HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2018-02-27The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high‐quality, reliable
services for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while
being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting.
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town
services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons
with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
AGENDA APPROVAL.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1.Town Board Minutes dated February 13, 2018 and Study Session dated February
13, 2018.
2.Bills.
3.Committee Minutes – None.
4.Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated January 18, 2018 (acknowledgement only).
5.Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated January 17, 2018 (acknowledgement
only).
6.Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated January 16, 2018
(acknowledgement only).
7.Resolution #04-18 Amendment to the Municipal Election Judge Compensation.
2. REPORT & DISCUSSION ITEMS: (Outside Entities).
1.CHILDCARE NEEDS ASSESSMENT. Mollie Fitzpatrick, BBC Research and
Consulting.
Prepared 02/16/18
*02/23/2018
**02/26/2018
*
**
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for
Town Board Final Action.
1. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. GRAND ESTATES APARTMENTS PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT.
Request to continue to March 27, 2018.
B. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER
11 TO ADD A PROVISION FOR A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AGREEMENT.
Request to continue to March 13, 2018.
C. FALL RIVER VILLAGE II: AMENDED PUD, AMENDED DEVELOPMENT
PLAN, AND AMENDED PRELIMINARY CONDO MAP. Request to continue to
March 27, 2018.
D. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL TOWNHOME PLAT, Stanley Avenue Townhomes
260 Stanley Avenue. Request to continue to March 27, 2018.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. HISTORICAL SIGN APPROVAL AT 121 W. ELKHORN AVENUE, THE ORIGINAL
TAFFY SHOP. Code Compliance Officer Hardin.
2. RESOLUTION #03-18 REAPPROPRIATION OF 2017 ENCUMBERED FUNDS
AND PROJECT “ROLLOVERS” TO THE 2018 BUDGET. Director Hudson.
3. US 36/COMMUNITY DRIVE TURN LANE PRELIMINARY DESIGN CONSULTANT
CONTRACT AWARD. Manager Hook.
4. DYNAMIC MESSAGE SIGNS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARD. Manager
Hook.
5. ADJOURN.
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, February 13, 2018
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said
Town of Estes Park on the 13th day of February, 2018.
Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Bob Holcomb
Patrick Martchink
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
Cody Rex Walker
Also Present: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 6:13 p.m.
REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Walker) to enter into Executive Session for a
conference with Attorney White per Section 24-6-402(4)(b), C.R.S. for the purposes
of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions regarding use of the Senior
Center, and it passed unanimously.
The Board entered Executive Session at 6:15 p.m. and concluded at 6:37 p.m.
Mayor Jirsa reconvened the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited
the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA APPROVAL.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Koenig)to approve the Agenda,and it passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Johanna Darden/Town citizen spoke to child development and recommended a book
published by the Geselle Institute.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig stated the Quota Club has obtained development pamphlets from
the State of Colorado to pass out at the School District.
Trustee Walker recognized Community Development staff for addressing changes to the
Fee Waiver policy.
Trustee Norris stated the Family Advisory Board held their regular monthly meeting. A
special Joint Study Session meeting of the County Commissioners, Town Board and
Estes Valley Planning Commission would be held on February 22, 2018. He mentioned
the Town Clerk’s office would have information on support groups for caregivers caring
for those suffering from dementia and Alzheimer’s.
Trustee Martchink recognized the outgoing Town Senior Center staff with the transitioning
of the Senior Center to the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District (EVRPD) in the new DRAFTatorator
wn Administratorwn Administrator
ClerkClerk
der at der at 6:6 13 p.m.
TIVE SESSION:SESSION:AFd (Norris/Walker) Walk to enter into Exo enter into Ex
y White per Section 24ection 24-6--6 402(4)(b)2(4)(b)
ice on specific legal questions rice on specific legal qu
d unanimously. d unanimously
red Executive Session at 6:15 p.m. red Executive Session at 6:15 p.m
a reconvened thevened the meeting to order ameeting to order a
ge of Allegiance.e of Allegiance.
ENDA APPROVAL.ENDA APPROVA
DRt was t was moved and secondedd seconded ( (HolcHol
unanimously.unan
BLBLIC COMMENTSIC COMMENTS. . Dnna Darden/Town cnna Darden/Town
d by the Gesed by the Gese
RD CRD C
3
Board of Trustees – February 13, 2018 – Page 2
Community Center as of March. He commented their hard work and dedication were
appreciated by the Town and the community they served.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Administrator Lancaster presented the Board with a Resolution that Senator Gardner
presented on the floor of the United States Senate recognizing the Town of Estes Park’s
100 year anniversary.
Town Clerk Williamson provided an update on the April 3, 2018 Municipal Election
announcing the ten candidates running for the three trustee seats, including Dave Shirk,
Bob Holcomb, Marie Cenac, Barbara MacAlpine, Bob Holcomb, Art Messal, Ken Zornes,
Ward Nelson, Carlie Speedlin Bangs, and Michelle Hiland.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Town Board Minutes dated January 23, 2018 and Study Session dated January
23, 2018.
2. Bills.
3.Committee Minutes.
a. Community Development/Community Services Committee Minutes dated
January 25, 2018.
4. Family Advisory Board Minutes dated January 4, 2018 (acknowledgement only).
5. Amendment of Water System Transfer Agreement with Park Entrance Mutual
Pipeline Water Company.
6. Revised Policy 402 Community Development Fee Waiver.
7. Purchase of Tandem Dump Truck for Water Department, MHC Kenworth-Greeley,
$157,480.03.
8. Board of Adjustment Appointments:
a. Wayne Newsom, Reappointment, 3-year term expiring February 28, 2021.
b. Jeff Moreau, Reappointment, 3-year term expiring February 28, 2021.
9. Local Marketing District Appointment - Kevin Benes to complete the term of Chris
Amundson expiring on December 31, 2019.
It was moved and seconded (Walker/Holcomb) to approve the Consent Agenda,
and it passed unanimously.
2. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
1. ACTION ITEMS:
A.AMENDED AND RESTATE BLACK CANYON MINOR SUBDIVISION
PLAT,800 Macgregor Avenue; Sloan Investments LLC, Owner. Attorney
White stated the original plat was approved by the Town Board in April 2016
and subsequently recorded in March 2017. The plat contained an error
identified through the sales contract for Lot 2 of the subdivision. Lot 2
contained a portion of the main Black Canyon Inn property in error. To
correct the error an amended and restated plat of Lot 2 would be required
to complete the sale.It was moved and seconded (Norris/Koenig) to
approve the Amended and Restated Black Canyon Minor Subdivision,
and it passed unanimously.DRAFTdy Session dated Janudy Session d
munity Services Committee MinutServices Co
es dated January 4, 2018 (acknowles dated January 4, 2018 (a
System Transfer Agreement with Transfer Agreement with
pany.
402 Community Development Fee W402 Community Developm
RAof Tandem Dump Truck for WateR80.03
DRustment Appointments:DRa.a.Wayne Newsom, Re
DRb.b.Jeff Moreau, Reappoin
DR9.9 ng District ApDAAmundson expiring
was was moved and semoved and se
t passed t passed unanunan
NG NG D4
Board of Trustees – February 13, 2018 – Page 3
B. ORDINANCE #34-17 – AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 13 §5.4 & §3-17, REGARDING
OUTDOOR MOBILE FOOD VENDORS & VENDING PERMITS.Mayor
Jirsa opened the public hearing. Planner Becker provided a brief overview
of the changes to the Ordinance to address concerns of the Board and
public, including the temporary use permit process being replaced with a
simple business license process, and a proposed lower business license
fee to be reviewed with the additional changes coming forward for business
licensing. The new process would allow food trucks to float as long as they
have land owner approval and are operating within the allowed zoning
districts, and adhere to the operational standards outlined in the code
amendments. The code amendments would only be applicable within town
limits in order to interface with the business licensing ordinance.
Matthew Heiser/Town citizen and local business owner stated his
appreciation for staff’s work and communication to bring the code
amendment forward.
Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. Attorney White read the Ordinance
into the record. It was moved and seconded (Nelson/Holcomb) to
approve Ordinance #34-17, amending the Estes Valley Development
Code as stated in Exhibit A, finding that the amendment is in accord
with the Comprehensive Plan and with Section 3.3 of the Development
Code, and it passed unanimously.
3. ACTION ITEMS:
1. FUTURE USE OF SENIOR CENTER AT 220 4
TH STREET.
Attorney White reviewed the deed restrictions for the Stanley Park property (54
acres) and stated any activities outside of the deed would revert the property to
the Stanley heirs. Reversion of the property would include the loss of all
improvements on the property; including the Museum, Senior Center, Event
Center, Pavilion, large portion of the property leased to the Estes Valley
Recreation and Park District, etc. Assistant Town Attorney Randy Williams
provided a second opinion confirming Attorney White’s opinion on the use of the
Senior Center for childcare may violate the terms of the reversionary clause of
the Stanley Park deed. He further stated the area known as Stanley Park
consists of three parcels: 54 acres deeded by F.O. Stanley in 1936, 7.5 acres
deeded by the Manford family (rodeo grounds and entrance to Stanley Park),
and 17 acres deeded by the Estes Park Development Company (EPDC)
(southeast portion of the property). All deeds included the reversionary clause;
however, the EPDC no longer exists, therefore, the reversionary clause may not
be enforced.
Assistant Town Administrator Machalek provided a review of the current Senior
Center facility, amenities and programming, and stated the new Community
Center would provide approximately twice the usable square footage, additional
amenities such as use of the walking track and similar programming to be
provided. The Town has three master plans for the Stanley Park properties,
including the 2006 Fairgrounds plan, 1997 plan adopted by the Town and the
EVRPD for the property east of Community Drive, and an updated 2013 plan
adopted by EVRPD only, and the 2013/2014 Museum and Senior Center Master
Plan with a preferred alternative to combine the Senior Center with a Community
Center. Ballot 1A, which included funding for the new facility, was passed by the
voters in 2014. In 2015, EVRPD submitted Ballot Issues 4C and 4D for the
construction and operational expenses of a multi-generational Community
Center and it passed. The Town and EVRPD entered into an IGA in 2016 to
outline the Town’s intent to transfer management of the Senior Center to the
District with the completion of the new Community Center.
Board discussion was heard on the four proposals reviewed at the previous study
session for the use of the current Senior Center building and have been DRAFTcabcab
dinancedinanc
ess owner stateess ow
ation to bring the coation to br
Attorney White read the Ordinance Attorney White read the Ord
dd seconded sec (Nelson/Holcomblcomb) )t
nding the Estes Valley Developmnding the Estes Valley Developm
nding that the amendment is in ading that the ame
n and with Section 3.3 of the Devewith Section
mously.
NIOR CENTER AT 220 4ENTER AT 220 4THT STREEREEAewed the deed restrictions for the Seed restrictions for the
d any activities outside of the deed d any activities outside of the deed
heirs. Reversion of the property heirs. Reversion of the
nts on the property; including the nts on the property; includ
Pavilion, large portion of the proPavilion, large portion of the
ation and Park District, etc. Assiation and Park District, etc. Ass
vided a second opinion confirming Ad a second opinion confirming A
Senior Center for childcare may vionter for childcare may vio
the Stanley Parkthe Stanley Park deed. He furtde
consists of three parcels: 54 aconsists of three parce
deeded by the Manford famby the Manford f
and 17 acres deedcres eded bb
(southeast portion of thortio
however, the EPDC EP
be enforced.be enforced.
AssistantAssistant TowTow
nter facnter fac
rwrw
5
Board of Trustees – February 13, 2018 – Page 4
summarized: the Children’s Museum proposal was an innovative proposal,
however, as a private business it should not be operated out of a Town owned
building; the Museum storage has been an issue for over 25 years and should
be addressed, even as a temporary solution; the history of the Town should be
protected and celebrated with the preservation of the Museum artifacts; the
Stanley Park reversionary clause would prevent the building from being utilized
for childcare; the Community Center provides a new senior friendly space for the
Senior Center; the Senior Center has been transferred to the EVRPD through
the IGA and continuing to operate a second facility would undermine the success
of the new center and be a duplication of efforts; and it was noted the Museum
and childcare deserve a better building than the current Senior Center.
