conducting development review, plan
checking and inspection in the Town.
[ ]
19. I am aware of standard turnaround times in our Department for plans
and permits as communicated by my supervisor. [ ]
20. I am able to meet standard turnaround times for plans and permits as
communicated by my supervisor. [ ]
21.
The Town has a coordinated development review and plan checking
process. [ ]
22. Permit and development processes in the Town are neither unnecessarily
complex nor burdensome on the applicant. [ ]
23. Application review in the Town is undertaken in a consistent manner. [ ]
25. Applications are reviewed in the Town in a timely manner. [ ]
25. It should be the policy of the Town and its employees to assist any
applicant in completing his/her application, see that it is complete as
soon as possible, and process it without undue delay.
[ ]
26. It should be the policy of the Town to make the permit process as
pleasant and expeditious as possible. [ ]
Estes Park 70 Zucker Systems
27. Field inspections in this Department are undertaken in a consistent
manner. [ ]
Question #29
Please list any “pet peeves” or concerns about your job, division, department or
the Town.
1. Micro-management by administrative staff that do not know what we do, how we
do it, or why we do it.
2. Lack of understanding of our purpose among general population; many complaints
by general public on issues beyond our control (i.e. rate of growth, impact on
wildlife).
3. The inability to enforce the code across the spectrum of code violations. Elected
officials and top management seem to believe we are not fully engaged.
4. Incomplete submittals.
5. Expectations about levels of services vs. desired staffing levels needs to be clearly
defined by Town Board. Town Board and Administration could set clear
guidelines about priorities.
6. It seems that we don’t always agree on a consistent way to accomplish things.
Dialogue needs to occur as a group to determine the best path to take. Some
employees seem to take their job more seriously than others. Maybe this is the
case in all work environments?
Question #31
Please provide at least one suggestion or recommendation for improvement
related to your job, division, department or the Town.
1. Less intervention by administration in the specific issues, and more clear direction
in policy and procedure matters.
2. All department staff should have the same version of software (we now have up
to a six year gap). Getter funding for training. Integrate various information into
one interface – building permits, plats, reports, dev plan, etc.. Easily assessable via
network.
3. Provide a compliance date to the inspection notice. Elected officials and top
management are welcome to do a ride-along for field inspections and
investigations.
4. Electronic processing that includes data capture from application to inspections. A
way for contractors and homeowners to track their project.
5. Improve levels of service and efficiency by – improved web communication,
improved handouts, and improved computer software; replace PTWIN and all
employees on one version of Arc View.
Estes Park 71 Zucker Systems
6. Since the Permit Tech left and everyone else in the department has stepped up to
get her job done, I believe the level of customer service has dropped and more
duties now have a much lower priority. Over time, I think this could be very
detrimental to both Planning and Building Departments.
Emp #1 Emp #2 Emp #3 Emp #4 Emp #5 Emp #6 Ave
#1 5 4 5 5 5 4 4.67
#2 4 4 3 4 5 5 4.17
#3 4 4 5 4 5 4 4.33
#4 5 5 4 3 5 3 4.17
#5 5 4 5 5 5 4 4.67
#6 5 4 5 5 5 4 4.67
#7 5 1 5 5 4 4 4.00
#8 4 1 5 4 4 4 3.67
#9 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.00
#10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.00
#11 4 3 5 4 5 4 4.17
#12 4 4 5 4 4 2 3.83
#13 5 5 5 5 4 4 4.67
#14 3 3 3 2 2 4 2.83
#15 3 3 5 5 5 5 4.33
#16 3 3 3 4 5 2 3.33
#17 2 2 4 4 3 5 3.33
#18 4 4 5 5 4 4 4.33
#19 4 5 5 5 5 5 4.83
#20 4 5 N/A 4 5 5 4.60
#21 4 5 N/A 5 5 4 4.60
#22 4 4 N/A 4 5 3 4.00
#23 4 3 N/A 3 3 5 3.60
#24 4 5 N/A 5 5 5 4.80
#25 5 5 5 4 4 4 4.50
#26 5 5 5 5 5 4 4.83
#27 5 3 5 5 3 5 4.33
Ave 4.22 3.85 4.64 4.37 4.44 4.15 4.28
Estes Park 72 Zucker Systems
Appendix C
Employee Long
Questionnaire
Estes Park 73 Zucker Systems
Town of Estes Park
Community Development Department
EMPLOYEE QUESTIONNAIRE
Employee Name Job Title
Division ___________________
The following questionnaire is an important and essential part of the study being
conducted by Zucker Systems for the Community Development Department. The
study is aimed at improving effectiveness and efficiency of the Department. Your
ideas and thoughts are essential to the study. This questionnaire will supplement other
work being undertaken by Zucker Systems.