Those speaking in favor of the Museum for storage included Kurtis Kelly/Museum
Foundation President and Nancy Thomas/Stanley Museum member. The
Museum Foundation Board unanimously endorsed the Museum’s request to
utilize the building for storage and return the Light and Power warehouse space.
The storage would be a temporary solution of five to six years to allow the
Foundation the time needed to raise the funds to construct a research and
collection building. Light and Power has a need to reclaim the space in order to
complete projects in house and save taxpayer funds.
Those speaking in favor of Senior Citizen Center Inc. maintaining the building,
included Elva Allen/County citizen and Johanna Darden/Town citizen. The
seniors would not be provided the services needed by the new Community
Center, namely a daily meal.
Those speaking in favor of the Child Development and Recreational Center
included Lori Dale Marshall/County citizen, Adam Hochstetler/Town citizen,
Michelle Hiland/Town citizen and Art Messal/Town citizen. The Family Advisory
Board (FAB) endorsed the center because it would meet a critical need in the
community. FAB would request the Town Board review how to remove the deed
restriction to allow the facility to meet a number of the Board’s Strategic Plan
objectives. It was suggested the Town identify an alternative if the Senior Center
cannot be used for the facility. The Town needs to support the development of
children and help families in the Estes Valley.
It was moved and seconded (Walker/Koenig) to decline the Children’s
Museum proposal as a use of the Senior Center located at 220 4th Street,
and it passed unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Nelson)to accept the Museum
proposal for the use of the Senior Center located at 220 4th Street, Board
discussion followed and after further discussion, the motion was followed by a
substitute motion.
Discussion focused on the best and highest use of the Senior Center building;
the need to review the Master Plans for the property to determine the use of the
building, use by the Museum as storage would be an expansion of the facility,
the childcare facility continues to be the highest priority and need within the
community, and concern the Museum would utilize the building for storage and
not build the new research and collection facility.
Staff stated a review of the three master plans for the Stanley Park properties
would take six to nine months to complete. It was also stated there are a number
of competing uses for the property, including the performing art center, vocational
classrooms for the School District, childcare, etc. which need to be considered
in the review process to determine the best and highest use of the property.
After further discussion a substitute motion was proposed. It was moved and
seconded (Koenig/Jirsa) as of March 1, 2018 the Senior Center building
located at 220 4th Street is vacated and reserved for the use by the Museum DRAFTurtis Keurtis K
eum membeeum m
e Museum’s reque Muse
d Power warehouse spad Power ware
ve to six years to allow theve to six years t
s to construct a research and s to construct a rese
ed to reclaim the space in order to ed to reclaim the space in o
yer funds.yer fun
tizen Center Inczen Center Inc. . maintaining the bma
n and Johanna Darden/Town citizJohanna Dar
the services needed by the new es neede
r of the Child Development and Rthe Child Development and
Marshall/County citizenCounty citizen,,Adam HocAdam Hoc
wn citizen and Art Messal/Town citiznd Art Messal/Town citi
dorsed the center because it wouldorsed the center because it would
AB would request the Town Board rAB would request the Tow
o allow the facility to meet a numbo allow the facility to meet
s.s.It was suggested the Town identiIt was suggested the Town id
be used for thbe used for the facilitye facility. The Town. The Tow
dren and help families in the Estes Vand help families in the Estes V
It wasIt was moved and secondedmoved and
Museum proposal as a use oMuseum proposal as
and it passed unanimously.assed unanimousl
It was moved and sed
proposal for the usr the
discussion followediscussion follow
substitute motiosubstitute motio
cussioncussion
ee
6
Board of Trustees – February 13, 2018 – Page 5
as they see fit, including as a storage facility, and it passed with Trustee
Walker voting “No”.
2. ORDINANCE #02-18 – AMENDING THE 2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING
CODE, §307.1.1, §414.2.5 AND TABLE 414.2.5(2), REGARDING THE
STORAGE OF DISTILLED SPIRITS IN WOODEN BARRELS OR CASKS.
Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing. Chief Building Official Birchfield
presented amendments to the 2015 International Building Code (IBC) to address
local concerns on the maximum allowed quantity of distilled spirits, 120 gallons,
that can be stored in wooden barrels or casks in a control room without a sprinkler
system and an emergency alarm system. Liquor stores are allowed to store
1,600 gallons of various alcohol without a sprinkler system. The proposed local
amendment would allow distilleries to store up to 1,600 gallons before the control
room would need to be sprinkled.
Joe Elkins/Elkins Distillery spoke in support of the proposed local amendment
and thanked staff for developing a reasonable solution.
Kent Smith/Town citizen thanked staff for their efforts to facilitate the changes
and for continuing to support the craft beverage industry within the community.
Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. Attorney White read the Ordinance into
the record. It was moved and seconded (Nelson/Holcomb)to approve
Ordinance #02-18, and it passed unanimously.
3. POLICY 108 – ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES APPLICABLE TO THE BOARD
OF TRUSTEES.Town Administrator Lancaster presented the new policy that
would identify general administrative policies applicable to the Board of Trustees
and to document agreement by the Board to abide by these specific policies. It
was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Koenig)to approve Policy #108 –
Administrative Polices Applicable to the Board of Trustees, and it passed
unanimously.
4. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD INTERVIEW COMMITTEE
APPOINTMENT.It was moved and seconded (Norris/Walker)to appoint
Trustee Holcomb and Trustee Martchink to the Transportation Advisory
Board interview committee, and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 9:21 p.m.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk DRAFTe pe p
s befores befo
roposed local amendmroposed loca
tion.on.
eir efforts to facilitate the changes eir efforts to facilitate the ch
erage industry within the communityerage industry within the commun
g. Attorney White read the Attorney White re Ordinan
secondedonded ( Nelson/HolcombNelson)to
d unanimously.usly.
RATIVE POLICIES APPLICABLE RATIVE POLICIES APPLIC
AFAdministrator Lancasterinistrator Lanca presented esente
administrative policies applicable tostrative policies applicable to
greement by the Board to abide by y the Board to abide by
d secondedsec (Holcomb/KoenigHolcomb/K )toto
ve Polices Applicable to the Boarve Polices Applicable to
y.y.
SPORTATION ADVISORY BOSPORTATION ADVISORY BRAPOINTMENT.NTMEN It was It was moved moved andand
DRrustee Holcomb and Trusteeolcomb and Trustee MaMa
Board interview committeeBoard interview co , and
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjournedWhereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned
7
8
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado February 13, 2018
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town
of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in
the Board Room and Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the
13th day of February, 2018.
Board:Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Holcomb,
Martchink, Nelson, Norris and Walker
Attending:All
Also Attending:Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town
Administrator Machalek,Town Attorney White, and Town
Clerk Williamson
Absent:None
Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m.
PRESENTATION ON COUNTYWIDE WASTESHED STUDY.
Ron Gilkerson/Larimer County Project Manager provided a presentation of the North
Front Range Regional Wasteshed Planning Study. Larimer County Solid Waste
services currently incorporates residential waste, commercial waste, recycling,
household hazardous waste disposal, public education center, and organic material
diversion. The remaining airspace in the current landfill with the annual volumes have
the landfill full by 2025. Solid waste challenges identified include increasing the volume
of solid waste, need for consistent goals and programs, anticipated closure of the
County landfill, and balancing economic, environmental and social costs. To
accomplish the goals the County established a five-phase approach. A policy advisory
committee and a technical advisory committee were formed with members from Larimer
County, Fort Collins, Loveland and Estes Park. Goals were established by the
committees as follows: Goal #1 - Establish a comprehensive, regional solid waste
materials management system by 2025 that is implemented in an economically,
environmentally and socially sustainable manner; Goal #2 - Create a comprehensive
solid waste materials management plan and implement programs and facilities that
reflect the needs and desires of users; Goal #3 - Develop a set of waste
diversion/reduction goals that are adopted and implemented by all jurisdictions in the
wasteshed; and Goal #4 - Develop a strong public education and outreach program that
is consistent throughout the wasteshed. Infrastructure options under consideration by
the study included status quo with no action taken upon closure of the landfill, a new
County Landfill, Materials Recovery Facility (Clean), Central Transfer Station, Yard,
Waste Organics Processing Facility, Construction & Demolition (C&D), Processing
Facility, Energy From Waste Facility – Direct Combustion , Mixed Waste Processing –
Dirty MRF, Anaerobic Digestion, Aerobic Composting Including Food Waste, and
Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Processing. HDR was hired to complete an evaluation of
the 11 options utilizing a Sustainability Value Assessment approach, including a review
of lifecycle costs, the environment, social impact and economic costs. The County has
a replacement fund of $40 million to fund future infrastructure costs identified by the
study. The study received 96% approval by the committee members. The future
facilities were broken down into three tiers with Tier 1 identified as a Central Transfer
Station, New Landfill, Construction and Demolition Waste Processing, Yard Waste
Composting and Food Waste Composting at a cost of approximately $61 million. The
tipping fee costs and the average residential household impact was considered in
developing the tier projects and identifying markets for the facilities to ensure utilization
9
Town Board Study Session – February 13, 2018 – Page 2
to decrease costs. In addition, a number of regulatory options could be considered to
ensure volumes are maintained and tipping fees are low, including hauling agreements,
agreements with municipalities that collect their own waste, ordinances, etc. The next
steps for the process would include a stakeholder meeting in March, an infrastructure
capture rate study and blended infrastructure options, and public information meetings
throughout Larimer County.
IMPLEMENTATION OF STORMWATER MASTER PLAN/STORMWATER UTILITY.
Director Muhonen stated the purpose of the presentation would be to introduce the
Estes Valley Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study and a draft Intergovernmental
Agreement between the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County because a large
portion of the stormwater area would be within the unincorporated portion of Larimer
County. The study utilizes the projects identified through the Stormwater Master Plan
presented previously to the Town Board in October 2017.
George Oamek/Headwaters Corporation reviewed the feasibility study focusing on fee
structure scenarios and planning assumptions, and potential stormwater
entity/organizational structure. The cost of the master plan capital improvements has
been estimated at $79.1 million in 2017 dollars with Priority 1 projects at $44.2 million,
Priority 2 projects at $23.3 million and Priority 3 projects at $11.6 million. Financing the
utility could be accomplished through a number of avenues, including a monthly
stormwater user fee, impact fees, sales tax, grants, etc. As the valley has little future
growth it was determined impact fees would not be a good source of revenue. Monthly
fees were reviewed and would be determined by the zoning, land use type, and
impervious area on the lot, i.e. the more impervious coverage the larger the monthly
charge. The study analyzed nine scenarios with varying implementation periods,
varying financing sources, and user charges were adjusted to meet desired
implementation period and availability of other funds. Scenario 1A outlined financing the
improvements over 30 years with user fees only with high priority projects constructed
between 2024 – 2036 and a total cost of $128 million. The monthly fees for a single-
family 1-acre lot would range from $15 to $35 by 2028. Scenario 3A outlined financing
the improvements over 30 years with user fees and a 0.4% local sales tax beginning in
2024 with construction of the most high priority projects in 2024 – 2035 at a cost of $128
million. The monthly fees for a single-family 1-acre lot would range from $15 to $26 by
2028. Scenario 5A outlined financing the improvements over 30 years with user fees, a
0.4% local sales tax beginning in 2024, and grant assistance for major projects with
construction of the most high priority projects in 2023 – 2032 at a cost of $102 million.
The monthly fees for a single-family 1-acre lot would range from $15 to $20 by 2028.
The utility could be formed as a Town department funded by the General fund, an
Enterprise fund similar to Light and Power or Water, or a Regional Stormwater
Authority.
Attorney White stated the formation of a stormwater utility would require an
Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town and Larimer County, the adoption of a
fee schedule, and approval of an annual budget by the Town and County. The
formation of a utility would not require a vote.
Board discussion followed on the topic of establishing a utility and has been
summarized: the overall benefit to property owners would be significant because of the
reduction to flood insurance costs; the Board has received no public feedback on the
topic and it was noted the public does not know about the proposed utility; additional
public outreach would be needed before moving forward; and the Master Plan would
likely receive negative public feedback once the proposed fee structure has been
introduced.
Staff would conduct public outreach on the formation of an enterprise fund and the
proposed fee structure outlined in the feasibility study. The feedback would be brought
back to the Town Board for consideration of the Stormwater Master Plan.
10
Town Board Study Session – February 13, 2018 – Page 3
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS
Mayor Jirsa informed the Board he contacted the Mayor of Grand Junction to notify him
of the upcoming article in the Trail Gazette concerning their new hire for Visit Grand
Junction. He stated he had been interviewed for the article and wanted to make them
aware as to not have Grand Junction caught off guard.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS
Administrator Lancaster stated a study session would not be held on April 24, 2018.
The study sessions in May would provide a review of policy governance and legal
issues to orient the new Board. He questioned if the Board would like to discuss RTA
and the next steps. Trustee Holcomb stated he would like to discuss it further. The
item would be scheduled for a study session in June.
There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 5:43 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
11
12
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 18, 2018
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Parks Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park,
Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Conference Room of the Estes Park
Museum on the 18th day of January, 2018.
Present Carlie Bangs
Vicki Papineau
Merle Moore
Dewain Lockwood
Wade Johnston
Geoffrey Elliot
Also
Present: Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Patrick Martchink, Town Board Liaison
Brian Berg, Parks Division Supervisor
Absent: Ronna Boles
Acting Chair Merle Moore called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No public comments
GENERAL BUSINESS
It was moved and seconded (Papineau/Bangs) to approve the December meeting
minutes and the motion passed unanimously.
PARKS DIVISION UPDATE
Youth on Board: Two students were selected to join the PAB this year. At this point
there has been minimal contact and there’s been difficulty getting them to the meetings.
A survey was recently sent by Jill Lancaster regarding this program and frustrations
were expressed with the apparent lack of commitment by the students. It may be due to
the students being of younger ages.
13
Parks Advisory Board – January 18, 2018 – Page 2
Mountain Heritage Festival: Member Wade Johnston volunteered to be the PAB liaison
with Member Bang’s scheduling conflicts for this year’s festival. The focus this year will
be more on kids and kids will be presenting projects.
Acting Chair Merle Moore discussed having a banner created to identify the PAB booth
at the festival. Supervisor Berg stated it would be an approximate $200 investment.
Since there would be annual usage, it was decided that it may not be a bad investment.
Park Bench Replacement: 99.9% of the old benches in town have been replaced.
Parks Division Spring Preparation:
All flowers have been ordered for the coming Spring
The Parks Division will start rehabilitation of the juniper beds this year. This will
take place in front of the library, in the library parking lot, and in the Performance
Park parking lot. Those in front of the library may be replaced with aspen spores
as there are existing aspen trees.
The Decorating Utility Boxes (DUB) process has been reassigned to Supervisor
Berg for management moving forward. This was a directive from Utilities Director
Bergsten to remove staff support due to time demands. It was suggested there
be a representative of Light & Power at the PAB meetings during the artwork
selection process. A motion was made and seconded (Moore/Johnston) to
proceed with making this request and all were in favor.
The Parks Division worked with the Streets Division to remove three very large dead
ponderosa pine trees on Mocassin Drive. This was a preventative measure due to the
risk of the trees falling into the road.
AIPP GUIDELINES:
A motion was made and seconded (Papineau/Bangs) to accept the edits made to the
AIPP Guidelines along with today’s final edits and all were in favor (see attached – edits
highlighted in green).
MRS WALSH’S GARDEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Supervisor Berg and Acting Chair Merle Moore introduced the agenda and minutes from
the first meeting of Mrs. Walsh’s Garden Advisory Committee (“Committee”). These
meetings are scheduled monthly at the Estes Valley Library. Berg described the
interface to take place between the Committee and PAB / Town of Estes Park. A couple
14
Parks Advisory Board – January 18, 2018 – Page 3
committee members have been assigned to update the inventory of Mrs. Walsh’s
Garden (“Garden”). In order to identify the existing plants this work cannot take place
until spring to allow for growth. There will be a review of the existing plant labels as
some have been misplaced within the Garden. At that time it will be ensured that either
all needed labels are available or that some will need ordered. Goals and objectives
were defined at the first meeting and folks are ready to get to work in the Garden. One
issue with planting native species, which is a requirement of the Garden, is the rarity of
finding them in area greenhouses.
Once the Garden inventory is updated, a plant list will be developed and those needing
added can be identified. Joan Sapp and Acting Co-Chair Moore met soon after the 2013
flood and developed a listing of what would be included in the Garden.
Moore indicated that with the Garden being donated to the Town, there is a potential for
a portion of the designated funds to be applied toward an expansion of the Town’s
existing greenhouse. This would allow the Town to grow the native plants in-house.
Member Papineau will mention the need for greenhouse space to RMNP to see if
there’s a possibility of sharing their greenhouse space . Member Geoffrey Elliot
suggested the PAB reach out to the universities regarding greenhouse space and the
possibility that they may have the seeds for the native species needed. The Garden of
Spring Creek also has seed exchanges available.
OFFICER ELECTIONS
Annually, in January, officer elections take place. Member Dewain Lockwood nominated
Merle Moore for Chairperson of the PAB for 2018 and all were in favor. Member Elliot
nominated Carlie Bangs for Co-Chair of the PAB for 2018 and all were in favor.
ESTES ARTS DISTRICT (EAD) UPDATE
Nick Smith, Chair of the Estes Arts District, attended today’s meeting and appreciates
the invitation by Acting Chair Moore. Smith expressed his intent to participate in the
PAB moving forward. Moore asked that Smith be aware that there is intent to present
something to the Town Board requesting they consider allotting a percentage of all town
construction projects to be set aside which would contribute to art in the community.
Moore is hoping the arts organizations in town would provide a show of support when it
comes time to present to the board. Most towns with an AIPP program have 1-2% of
their project funding directed to art contributions. Smith expressed his agreement with
this plan and will provide support.
15
Parks Advisory Board – January 18, 2018 – Page 4
Supervisor Berg requested Smith provide Arts District updates to the PAB at each
meeting so all are on the same page and opportunities for collaboration can be
identified.
Smith reported that the First Friday Art Groove is February 2. This activity will stay open
later than last year. There will be music, wine & cheese, and walking crews to introduce
content of the individual galleries.
The Friends of Folk Festival for Dick Orleans will occur on June 26. This was very
successful last year and the Estes Arts District is hoping to make it even better this
year.
Significant changes have taken place in the EAD organization with the first being the
appointment of a new chairperson, Nick Smith. EAD is changing direction to improve
quality of life through arts and culture for the residents of Estes Park and Smith is
committed to leading this initiative. Acting Chair Moore made it clear that the PAB fully
supports participating in collaborative efforts.
OTHER BUSINESS
At the previous PAB meeting, a discussion took place regarding the potential for
grant availability for parks within the Downtown Estes Loop project. Member
Bangs has been looking into this potential and wanted to mention that one item
noted, which is consistent across various grant requirements, is the need for
support and collaboration from other agencies/businesses. This is something to
keep in mind.
Trustee Liaison Martchink asked if there was any type of prioritized list related to
the utility boxes for DUB artwork. This may be a beneficial tool for business
owners wanting their boxes painted. If their utility box is on the list of boxes Light
& Power has determined will be painted, the business owner may decide to wait
rather than commission an artist themselves.
Martchink had an opportunity to view the Parks Division greenhouse and with the
acquisition of Mrs. Walsh’s Garden, he definitely sees the importance of
expanding greenhouse space. Martchink feels it is a great idea to utilize the
Garden funds to help with greenhouse expansion. These funds would help get
the project moving forward.
16
Parks Advisory Board – January 18, 2018 – Page 5
The end of February or first part of March was determined to be the general
timeframe to publish a Request for Proposal (RFP) for 2018 DUB artwork
submissions. Member Papineau plans to touch base with Member Boles to
confirm. Member Wade Johnston expressed his interest in presenting art for this
program. He is aware that he will be unable to vote on artwork submitted during
this process.
With no further business to discuss, the motion was made and seconded
(Moore/Papineau) to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 am.
17
18
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 17, 2018
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Room 203 of Town Hall on the 17th
day of January, 2018.
Present: Kimberly Campbell
Gordon Slack
Ann Finley
Tom Street
Belle Morris
Stan Black
Amy Hamrick
Claudine Perrault
Also Present: Bob Holcomb, Town Board Liaison
Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director
Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Lochen Wood, RMNP
Absent: David Hook, Engineering Manager
Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:06 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
No public comment.
A motion was made and seconded (Slack/Black) to approve the December minutes with
minor edits and all were in favor.
SHUTTLE UPDATE
No Shuttle Committee representation was in attendance.
PROJECT UPDATES, Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director
US36 / Community Drive Turn Lane:
Public Works has issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the design of a turn lane on
US-36 and Community Drive. At the time of creating the design, the consultant will also
look at intersection control to determine if an elevated level of control is needed.
19
Transportation Advisory Board – January 17, 2017 – Page 2
Downtown Estes Loop: There is a meeting scheduled this month to discuss progress on
right of way (ROW) acquisitions. Trustee Holcomb asked if we will we be able to request
project funding be provided prior to 2021. Director Muhonen confirmed that we will not be
able to make a case for this until after acquisitions take place.
Parking Garage: Two double-electric vehicle charging stations are currently being
installed at the parking garage.
Stormwater Master Plan: At the Town Board Study Session on February 13, a
presentation will take place providing an update on the proposed user fee schedule that
will help fund the $79M proposal. If it is determined by the Town Board to continue,
additional public meetings will be scheduled.
Highway 7 Resurfacing: Member Morris asked if any bike lanes or sharrows would be
included in the Hwy 7 resurfacing work. Director Muhonen indicated that he didn’t recall
there being any defined in the plans. Chair Campbell stated that there is no one standing
behind the TAB to get this accomplished – neither in the Downtown Estes Loop project
nor the Hwy 7 resurfacing project.
Muhonen indicated that the Town needs a complete streets policy to help communicate
the local needs and desires for this type of work. Muhonen went on to state that this type
of policy is a town objective and Trustee Liaison Holcomb agreed. Although there is
currently no adopted transportation master plan, there is a definite need.
The first step in this process would be to request the Town Board adopt a resolution
wherein the areas with the most need for sharrows or other multi-modal solutions would
be specified. Muhonen suggested the TAB write a memo to the Town Board in late April
requesting the Town Board allow the TAB to write a letter to CDOT. Member Perrault
expressed her strong support. This would put the responsibility back with CDOT to
maintain the established standards for their main arterial roads within town.
Region 4 of CDOT recently sent an email to Director Muhonen requesting a list of the top
needs for bicycles in our area. Muhonen sent them 8 projects for $25M to the Region 4
which were taken from the Estes Valley Trails Master Plan.
Brodie Avenue Improvements:
Drexel, Barrell & Co., the design Consultant, will present the 30% design plans on January
25 at a public meeting being held at the Estes Park High School.
20
Transportation Advisory Board – January 17, 2017 – Page 3
Public Works has yet to receive a determination on the recently submitted Safe Routes
to School grant application.
Moraine Avenue Improvements:
Due to delays by CenturyLink and Excel Energy, 21 days of production has been lost.
Project management is currently trying to determine how much the delay will cost and
what it will take to get the project back on track.
Public Works and project manager, Mike Todd are going door to door inviting business
owners to meetings related to the April closure of Elkhorn Avenue. Elkhorn Avenue will
have no additional pedestrian traffic ability during the closure, however collaboration is
occurring with some of the business owners to plan attractions and/or special functions
to attract visitors. The Director of Community Services has been made aware and is
willing to help. Member Perrault suggested titling the event(s) ‘Bread & Circuses’.
OFFICER ELECTIONS:
Chair Campbell initiated the annual officer elections, stating she will no longer be the TAB
Chairperson. Member Anne Finley suggested the next Chair be someone new to the TAB
offering new perspective(s) and that have the ability to run a meeting.
Campbell stated that any existing member of the TAB would be a successful chairperson.
She explained that the position is more of a facilitator role. The role will receive guidance
and technical expertise from Public Works. The chairperson will need to collaboratively
define what’s important for the group.
Member Black stated that it’s worth emphasizing that current Chair Campbell took a
majority of the work on herself. Moving forward, it is important to delegate to other board
members. Member Perrault stated that competence is critical and feels that whomever
has been a member of the TAB for a solid amount of time should be the next chairperson.
This will enable them to explain the objectives to the group when needed.