Please complete this questionnaire and return it in a sealed envelope to Zucker
Systems, 1545 Hotel Circle South, Suite 300, San Diego, CA 92108-3415 no later
than roughly a week from today. Take your time in answering the questions and be
as complete as possible. You are encouraged to include attachments or examples. You
may also access the survey on Zucker Systems website, www.zuckersystems.com and
email it to us. You will find the survey by looking under “Links to Zucker Systems
Studies” on the left side of the second page. It will be listed as “Town of Estes Park
Employee Questionnaire.” Keep in mind, the information you provide is strictly
confidential, and will not enter the Town’s system. If you wish to provide any other
information you may email it directly to me at paul@zuckersystems.com. You may
also call me at 1-800-870-6306.
While your comments may be merged with others and included in our report; we will
not identify individuals in relation to specific comments.
Thank you for your help.
Paul C. Zucker, President, Zucker Systems
_____________________________________________________________
1. What do you see as the major strengths of the Community Development
Department, the things you do well?
2. What do you see as the major weaknesses of the Community Development
Department: and what can be done to eliminate these weaknesses?
Estes Park 74 Zucker Systems
3. What important policies, services or programs related to the Community
Development Department are no longer pursued or have never been pursued that
you feel should be added? Tell us why they should be added.
4. Do you feel any of the Town’s ordinances, policies, plans, or procedures related to
the Community Development Department should be changed? If so, list them and
explain why.
5. Are there any programs, activities or jobs related to the Community Development
Department you would eliminate or reduce and why?
6. How would you describe the goals or mission of your function.? Do the
established processes further the goals and mission set forth?
7. What would help you perform your specific duties more effectively and
efficiently?
8. What problems, if any, do you experience with your records or files and what
should be done to eliminate these problems? (Please be specific.)
9. What problems have you experienced in providing good service for customers and
Stakeholders? Please list any areas of conflicts and/or efficiencies and give
recommendations to solve these problems.
10. Do you feel that the processing of any applications or permits should be shortened,
sped up or simplified? If so, what do you suggest?
Estes Park 75 Zucker Systems
11. Are existing communication loops effective? What suggestions do you have for
improving communication and coordination among the functions associated with
the Community Development Department?
12. What difficulties have you had carrying out your functions due to problems with
other departments, divisions or boards? Please explain and provide suggestions on
how to correct these problems.
13. Have you received sufficient training or cross-training for your responsibilities? If
not, please comment and indicate areas you would like more training.
14. What functions are you currently handling manually that you believe could or
should be automated? (Please be specific.)
15. What functions that are currently computer-automated need improvement? List
your suggested improvements.
16. Have service goals been established for returning phone calls? What are they? Is
this service goal being met? What problems, if any, do you have with the
telephone system and what would you suggest to correct the problems?
17. Have service goals been established for returning email inquiries? What are they?
Is this service goal being met? What problems, if any, do you have with the email
system and what do you suggest to correct these problems?
Estes Park 76 Zucker Systems
18. Do you have all the equipment you need to properly and efficiently do your job? If
not, please list what you need.
19. Do you use consultants or should consultants be used for any of the tasks related
to any of your functions?
20. If you use consultants for any of the functions, what problems, if any, do you
experience with these consultants and what would you recommend to correct this
problem?
21. What changes, if any, would you recommend in relation to the Town’s Planning
Commission or Board of Adjustment?
22. Do you have sufficient time to meet your workload demands? If you are short of
time to do your work, what changes would you recommend to correct this
problem?
23. Please list the major tasks or work activity you undertake and provide a rough
estimated percentage of your time for each task. The percentages should total
100%.
Task Percent
100%
Estes Park 77 Zucker Systems
24. What additional handouts for the public or changes to existing handouts for the
public would be helpful?
25. What changes if any would you recommend for the Town’s web page or e-
government applications as related to the Community Development Department?
26. What changes, if any, would you recommend in relation to the Town’s GIS
program as related to the Community Development Department?
27. What changes, if any, would you recommend in relation to the Town’s computer
permitting systems or accounting systems as related to the Community
Development Department?
28. List any other issues you would like us to consider, or other suggestions you have
for your Department, Division or the Town. Take your time and be as expansive as
possible.