Director Muhonen read the established roles for both the Chairperson and Vice-
Chairperson from the PAB By-laws.
Member and current Co-Chair, Belle Morris self-nominated for the Chairperson role. The
motion was made and seconded to nominate Morris (Zornes/Perrault) and all were in
favor. All members stated their commitment to helping and supporting Morris in this role.
21
Transportation Advisory Board – January 17, 2017 – Page 4
For the position of Co-Chair, Member Perrault self-nominated. The motion was made and
seconded to nominate Perrault (Finley/Slack) and all were in favor.
DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN:
A motion was made and seconded (Finley/Morris) to approve the distribution of the memo
from the TAB to the Town Board Trustees supporting the adoption of the Downtown
Parking Management Plan. All were in favor.
Director Muhonen and Kimley-Horn consultant Vanessa Solesby presented the draft plan
to the Town Board Trustees and the plan was taken favorably. The suggestion was made
to move forward for formal approval with planned implementation in 2018. Muhonen
stated the Mayor requested individual Trustee feedback and all wanted it to come back
for formal adoption on January 23.
The Trustees also supported amending the 2018 budget to allow savings from the parking
garage be transferred to support the first phase of the plan. Suggestions were provided
to hire a consultant rather than a new employee due to significant recruiting difficulty.
Chair Campbell suggested the Town use the consultants to also begin compiling traffic
data. Muhonen stated that if the Town Trustees determine a Downtown Parking Division
is needed, it would most likely reside within the Public Works Department. It will be
critically important that this position have heavy interaction with the TAB.
OTHER BUSINESS
With the newly elected officers, getting on the same page and defining a plan for next
year is critical. Director Muhonen and Belle Morris will prepare a 2018 Work Plan to be
discussed at the February TAB meeting.
With no other business to discuss, Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m.
22
3/12/2018
1
Presented by
Mollie Fitzpatrick, Director
1999 Broadway, Suite 2200
Denver, Colorado 80202
(303) 321-2547
email@bbcresearch.com
Feb 27, 2018
ESTES VALLEY
CHILDCARE NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2
AGENDA
Project Background
Key Findings (data & surveys)
Demand Analysis
Top Needs and Recommendations
3/12/2018
2
BBC contracted by the Estes Park EDC and
EVICS (as a fiscal agent) to conduct a
Childcare Needs Assessment in the Estes Valley.
The needs assessment is based on data analysis
along with community surveys and interviews of
parents/guardians, employers, and current
childcare providers.
Recommendations are based on knowledge
and experience of the BBC team.
3
PROJECT BACKGROUND
KEY FINDINGS
4
Current providers
Children in Estes Valley & in care
Parent Perspectives
Provider Perspectives
3/12/2018
3
Children under 6 in licensed care:
121 individuals*
+12 on waitlist
133 children
Usage Rates:
24% of all EV children
1%of in-commuters
Current Licensed Providers:
2 full-day childcare centers
(children 2 ½ to 6)
6 licensed family providers
(children 6wks)
2 part-day preschools
(children 2 ½ to 6)
Full-Day Daily Capacity:
12 infants/toddlers
+ 92 preschool-age
104 daily capacity
5
PROVIDERS AND
CHILDREN Population and Households:
Resident households = 4,897
Resident population = 10,023
Children under 6 = 489 (ACS estimate)
486 (school district data)
*higher than daily capacity due to usage patterns (part-time use)
6
BARRIERS TO ACCESSING CARE
In the past 12 months,
what were the biggest
challenges, if any, you
had in finding and
using childcare/
preschool for your
children?
3/12/2018
4
Key barriers to providing services include financial
solvency as well as operations and staffing
challenges.
Biggest challenge: bridging the gap between
operational costs and the revenue from tuition
Also identified staffing concerns, administrative
requirements, and program management as barriers
Most common unmet needs:
Infant/toddler care is biggest need
Also identified a need for more bilingual childcare, high
quality full-day preschool, and additional licensed
family home providers.
7
PROVIDER PERSPECTIVES
DEMAND
ANALYSIS
8
3/12/2018
5
10-year forecast of demand for full-day licensed
childcare in the Estes Valley. Three possible
scenarios based on policy priorities:
1. Status quo—current housing/demographic
trends continue and childcare usage rate
(24%) persists
2. Investments in workforce housing—adds 500
units of workforce housing to status quo growth;
childcare usage rate (24%) persists
3. Investments in workforce housing & childcare—
same growth as scenario 2; increases childcare
usage rate from 24% to 28%
9
DEMAND PROJECTIONS
In 2017, the gap between capacity and demand is relatively small but
by 2027 the shortage of childcare spots ranges from 17 to 66 full-day full-
time childcare spots.
Demand forecasts indicate an immediate need for infant care
regardless of demand scenario and indicate a long-term need for
additional preschool-age capacity, particularly if both workforce
housing and childcare investments are made as planned.
10
DEMAND PROJECTIONS
3/12/2018
6
TOP NEEDS &
RECOMMENDATIONS
11
Immediate unmet demand for licensed infant/
toddler care (only age-group with waitlists and
was identified as a top need by both parents
and providers);
Funding challenges for providers to achieve full
cost recovery for services provided;
Secondary barriers to accessing care are related
to trust and scheduling challenges (as expressed
by parents/guardians through the parent survey);
and
Long-term demand for additional childcare
capacity for preschool age children—particularly
if the Town pursues additional investments in
workforce housing and childcare initiatives.
12
TOP NEEDS
3/12/2018
7
1. Consider options to help licensed providers raise
tuition rates while maintaining affordability for
families.
2. Work collaboratively toward a solution for
addressing the infant/toddler care need
3. Take proactive efforts to increase the number
and quality of licensed family home providers
while also retaining existing quality care
providers.
4. Continue coordinated education and outreach
for the benefits (including economic impact) of
quality early care and education provision and
the child care industry.
13
RECOMMENDATIONS
5. Continue to support a diversity of childcare
options in the Valley to improve quality, school
readiness and parental trust in providers.
6. Proactively track the key metrics for preschool
age demand to evaluate the appropriate
timeline for increased capacity at the preschool
level.
7. Continue and expand support and education
for non-licensed childcare in the Estes Valley.
14
RECOMMENDATIONS
3/12/2018
8
QUESTIONS?
15
Successful implementation of these recommendations to address childcare needs
and breakdown barriers to providing and accessing childcare in the Estes Valley
require that the Estes Valley community and governments (Town and County) create
an atmosphere of consensus around the need for childcare, generate broad support
for a comprehensive solution and ensure that implementation processes are put in
place. The EDC Childcare Committee desires to encourage the community and
governments in that effort such that this report becomes an implementation engine
rather than a document sitting on a desk gathering dust.
TOWN CLERK Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through Town Administrator Lancaster
From:Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date:February 27, 2018
RE:Resolution #04-18 Amending the Municipal Election Judge Compensation
Objective:
To amend the compensation paid to the Election Judges during the April 3, 2018 Election.
Present Situation:
The Town Board approved Resolution #33-17 at their regular meeting on December 12, 2017.
This Resolution approved the setting of the election, designated the Town Clerk as the
Designated Election Official (DEO), set the election as a mail ballot only election, and set the
compensation for the election judges at $10 per hour, the rate established by the Larimer County
Election officials for the 2017 election.
Proposal:
Since the approval of Resolution #33-17 the Colorado minimum wage increased to $10.20 per
hour. In discussing the wages of election judges with Larimer County, it was determined the
County would raise their compensation for their judges to a base rate of $11 per hour up to $15
an hour for the head judge in 2018. Therefore, staff would recommend raising the compensation
for the election judges to $12 per hour in consideration of the work to be performed; i.e. signature
verification and preparing ballots for counting.
Advantages:
To meet the Colorado minimum wage and to attract election judges.
Disadvantages:
Additional cost to the Town to conduct the Municipal Election of approximately $320.
Action Recommended:
To approve Resolution #04-18.
Budget:
Additional costs to #1400 account for election expenses of approximately $320.
Level of Public Interest. Low.
Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny Resolution #04-18.
Attachment: Resolution #04-18
RESOLUTION NO. 04-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO, AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION JUDGE
COMPENSATION.
WHEREAS, by the Statutes of the State of Colorado, 31-10-408 Compensation
of Judges states compensation is determined by the governing body of the municipality;
and
WHEREAS, Resolution #33-17 set the Judges compensation at $10 per hour
based on the rate paid by the Larimer County Election office in 2017; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined the compensation does not meet the
Colorado minimum wage of $10.20 per hour and the Larimer County Election office has
increased their wages to $11 - $15 per hour based on work performed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
1.Pursuant to C.R.S. §31-10-408, the Judges of Election shall receive for their
services the sum of $12 per hour.
DATED this day of 2018.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
ES
FINAL RE
CHIL
STE
PORT
LDCAR
ES V
RE NEE
VA
EDS A
ALL
ASSESS
LEY
SMEN
Y
T
23
Final
Febr
Est
As
Prep
Estes
Estes
Prep
BBC R
1999
Denv
303.3
www
bbc@
Phot
Dere
l Report
uary 20, 2018
tes Val
ssessm
ared for
s Park Econom
s Valley Invest
ared by
Research & Co
9 Broadway, Su
ver, Colorado 8
321.2547 fax
w.bbcresearch
@bbcresearch
ography by
k Mogensen‐P
8
lley Ch
ent
mic Developme
tment in Child
onsulting
uite 2200
80202‐9750
303.399.0448
.com
.com
Photo Conscio
hildcare
ent Corporatio
hood Success
8
ous Photograp
e Need
on
s, Fiscal Agent
phy
ds
24
Table of Contents
BBC R ESEARCH & CONSULTING i
Acknowledgements
ES. Executive Summary
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. ES–1
Summary of Key Findings ........................................................................................................ ES–1
Summary of Top Needs ........................................................................................................... ES–6
Recommendations .................................................................................................................. ES–6
I.Demographic Trends and Childcare Options: Baseline Data
Demographic and Employment Background .............................................................................. I–1
Existing Licensed Childcare Options ........................................................................................... I–5
Other Childcare Options ............................................................................................................. I–7
II.Parent Preferences and Needs: Parent Survey
Profile of Participating Parents .................................................................................................. II–1
Current Childcare Choices ......................................................................................................... II–3
Childcare Preferences & Needs ................................................................................................. II–7
Cost of Childcare...................................................................................................................... II–14
School Readiness ..................................................................................................................... II–16
Childcare for School‐Age Children ........................................................................................... II–18
III.Benefits and Barriers of Childcare: Employer and Provider Survey
Benefits of Childcare ................................................................................................................ III–1
Employer Impacts ..................................................................................................................... III–3
Barriers to Providing Childcare ................................................................................................. III–6
Barriers to Accessing Childcare ................................................................................................ III–9
IV.Demand Analysis and Recommendations
Current Usage .......................................................................................................................... IV–1
Demand Scenarios ................................................................................................................... IV–2
Future Demand........................................................................................................................ IV–3
Key Issues and Recommendations .......................................................................................... IV–9
25
Ac
The
com
the
par
50 p
incl
asse
Thi
Este
Este
Este
Este
Este
The
In J
nee
ens
the
hav
the
per
the
Mic
Cha
Jose
Kris
John
Cou
Tra
Tim
Judy
Fina
fisc
cknow
e Estes Park E
mmittee mem
Childcare Ne
ents, represe
parents respo
lude a child 1
ess future nee
s project wou
es Park EDC
es Park Hous
es Park R‐3 S
es Valley Rec
es Valley Inve
e Town of Est
anuary 2017,
eds assessmen
ure sufficient
process, and
ve been possib
Committee. W
sistence, hard
Estes Valley.
chael G. Moon
arley Dickey, V
e Almeida
sten Berg
n Bryant
urtney Hill
avis Machalek
m McLemore
y Nystrom
ally, a special
al agent for th
wledgm
Economic Dev
bers, residen
eeds Assessm
enting 452 chi
onding to the
3 or younger
eds.
uld not be pos
ing Authority
chool District
reation and P
estment in Ch
tes Park
, the Estes Pa
nt, supported
t responses to
reviewed an
ble without th
We especially
d work, and t
n, Chair
Vice‐Chair
k
l thank you to
his project.
James H
ents
velopment Co
nts, and busin
ent. Survey o
ildren age 13
survey in Sp
r in the next y
ssible withou
y
t
Park District
hildhood Succ
ark EDC Child
d the RFP sele
o the survey,
d provided gu
he leadership
y thank the Ch
thoughtfulnes
o Nancy Almo
H. Pickering, C
orporation an
esses who pr
outreach resu
or younger r
anish. In add
year responde
ut the financia
cess (EVICS)
care Services
ection process
communicate
uidance for th
p and assistan
hildcare Serv
ss in pursuing
ond, Executive
Chair
nd BBC Resea
rovided valua
ulted in a robu
responded to
ition, 15 hous
ed to a series
al support of o
Visit Estes
YMCA of th
Estes Valley
Estes Area
Estes Valley
Families fo
s Committee f
s, conducted
ed with the c
he final repor
nce provided
ices Committ
g the first Chi
Ex Officio p
Nancy Almo
Jon Nichola
James H. Pi
Adam Shak
e Director of
rch & Consul
able input for
ust response.
the Parent S
seholds that w
of questions
our sponsors
Park
he Rockies
y Partners fo
Lodging Asso
y Library Dis
r Estes
formed to rai
extensive pu
onsulting tea
rt. This projec
by the volunt
tee members
ildcare Needs
participants:
ond
as
ickering
ke
EVICS, which
ting thank th
completion o
A total of 363
urvey, includ
will expand t
designed to
s:
r Commerce
ociation
trict
se funds for t
blic outreach
am throughou
ct would not
teer efforts o
for their
s Assessment
h served as th
e
of
3
ding
o
this
h to
ut
f
for
he
26
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
Estes Valley Childcare Needs Assessment
27
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, PAGE 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Estes Valley Childcare Needs Assessment
Introduction
BBC Research & Consulting (BBC) has been contracted by the Estes Park Economic Development
Corporation and Estes Valley Investment in Childhood Success (EVICS) (as a fiscal agent) to
conduct a Childcare Needs Assessment in the Estes Valley (generally defined by the Estes Park R‐
3 School District boundary). The needs assessment is based on data analysis along with
community input from both parents/guardians and current childcare providers. The Needs
Assessment report is organized according to the following structure:
Section I. Demographic Trends and Childcare Options: Baseline Data summarizes the
demographic trends in the Estes Valley and discusses existing childcare options to provide
context for the childcare needs assessment.
Section II. Parent Preferences and Needs: Parent Survey presents results from the Estes
Valley Childcare and Early Childhood Education Survey of parents and examines parents’
current childcare choices; childcare preferences and needs, the cost of childcare; school
readiness; and childcare needs for school‐age children.
Section III. Benefits and Barriers of Childcare: Employer and Provider Survey summarizes
the social/economic benefits of childcare, reports results from an Estes Valley employer
survey on childcare, and summarizes perceived barriers to providing and accessing
childcare services in the Estes Valley.
Section IV. Demand Analysis and Recommendations analyzes current and future demand
for licensed full‐day childcare, summarizes the top needs for childcare in the Estes Valley,
and presents recommendations for how to address those needs.
Summary of Key Findings
Demographic trends:
The Estes Valley is home to about 10,000 non‐seasonal residents, living in about 4,900
households. Demographic trends show relatively slow household growth over the past 15
years along with a decline in the number and proportion of children under 18 living in the
Estes Valley (based on ACS/Census data and school district data). However, the number
very young children—aged five or under—increased somewhat between 2000 and 2015,
indicating a resurgence of very young children in the Estes Valley—either due to rising
birth rates or to an influx of young families.
The ACS estimate of 489 children under the age of six is consistent with school district data
which report about 81 children per year on average entering Kindergarten in the Estes
Valley School District over the past three years (equates to 486 children aged six or under).
The ACS baseline of 489 children is used for demand forecasts in Section IV.
28
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, PAGE 2
The 2015 Estes Park Housing Needs Assessment estimates jobs in the broader Estes Park
area (as of January 2015) at 7,571 up from 6,499 in 2000 and forecasts indicate the
potential for 2 to 3 percent annual job growth over the next five years.
Data from the 2015 ACS show that 85 percent of children under the age of six in the Estes
Valley have all parents in their household in the labor force (a higher proportion than in
Larimer County and the State of Colorado overall). Given the high proportion of working
parents in the Estes Valley, it is not surprising that childcare is an issue of interest.
Existing childcare options:
There are two full‐day childcare centers in Estes Park (serving children ages two and a half
or three to six) and two part‐day, part‐time preschools (serving children age two and a half
or three to six). The Valley also has six licensed family care home providers (also called “in‐
home daycare” or “family care homes”) which offer full‐day care and serve infants/toddlers
in addition to preschool aged children.
Existing licensed providers in the Estes Valley can serve up to 104 children daily for full‐day
care and another 66 children for part‐day preschool. Just eight of the total childcare spaces
can be filled by infants under the age of one and another four spaces can be filled by
children between one and two and a half (all infant spaces are provided by licensed family
care providers). Total daily capacity in the Valley for full‐day and part‐day care is 170 spots.
At the time this study was written, all of the childcare spaces for infants/toddlers were full
and another 12 families were on a waitlist for infant/toddler care. There was, however
some additional capacity to accommodate children two and a half or older, through licensed
family home providers, childcare centers, and/or part‐day preschools (up to eight spots for
full‐day care and several additional spots for part‐day preschool).
The cost of childcare in the Estes Valley is lower than the state average, though it remains a
challenge for many households. Typical tuition rates in the Estes Valley for licensed family
care homes are $30‐$35 per day and full‐day childcare center tuition is slightly higher at
about $40 per day. This compares to statewide averages of $39‐$41 per day for licensed
family care homes and $56‐$65 per day for childcare centers.
Outside the structure of licensed childcare, families employ a number of strategies to
provide care for their children including arranging work hours to accommodate care
options, relying on friends, neighbors and family for care, and using a nanny or
participating in a nanny‐share.
Parent preferences and needs:
A total of 363 parents of children age 13 or younger who live or work in Estes Valley
responded to the Parent Survey, including 50 parents responding to the survey in Spanish.
In addition, 15 households that will expand to include a child 13 or younger in the next year
responded to a series of questions designed to assess future needs.
29
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, PAGE 3
Overall, 57 percent of survey respondents with children age six or younger regularly use
some form of non‐parent childcare. The primary reason given for using non‐parent
childcare is so that one or both parents can work.
In general, Estes Valley parents with children age six or younger are relatively satisfied with
the childcare provided to their children, though 30 percent indicated they were somewhat
unsatisfied. Friend/family care users had the highest proportion of satisfied parents,
followed by licensed family homes, preschools, and childcare centers.
The factors parents considered most important when choosing a provider included trust,
the provider’s values aligning with their own, and the provider’s reputation. Hours of
operation, availability of care, and cost were also important considerations.
The most common aspects of their childcare arrangement respondents said they would like
to change were hours or days care is offered (22%), provider type (14%), and staying home
with their children (14%). Earlier morning hours was the most common schedule change
desired. Households with infants were most likely to want a change in provider type,
reflecting the limited availability of care for that age group.
In the past year, nearly all parents (89%) of children age six and younger experienced one
or more challenges finding and using childcare in the Estes Valley.
The top three challenges, regardless of age of child, were finding care of an infant
(32%), finding someone I can trust (30%), and hours of care (29%).
Among households with infants/toddlers, finding care for was a challenge for
more than half (54%); one‐third encountered long waitlists or lack of availability
on needed days, and one‐third had difficulty finding someone they trust.
Hours of operation, trust, and cost are challenges experienced by one in four
households with children ages three through six.
Overall, 22 percent of households using some type of non‐parent childcare use
friend/family care. The primary reason given was “trust” (48%), followed by “only option”
(38%), and “most affordable option/only type of care I can afford” (28%).
Forty‐three percent Estes Valley parents with children ages six or younger choose parent‐
only care. Primary reasons are: “I can’t afford it” (29%); “I can’t find/get into quality care”
(20%); and “It’s important to me that I or my partner care for our children” (12%).
Parents with children ages seven through 12 employ different types of care for these older
children outside of normal school hours. Nearly half (48%) have a parent or guardian
watching these children, followed by adult relatives (29%).
Benefits/Barriers
The positive impacts of early childhood education/childcare are well‐documented in
prevailing academic research and include individual benefits for the child and family (e.g.,
higher school achievement, lifetime earnings, physical and cognitive health improvements,
and increased labor market engagement for parents) as well as economic and social
30
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, PAGE 4
benefits realized by the broader community (e.g., reduced social support costs, increased
labor force engagement and productivity increased income tax revenues). According to the
prevailing research, benefit–cost ratios of supporting childcare programs range from $4 to
$16 returned for every dollar invested.
Fifty‐six Estes Valley employers surveyed as part of this study provided insight on the local
impacts of childcare concerns on their operations:
Absenteeism due to employee childcare problems is a frequent occurrence for
17 percent employers participating in the survey, and has some impact on 85
percent of employers.
In 2017, 23 percent of participating employers lost between one and four
employees due to childcare problems.
Most employers (60%) state that their future hiring plans are impacted by the
availability and affordability of childcare for their workers.
Housing affordability/availability and the cost of living are the most important
factors impacting local businesses’ ability to recruit and retain employees.
However, considerations specific to childcare (e.g., reliability, availability) were
also considered somewhat important to recruitment and retention of workers.
According to the childcare providers currently operating in the Estes Valley, key barriers to
providing services include financial solvency as well as operations and staffing challenges.
One of the biggest challenges in providing care in the Estes Valley is bridging the
gap between operational costs and the revenue received from tuition.
In addition to financial challenges, providers also identified staffing concerns,
administrative requirements, and program management as barriers to providing
childcare in the Estes Valley.
The most common unmet need, according to current providers, is infant/toddler care. In
addition, providers identified a need for more bilingual childcare, high quality full‐day
preschool, and additional licensed family home providers.
As discussed in the Parent Survey findings, accessing infant care was the most common
challenge among Estes Valley parents—experienced by one‐third of all households and over
half of households that include an infant/toddler. Trust, hours of operation, and cost were
also significant challenges faced by survey respondents.
Demand analysis:
In order to quantify growth in demand for licensed childcare in the Estes Valley through 2027 (a
10‐year time horizon), BBC developed a custom childcare demand model. The primary demand
model focuses on full‐day licensed childcare options in the Estes Valley and is structured around
three possible scenarios impacted by the investments and policy priorities of the Estes Valley
over the next 10 years. The three scenarios are:
31
BBC
1.
2.
3.
Figu
curr
typi
ther
the
pre
curr
lice
Figu
Lice
Sourc
In 2
chil
66 f
scen
scen
wor
C RESEARCH & C
Status quo
continue in
persistence
Increased
Town of Est
proportion
the househo
but assume
level of dem
Investmen
same popul
percent to 2
investment
ure ES‐1 com
rent Estes Va
ical number o
re are 12 infa
Estes Valley
schooler spot
rent maximu
nsed full‐day
ure ES‐1.
ensed Full‐Day
ce: BBC Research &
2017, the gap
ldcare spots r
full‐day full‐t
nario. The de
nario and ind
rkforce housi
ONSULTING
o.This dema
to the future
e of the curren
investmen
tes Park prod
of families—
old growth fr
es persistence
mand than the
nts in both w
lation growth
28 percent. It
ts in workforc
mpares the dem
alley licensed
of days that c
ants/toddlers
and another
ts total). Dem
m capacity w
y care.
y Childcare De
Consulting.
between cap
ranges from 1
ime childcare
mand forecas
dicate a long‐t
ing and childc
nd scenario a
and bases de
nt childcare u
ts in workfo
duces addition
—many of who
rom the statu
e of the curren
e status quo a
workforce h
h as Scenario
t results in a h
ce housing sc
mand scenari
childcare opt
hildren are in
s and 109 pre
eight spots fo
mand in 2017
with the 12 ad
emand Scenar
pacity and dem
17 full‐day ful
e spots under
sts indicate a
term need for
care investme
assumes curr
emand projec
usage rate (24
orce housin
nal workforc
om will need c
s quo analysi
nt childcare u
analysis due t
housing and
2 but increas
higher level o
enarios.
ios in 2017 an
tions. The ma
n care and is b
schoolers cur
or full‐day, fu
is based on d
ditional infan
rios and Capa
mand is relati
ll‐time childc
r the workfor
n immediate
r additional p
ents are made
ent housing a
ctions on histo
4%).
ng. This dema
e housing un
childcare—to
is with these w
usage rate (24
to higher grow
d childcare T
ses the childc
of demand tha
nd 2027 with
aximum capac
based on data
rrently acces
ll‐time presch
data from pro
nts/toddlers c
city Comparis
ively small bu
care spots und
ce housing an
need for infa
preschool‐age
e as planned.
EXECUTIVE
and demogra
orical househ
and scenario
its and attrac
o the Estes Va
workforce ho
4%). It result
wth in reside
This scenario
are usage rat
an the status
h maximum ca
city measure
a from provid
sing full‐day
hoolers availa
oviders and co
currently on
son, Estes Val
ut by 2027 th
der the status
nd childcare i
ant care regar
e capacity, pa
E SUMMARY, PA
phic trends
hold growth a
assumes the
cts a higher
alley. It comb
ousing increa
ts in a higher
nt children.
o assumes the
te from 24
quo and the
apacity of the
accounts for
ders that indi
licensed care
able (117
ombines the
a waitlist for
ley, 2017‐202
he shortage of
s quo scenari
investments
rdless of dem
rticularly if b
AGE 5
and
ines
ses
e
e
r
cate
e in
27
f
o to
mand
both
32
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, PAGE 6
Summary of Top Needs
The following issues were among the most critical needs expressed by service providers and
parents and discovered through the data and demand analyses:
Immediate unmet demand for licensed infant/toddler care (this is the only age‐group with
waitlists at current licensed providers and was identified as a top need by both parents and
providers through surveys and interviews);
Funding challenges for providers to achieve full cost recovery for services provided;
Secondary barriers to accessing care are related to trust and scheduling challenges (as
expressed by parents/guardians through the parent survey); and
Long‐term demand for additional childcare capacity for preschool age children—
particularly if the Town pursues additional investments in workforce housing and childcare
initiatives.
Recommendations
BBC offers the following recommendations to address the demand for care through 2027 and the
existing challenges faced by care providers and parents.
1.Consider options to help licensed providers raise tuition rates while maintaining
affordability for families. This may require dedicating funding for valley‐wide childcare
services to help offset rate increases for qualifying families. This effort is similar to a efforts
made by the Town of Breckenridge in 2007: one of the original goals of the Breckenridge
Childcare Tuition Assistance program was to facilitate an increase in rates charged by the
local providers such that they could pass on the true cost of care and become more
financially stable. Providers and families speak very highly of the program and indicate its
success. Action steps to achieve this goal may include:
Work with current providers and monitor the Colorado Childcare Market Survey
to understand the true cost of providing childcare service in the Estes Valley.
(Currently, average Estes Valley rates are between 70% and 85% of statewide
market rates).
Explore funding options to expand EVICS Child Care Scholarship Program or
other supports for valley‐wide childcare services. Typical mechanisms for
funding at the local level are General Fund transfers, dedicated sales tax, and/or
dedicated property tax mill. Some of the Colorado communities currently
providing government funded early childhood initiatives include Denver, Aspen,
Boulder County, Summit County, the Town of Breckenridge, San Miguel County,
and Elbert County.
Continue your relationship with The Town of Breckenridge to benefit from
lessons learned from implementation of their Tuition Assistance Program.
33
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, PAGE 7
2.Work collaboratively toward a solution for addressing the infant/toddler care need. The
community at large has demonstrated strong consensus that infant/toddler care is one of
the most critical childcare needs in the Estes Valley. However, the community lacks
consensus on how to address that need. Rightly, infant/toddler care is one of the most
challenging types of care to provide as the financial requirements for care provision are
high relative to the revenue generated from provision. An approach that is forward thinking
and collaborative has the best chance of success. A strategic planning effort and resource
analysis should consider the most realistic and impactful options, which could include:
A.Expansion of an existing facility‐based provider to include infant/toddler care;
B.Increasing the number of licensed family providers offering infant/toddler care
(discussed in more detail under Recommendation #3);
C.Targeting financial subsidies to support infant/toddler care (through direct
reimbursements for care, in‐kind contributions, or capital subsidies for
construction/expansion of facilities to accommodate infant/toddler care); and
D.Direct provision of infant/toddler care as a publicly‐funded service.
3.Take proactive efforts to increase the number and quality of licensed family home
providers while also retaining existing quality care providers. Licensed family providers
are currently the only resource for infant/toddler care, provide the most flexibility in terms
of schedule/hours for families, and have high satisfaction ratings according the Parent
survey results. Their size and the relatively low overhead costs make them an appropriately
scaled solution to address demand fluctuations in the Estes Valley. Specific suggestions for
cultivating the number and quality of licensed family home providers include:
A.Develop/maintain partnerships between EVICS and the Estes Park EDC to
market licensed family home provider opportunities as a viable business
development market.
B.Work to convert unlicensed family care (typically providing care for up to four
un‐related children) to licensed family homes. Implementation of Goal 2 would
provide a natural incentive for licensing as participation in an expanded tuition
assistance program would require licensed status.
C.Continue to provide training and support (through EVICS) when providers start
working so they understand and can implement quality care techniques from the
beginning.
D.Implement a “coach/mentor” model in licensing and training so that family child
care home providers are getting support and training to handle difficult
situations and are able to provide the best educational environment for the
children in their care.
4.Continue coordinated education and outreach for the benefits of quality early care and
education provision; and the economic impacts of early care and education and the child
care industry. The Estes Park EDC Childcare Committee and EVICS have demonstrated a
strong commitment to communicating the benefits of childcare and the need for quality
34
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, PAGE 8
childcare to community members and policymakers. These efforts can have a huge impact
on perception of childcare needs and solutions in the community. Decisions about childcare
and childcare funding will impact the type of community Estes Park and the Estes Valley
choose to become. Investments in childcare (or lack thereof) are very likely to impact the
attractiveness of the community to future residents and families.
5.Continue to support a diversity of childcare options in the Valley to improve quality,
school readiness and parental trust in providers. As evidenced in the parent preferences
section, there are a number of factors that parents evaluate when choosing their childcare
providers—many of these are based on personal values and experiences. A healthy balance
of options in terms of type of childcare, educational philosophy, and other characteristics
are an important component of creating a strong network of childcare providers that meet
the needs of all families in the Valley. Continuing to improve the diversity and quality of
options in the Estes Valley will strengthen the childcare infrastructure for working parents
needing care and will support the provision of nurturing environments for their children.
6.Proactively track the key metrics for preschool age demand to evaluate the appropriate
timeline for increased capacity at the preschool level. Demand at the preschool level is
very closely tied to workforce housing production and an associated increase in the Valley
population under age six. Although the data analysis and status quo scenario do not indicate
a severe and immediate need for additional childcare capacity for preschool‐age children,
focused community action in the areas of workforce housing and childcare will very likely
lead to a need for increased childcare capacity for preschool‐age children. Additionally, any
changes to the existing childcare landscape in the Valley (e.g., the departure, addition or
change in capacity of any existing providers) may also impact childcare needs for the
preschool age group.
As such, BBC recommends tracking the following metrics annually to gauge changing
demand for the preschool age group:
A.Track the pace of residential construction, particularly of workforce housing.
Pace of growth and timeline on workforce housing development will impact the
availability of housing for new families and workers likely to need childcare.
B.Track significant changes in care options as well as provider enrollment,
waitlists and capacity.
C.Track changes in demographics including number of permanent resident
households, age and family status of residents and trends in employment.
D.If possible, work to include several childcare related questions on the Town’s
biennial citizen survey to track childcare needs, preferences and use patterns
among current residents.
7.Continue and expand support and education for non‐licensed childcare in the Estes
Valley. Childcare options that do not require licensing will inevitably continue to be part of
the childcare infrastructure of the Estes Valley. In order to help foster parental trust in all
childcare options and to access the full economic and social benefits of early childhood
35
BBCC RESEARCH & C
education, i
including in
A.
B.
m
r
e
Successful im
breakdown b
the Estes Val
of consensus
comprehens
The EDC Chil
that effort su
document sit
ONSULTING
it is importan
nformal child
Bolster traini
First
Admi
Paren
supp
Tech
imple
and
Schoo
a sec
Ensure that p
materials and
resources and
equipment.
mplementatio
barriers to pr
lley commun
s around the
ive solution a
dcare Comm
uch that this
tting on a de
nt to offer edu
care, friend/f
ing opportun
aid/CPR cert
inistration tra
ntal and prov
ort to their ch
niques for wo
ement an incl
ol readiness f
ond language
providers hav
d equipment.
d information
on of these re
roviding and a
ity and gover
need for chil
and ensure th
ittee desires
report becom
sk gathering
ucation and su
family care, a
ities in the fo
tification and
aining for all
vider educatio
hildren;
orking with c
lusionary env
for all childre
e.
ve access to d
Also ensure t
n about how t
ecommendat
accessing chi
rnments (Tow
dcare, gener
hat implemen
to encourage
mes an imple
dust.
upportive ser
and stay‐at‐ho
ollowing areas
d Standard Pre
providers;
on on the imp
children with
vironment for
en, including c
evelopmenta
that provider
to obtain and
tions to addre
ildcare in the
wn and Coun
rate broad su
ntation proce
e the commu
mentation en
EXECUTIVE
rvices to all lo
ome parents.
s:
ecautions and
portance of de
special needs
r children wit
children for w
ally appropria
rs have acces
d use these m
ess childcare
e Estes Valley
nty) create an
pport for a
esses are put
unity and gov
ngine rather
E SUMMARY, PA
ocal provider
Options inclu
d Medication
evelopmenta
s and how to
th special nee
whom English
ate education
s to the prope
aterials and
needs and
y require that
n atmosphere
t in place.
vernments in
than a
AGE 9
rs,
ude:
l
eds;
h is
nal
er
t
e
36
S
D
Ba
ECTIO
emogr
aseline
ON I.
raphic T
e Data
Trends
s and CChildcare Opttions:
37
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 1
SECTION I.
Demographic Trends and Childcare Options:
Baseline Data
This section summarizes the demographic trends in the Estes Valley and discusses existing
childcare options to provide context for the childcare needs assessment.
Demographic and Employment Background
The Estes Valley (generally defined as the Estes Park R‐3 School District) includes the Town of
Estes Park along with surrounding communities such as Glen Haven, Drake, Pinewood Springs
and Allenspark. The Estes Valley is home to about 10,000 non‐seasonal residents, about 490 of
whom are under the age of six. The location and characteristics of the area make it an attractive
tourism destination and offer a high quality of life for residents. However, the same amenities
contribute to a high cost of living for residents and an economy that offers a high proportion of
relatively low wage jobs.
The following section summarizes socioeconomic trends in the Estes Valley to establish the
context for discussing current and future childcare needs in the community.
Population and households. As of 2015, there were 6,103 residents occupying 3,109
households in the Town of Estes Park and 10,023 residents occupying 4,897 households in the
Estes Valley as a whole.1 Figure I‐1 displays trends in population and households for the Estes
Valley region between 2000 and 2015. The higher percentage change in total housing units
relative to permanent resident households suggests that an increasing share of housing units are
being used as second‐homes and/or vacation rentals. In 2000, 62 percent of housing units in the
Estes Valley region were occupied by permanent residents; by 2010 that proportion dropped to
57 percent where it has remained through 2015.
1 Demographic data for the total population are not available for the Estes Park R‐3 School District boundary area, so the Estes
Valley is defined as ZIP codes 80510, 80511, 80517, and 80532 for the purposes of the demographic analysis. Note that Census
counts are point in time estimates from April of a given year while American Community Survey estimates are based on
monthly samples. School district data is collected in October of each year.
Figure I‐1.
Population and
Households, Estes Park
and the Estes Valley
Region, 2000‐2015
Source:
2000 Census, 2010 Census, 2011‐2015
American Community Survey, and BBC
Research & Consulting.
Resident population 9,686 9,974 10,023 3%
Total housing units 7,171 8,320 8,586 20%
Permanent resident households 4,479 4,703 4,897 9%
Resident households as a
percent of total housing units 62% 57% 57% ‐5%
201520102000
Percent Change
2000 ‐ 2015
38
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 2
Figures I‐2 and I‐3 provide additional socioeconomic details for residents and households in
Estes Park and the Estes Valley, according to 2015 American Community Survey (ACS) data.
Just over half of all residents in Estes Park and in the Estes Valley are older adults or seniors (55
years or older). Twelve percent of Estes Valley residents (1,219 people) are children, 17 percent
are aged 18 to 34, and 17 percent are aged 35 to 54.
Twenty‐one percent of residents aged 25 or older have a high school diploma or equivalent and
2 percent have less than a high school degree. Nearly half (47%) have a Bachelor’s degree or
higher. Employment in the Town and in the Valley is relatively high among labor force
participants; however, just 56 percent and 57 percent of Town and Valley residents 16 or older
participate in the labor force. This indicates a relatively high proportion of retired and/or non‐
working residents.
The vast majority of residents identify as non‐Hispanic white (95%), according to ACS data.
School district data, however, suggest a much higher representation of Hispanic residents and
other non‐white minorities. According to the ACS just 5 percent of residents are Hispanic while
school district data indicate that 25 percent of the pupil population (pre‐k through 12th grade) is
Hispanic. ACS data suggest 2 percent of residents belong to other minority race groups
(including two or more races) but school district data count 5 percent of pupils as other non‐
white or two races.
Figure I‐2.
Population
Characteristics, Estes
Park and the Estes Valley
Region, 2015
Note:
Estes Valley is defined as ZIP codes
80510, 80511, 80517, and 80532.
Source:
2011‐2015 American Community
Survey, and BBC Research &
Consulting.
As shown in Figure I‐3 (on the following page) there are about 4,200 housing units in Estes Park
and 8,600 housing units in the Estes Valley. Many of those are “vacant”—primarily for
season/recreational use. The occupied housing units reflect the permanent (non‐seasonal)
Total Population 6,066 9,986
Age
Under 18 15%12%
18 to 34 16%17%
35 to 54 17%17%
55 or older 52%54%
Educational Attainment (pop 25 or older)
Less than high school degree 2%2%
High school diploma or equivalent 21%21%
Some college or Associate's degree 31%30%
Bachelor's Degree 28%28%
Master's degree or higher 17%19%
Employment Status (pop 16 or older)
Percent In labor force 56%57%
Percent of labor force that is employed 96%94%
Race/Ethnicity
Non‐Hispanic white 95%95%
Hispanic 5%4%
Other race minority 0%1%
Two or more races 1%1%
Town of Estes Park Estes Valley
39
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 3
resident households living in the Estes Valley full‐time. Most of those permanent households are
owner‐occupied (66% of Town households and 70% of Valley households) and the average
household size is about two people. Most households are “family households” meaning they are
occupied by two or more related people—most often married couples with or without children.
The median household income is about $54,000 in the Estes Valley region ($55,000 in Estes
Park), up from $49,000 in 1999. Seventeen percent of all households in the Valley have incomes
less than $25,000 per year and another 28 percent earn between $25,000 and $49,000. Nineteen
percent have incomes of $100,000 or more per year. Overall, 11 percent of the population in the
Estes Valley is living in poverty.
Figure I‐3.
Household Characteristics,
Estes Park and the Estes
Valley, 2015
Note:
Estes Valley is defined as ZIP codes
80510, 80511, 80517, and 80532.
Source:
2011‐2015 American Community Survey
and BBC Research & Consulting.
Children. The 2015 ACS reports 1,219 children (under 18) living in the Estes Valley, 489 of
which are under the age of six. As shown in Figure I‐4, the number of children under 18 in the
Estes Valley actually declined (in number and proportion) between 2000 and 2010 and again
between 2010 and 2015.2 However, the number of children under the age of six increased
between 2000 and 2015, holding steady at 5 percent of the population overall. The figure also
includes data for the population aged 35 to 44 to provide context for changes in the population
2 It should be noted that school district data indicate a higher number of children under 18 but about the same number of
children under the age of six. School district data also show a decline in the student population between 2000 and 2015,
though the school enrollment decline was not as severe as the decline in the number of children reported by the Census data.
Total Housing Units 4,215 8,586
Occupied Housing Units 3,109 4,897
Average Household Size 1.95 2.00
Tenure
Renters 34%30%
Owners 66%70%
Household Type
Nonfamily households 45%43%
Family households 55%57%
Married‐couple family 48%51%
Other family 6%6%
Household Income
Median household income $54,530 $53,900
Percent of population living in poverty 10%11%
Income Distribution
Under $25,000 18%17%
$25,000–49,999 25%28%
$50,000–74,999 24%22%
$75,000–99,999 15%14%
$100,000–149,999 9%11%
$150,000 or more 8%8%
Town of Estes Park Estes Valley
40
BBC
of c
200
Tre
18 d
chil
at 8
The
risin
Figu
Pres
Chil
Vall
and
Sourc
2000
BBC R
The
201
whi
Sch
Este
Figu
Enro
Sourc
C RESEARCH & C
children. This
00 and 2015.
nds were sim
declined (from
ldren under s
8 percent thro
ese trends ind
ng birth rates
ure I‐4.
sence of
ldren, Estes
ley, 2000, 201
d 2015
ce:
Census, 2010 Census
Research & Consultin
e ACS estimat
17 and 2018,
ich report abo
ool District o
es Valley for K
ure I‐5.
ollment in the
ce: Colorado Depart
ONSULTING
“parenting a
milar at the ho
m 21% to 14%
six increased
ough 2015.
dicate a resur
s or to an infl
10
s and
ng.
te of 489 child
which estima
out 81 childre
ver the past t
Kindergarten
e Estes Park R
tment of Education.
Tot
U
A
Per
Per
Tot
W
Per
Per
ge” cohort of
ousehold leve
%) between 2
from 4 perce
rgence of very
ux of young f
dren under th
ate about 90 b
en per year o
three years. F
n and first gra
R‐3 School Dist
tal population
Under 18
Under 6
Age 35 to 54
rcent of populatio
rcent of populatio
tal resident hous
With children
With children un
rcent of hh with c
rcent of hh with c
f 35 to 44 yea
el—the propo
2000 and 201
nt to 8 percen
y young child
families.
he age of six is
births per yea
on average en
Figure I‐5 dis
ade over the p
trict by Grade
on under 18
on under 6
seholds
nder 6
children
children under 6
r olds decline
ortion of hous
15 but the pro
nt between 2
ren in the Est
s consistent w
ar in the area
ntering Kinder
splays trends
past 10 years.
e
2000 20
9,686 9,9
1,652 1,5
459 4
3,179 2,4
17% 15
5%5
4,479 4,7
933 8
298 3
21% 18
4%8
ed by 47 perc
seholds with c
oportion of h
000 and 201
tes Valley—e
with birth rat
a, and with sch
rgarten in the
in school enr
.
10 2015
974 10,023
522 1,219
491 489
409 1,688
5%12%
5%5%
703 4,897
859 677
377 371
8%14%
8%8%
SECTION I, PA
cent between
children unde
households wi
0 and then he
either due to
te forecasts fo
hool district d
e Estes Valley
rollment in th
3%
‐26%
7%
‐47%
9%
‐27%
24%
Percent Chang
AGE 4
er
ith
eld
or
data
y
he
e
41
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 5
School district data indicate about 81 children per year entering Kindergarten, which equates to
486 children under the age of six living in the Estes Park R‐3 school district—just three children
fewer than the ACS estimate of 489 children in the Estes Valley. Birth rate forecasts, which
reflect a projection of births at the local hospital, does not define the geographic area in which
those children live. Even so, it is a useful comparison for estimating the number of young
children in the area. The forecast of 90 births per year over the next two years equates to 540
children under the age of six.
The demand analysis, discussed in detail in Section IV relies on the ACS estimate of 489 children,
which falls between the school district estimate (486) and the birth projection estimate (540). It
should be noted that the difference in these baseline estimates is not substantial enough to
impact the demand projections. That is, demand estimates would not change if BBC utilized the
540 baseline number as opposed to the 489 baseline number.3
Employment. The 2015 Estes Park Housing Needs Assessment estimates jobs in the broader
Estes Park area (as of January 2015) at 7,571 up from 6,499 in 2000 (a 16% increase). The high
seasonality of the Estes Park economy means total jobs fluctuate from about 5,500 jobs in the
winter to about 9,600 jobs in the summer. According to the same report, economic opportunities
in the area are dominated by low‐paying tourism service positions, although higher paying
health care jobs are growing. Forecasts indicate the potential for 2 to 3 percent annual job
growth over the next five years.4
The Estes Valley is a high cost area and, as such, many households take on multiple jobs or have
multiple earners to make ends meet. The 2015 Housing Needs Assessment indicates that on
average, each worker in the Estes Park area has 1.2 jobs. Data from the 2015 ACS show that 85
percent of children under the age of six in the Estes Valley have all parents in their household in
the labor force.5 That rate has been increasing steadily over the past 15 years in the Estes Valley
(up from 60% in 2000) and is higher than in Larimer County overall (63%) and the State of
Colorado as a whole (65%). Given the high proportion of working parents in the Estes Valley, it
is not surprising that childcare is an issue of interest.
Existing Licensed Childcare Options
There are two full‐day childcare centers in Estes Park—one serving children ages two and a half
to six, one serves children three to six. There are also two part‐day, part‐time preschools serving
children age two and a half or older. There are another six licensed family care home providers
(also called “in‐home daycare” or “family care homes”) which offer full‐time care and serve
children under two along with toddlers and preschool aged children. Figure I‐6 summarizes the
types of licensed care and their daily enrollment capacity.
3 Demand projections rely on usage rate calculations to project demand. While the usage rate would shift slightly with a
different baseline estimate, the denominator in the current conditions calculation and the denominator in the forecast
calculation would both change, washing out any impact on the forecasted demand.
4 Estes Park Area Housing Needs Assessment. Rees Consulting and WSW Consulting. 2015.
5 Two parents in the labor force for those children living in two‐parent households and one parent in the labor force for single
parent households.
42
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 6
Figure I‐6.
Existing Licensed Childcare Providers in the Estes Valley, 2017
Note: *Ponderosa Play School and Enchanted Circle do not serve children under 1 year old.
*YMCA expands their daily capacity in the summer months to accommodate 40 children.
*Park Place preschool primarily serves four and five year olds.
Source: Colorado Department of Human Services, EVICS, BBC Childcare Provider Interviews, and BBC Research & Consulting.
Capacity and enrollment. Existing childcare centers, preschools, and family providers in the
Estes Valley can serve up to 170 children daily. Just eight of those childcare spaces can be filled
by infants under the age of one and another four spaces can be filled by children between one
and two and a half; the remaining 158 childcare slots are for children two and a half or older. Of
the 158 preschooler‐age spaces, 92 are for full‐day care.
At the time this study was written, all of the childcare spaces for infants/toddlers were full and
another 12 families were on a waitlist for infant/toddler care. There was more availability for
children two and a half or older. Licensed family providers collectively had six spaces open on
select days for part‐time care of preschool‐aged children and two full‐time openings for that age
group. Each facility‐based childcare center and preschool indicated they currently have both full‐
time and part‐time openings for that age group. The full‐day providers (childcare centers and
licensed family providers) in the Estes Valley indicated they could collectively accommodate
another eight full‐time children over age two and a half in licensed care.6
Quality and programming. The childcare options outlined above are all licensed care
providers through the State of Colorado. As such, each provider has completed childcare training
requirements along with first aid/CPR certification and Standard Precautions and Medication
Administration training. Providers are also actively engaged in continuing education and
6 Full‐time care means three days a week or more.
Provider Type of Care 0 to 2½ 2½ to 6 Total Hours Days
Full‐Day Care Options
Mountain Top Childcare Childcare Center 0 42 42 7:00am‐5:30pm Mon‐Sat
YMCA Bennett Preschool Childcare Center/Preschool 0 20* 20 7:30am‐4:00pm Mon‐Fri
Enchanted Circle Licensed Family/Preschool 2* 10 12 8:00am‐4:30pm Mon‐Fri
Country Kids Licensed Family Provider 2 4 6 7:30am‐5:30pm Mon‐Fri
Happy Kids Club Licensed Family Provider 2 4 6 8:00am‐5:00pm Tues‐Sat
Ponderosa Play School Licensed Family Provider 2* 4 6 8:00am‐5:00pm Mon‐Thurs
Rainbow Kids Licensed Family Provider 2 4 6 8:00am‐5:00pm Tues‐Sat
Rose Childcare Licensed Family Provider 2 4 6 Any hours Mon‐Sun
Total 12 92 104
Part‐Day Preschool Options
Life Long Learning
Preschool
Part‐day Preschool
(non‐profit)036368:30am‐11:15am or
12:00pm‐2:45pm
Park Place Preschool Part‐day Preschool
(public)0 30* 30
8:00am‐11:00am or
12:00pm‐3:00pm
Total 0 66 66
Daily Capacity by Age Operating Schedule
Mon‐Thurs
(school‐year)
Mon‐Fri
(school‐year)
43
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 7
training on an annual basis. Facility‐based care providers in the Estes Valley each have at least
one staff member with director qualifications for early childhood education from the Colorado
Division of Early Care and Learning.
Colorado Shines is a quality rating and improvement system for all of Colorado’s licensed early
learning programs. Each childcare provider in the Estes Valley has a rating of at least 1, meaning
the program is licensed by the State of Colorado and meets basic health and safety standards.
Two of the facility‐based care providers have a Level 2 rating from Colorado Shines, meaning
their programs meet the Level 1 requirements and are taking steps to further improve quality.7
Parents have a range of programming options and educational philosophies among childcare
providers in the Estes Valley. Some offer nature‐based, play‐oriented programs while others
have a more structured preschool approach. Specific curriculums offered include the Reggio
Emilia approach and Teaching Strategies Gold assessments. Two family providers and one part‐
day preschool provider offer bilingual instruction for Spanish speakers.
Rates and funding sources. Typical tuition rates in the Estes Valley for licensed family
childcare homes are $30 per day for children over two and $35 per day for children under two.
Full‐time facility‐based care tuition is slightly higher at about $40 per day. These rates are
substantially lower than average for the State of Colorado—particularly for facility‐based care.
The Colorado market‐rate average for licensed family childcare homes is $39 per day for
children over two and $41 per day under two. The Colorado market‐rate average for childcare
centers is $56 per day for children over two and $65 per day under two.
Tuition assistance is available to families meeting income requirements through the Colorado
Childcare Assistance Program (CCAP) and/or through EVICS. Mountaintop Childcare and Park
Place Preschool also receive Colorado Preschool Program funding for qualifying families. YMCA
Bennet Preschool offers a discount to children of employees and has YMCA scholarships
available. Life Long Learning Preschool offers private scholarships to qualifying families.
Parent perspective on cost and affordability of childcare is discussed in Section II of this report.
Other Childcare Options
Outside the structure of licensed childcare, families employ a number of strategies to provide
care for their children including arranging work hours to accommodate care options, relying on
friends, neighbors and family for care, and using a nanny or participating in a nanny‐share. Data
on these options are limited but their use among survey respondents is discussed in Section II,
Parent Preferences and Needs.
7 There are five quality level ratings. Levels 3‐5 indicate a program has completed an intensive process to demonstrate quality
in support for children’s health and safety, sell‐trained and effective staff, supportive learning environment that teaches
children new skills, helping families be active in their child’s learning, and strong leadership and business practices. For more
information visit www.coloradoshines.com
44
S
Pa
ECTIO
arent P
ON II
Prefere
I.
ences aand Neeeds: Parent SSurveyy
45
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 1
SECTION II.
Parent Preferences and Needs: Parent Survey
This section presents results from the Estes Valley Childcare and Early Childhood Education
Survey of parents and guardians (Parent Survey) and examines:
Current childcare choices;
Childcare preferences and needs, including parent‐only care and friend/family care;
The cost of childcare;
School readiness; and
Childcare needs for school‐age children.
Profile of Participating Parents
A total of 363 parents of households with children age 13 or younger who live or work in Estes
Valley responded to the Parent Survey, including 50 households responding to the survey in
Spanish. In addition, 15 households that will expand to include a child 13 or younger in the next
year responded to a series of questions designed to assess future needs.
The vast majority of respondents (84%) live in Estes Park. The remainder live in Allenspark
(2%), Glen Haven/Drake (2%), Pinewood Springs (1%), unincorporated Larimer County
(6%) or elsewhere in Larimer County (2%), Boulder County (2%), and Weld County (1%).
Those who do not live in the Estes Valley work or have a partner working in the Valley.
The Estes Valley residents live in the area year‐round. Thirty‐nine percent have lived in
their community for more than 10 years; just 7 percent for less than a year.
Overall, 67 percent have children age six or younger. One‐third of the total respondents do
not have children age six or younger, but do have a child between the ages of seven and 13.
The average household size of survey respondents is 3.7 members. Eighty‐two percent of
respondents live in households comprised of themselves, a spouse or partner and children.
Single parents are 7 percent of survey respondents and 6 percent of respondents live in
households that include another adult family member (not a spouse).
Respondents’ median household income is between $50,000 and $75,000.1 Ten percent
report household incomes of less than $25,000; 26 percent have incomes between $25,000
and $50,000; 41 percent have incomes between $50,000 and $100,000; and 23 percent
have household incomes of $100,000 or more.
1 Median income is reported as a range because the survey was structures by income range and did not ask for exact incomes.
46
BBC
A to
sho
Figu
Num
Note:
Sourc
On
wor
wee
rep
Thi
afte
regu
Res
2 pr
Este
per
hou
Figu
Top
Ind
You
Note
n=36
Sourc
BBC R
2017
Child
C RESEARCH & C
Eighty‐thre
Nearly half
otal of 452 ch
wn in Figure
ure II‐1.
mber of Childr
: n=363 parent re
ce: BBC Research &
average, ther
rking adults w
ek and 11 per
resented wor
rty‐nine perc
er 6 p.m. Only
ularly require
spondents to
resents the to
es Valley. Eig
cent include a
useholds (14%
ure II‐2.
p 10 Businesse
ustries of Par
ung Children
:
3 households.
ce:
Research & Consultin
Estes Valley Childca
hood Education Surv
ONSULTING
ee percent are
(47%) of par
hildren live in
II‐1, 343 chil
ren, by Age, L
espondents.
Consulting from the
re are 1.3 wor
work an avera
rcent work le
rk full time jo
cent of workin
y 4 percent re
e shifts on Sa
the Parent Su
op 10 busines
hteen percen
an adult work
%) have an ad
es or
ents of
ng from the
re and Early
vey.
e white and 1
rents are aged
the househo
ldren ages six
Living in Paren
e 2017 Estes Valley C
rking adults i
age of 43 hou
ss than 30 ho
obs; 38 percen
ng adults hav
eport working
turdays, Sund
urvey work in
ss/industries
nt of househol
king in a hote
dult working
6 percent are
d 35 to 44 and
lds represent
x and younger
nt Survey Resp
hildcare and Early Ch
n each of the
urs per week;
ours. Nearly a
nt hold at leas
ve jobs that st
g overnight sh
days, or both
n a wide varie
where paren
lds have a me
el/motel or ot
in the nation
e Hispanic.
d 39 percent
ted by Parent
r are included
pondent Hous
hildhood Education S
Parent Surve
13 percent w
all (92%) of th
st one part‐ti
tart before 8 a
hifts, but 40 p
weekend day
ety of busines
nts of young c
ember workin
ther lodging.
al park or oth
are aged 25 t
t Survey resp
d in the surve
seholds
Survey.
ey household
work 60 or m
he working a
ime job.
a.m., and 14 p
percent have
ys.
sses and indu
children are e
ng in educatio
A similar pro
her recreation
SECTION II, PA
to 34.
ondents. As
eyed househo
s. These
ore hours per
dults
percent work
jobs that
ustries. Figure
employed in t
on and 14
oportion of
n‐oriented jo
AGE 2
olds.
r
k
e II‐
the
b.
47
BBC
Cu
Ove
form
chil
infa
all h
sev
Este
Figu
Are
prov
bab
Note:
Sourc
The
can
non
num
Figu
Wh
Note:
Sourc
Wa
you
C RESEARCH & C
rrent Child
erall, 57 perce
m of non‐pare
ldcare or ECE
ants/toddlers
households w
en percent of
es Valley.
ure II‐3.
any of your c
vided by som
bysitting.
: n=119 househol
and n=230 hous
ce: BBC Research &
e primary rea
work. Social
n‐parent child
mbers, colors
ure II‐4.
at are the prim
: n=132 househol
ce: BBC Research &
aitlist exper
unger in child
ONSULTING
dcare Choi
ent of survey
ent childcare
E increases as
s to 71 percen
with children a
f Hispanic par
children age s
eone other th
ds with infants/todd
eholds with children
Consulting from the
son most par
ization and p
dcare followe
.
mary reasons
ds with children age
Consulting from the
ience. Overa
care were on
ces
respondents
. As shown in
their childre
nt of those wi
age six or you
rents with ch
ix or under re
han their pare
dlers, n=152 househo
n ages 6 or younger.
e 2017 Estes Valley C
rents (77%) u
laying with o
d by school r
s that your chi
s 6 and younger usin
e 2017 Estes Valley C
all, 47 percen
n a waitlist for
with childre
n Figure II‐3, t
en age, from 4
th children ag
unger use som
ildren age six
egularly in any
ent or guardia
olds with children un
hildcare and Early Ch
use non‐paren
other children
eadiness/ear
ild/children is
ng non‐parent childca
hildcare and Early Ch
nt of Estes Val
r one or more
n age six or y
the proportio
45 percent of
ges three thr
me form of no
x or younger
y type of child
an? This does
der age 3, n=135 ho
hildhood Education S
nt childcare i
n is the secon
rly childhood
s/are in childc
are.
hildhood Education S
lley parents w
e of their child
younger regul
on of parents
households w
ough six. Wh
on‐parent chi
use non‐pare
dcare or presc
not include o
useholds with childr
Survey.
s so that one
d most comm
education/le
care?
Survey.
with children
dren. Nearly
SECTION II, PA
larly use som
with children
with
ile 57 percen
ildcare, thirty
ent care in the
chool program
ccasional
en ages 3 through 6,
or both pare
mon reason fo
earn ABCs,
age six or
two‐thirds of
AGE 3
me
n in
nt of
y‐
e
ms
,
nts
or
f
48
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 4
households with an infant/toddler have been (or are currently) on a waitlist. Most spent six
months to a year or more on a waitlist; several commented that they signed up for waitlists
during their pregnancy.
“Still on the wait list of several (4) providers because the childcare I currently have is not
working out and I need to find a new one or I will have to stop working. This will affect many
people as I am a teacher.”
“9 months for my first child, and currently on a wait list for my 6 month old.”
What types of childcare are Estes Valley parents using? Among Estes Valley households
using at least some form of non‐parent childcare, the type of care varies by the age of children in
the household. Figure II‐5 details the proportion of households with children of a certain age
using different types of childcare. Note that households may appear in multiple categories if they
include multiple children of different ages; in other words, the percentages are based on
households, not individual children. In addition, multiple responses are allowed even for
individual children in cases where they combine multiple types of care throughout the week.
Among all households with children six and younger that use some form of non‐parent care (see
far right column of Figure II‐5):
36 percent use part‐day preschool;
32 percent use a licensed family provider;
27 percent use a childcare center;
23 percent of parents stagger their work shifts to manage care;
20 percent stay at home with children (in combination with another form of care);
14 percent have an adult relative provide care;
10 percent use friend or neighbor care;
8 percent use a nanny; and
2 percent have an older sibling provide care.
Note that the sum of these percentages is 170 percent, which shows than many households are
using multiple types of care throughout the week—for different children and/or on different
days for individual children.
Households with infants/toddlers are most likely to use licensed family providers (33%).
Twenty‐eight percent of households with infants/toddlers have parents who stagger their
working days and hours in order to provide care, 19 percent have an adult relative providing
care and another 19 percent have a nanny.
Half of the households with children ages three through six have a child in part‐day preschool
and 31 percent have a child in a childcare center. Licensed family providers are used for
childcare by 22 percent families with children age three through six, and 22 percent of families
stagger work shifts to provide care.
49
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 5
Figure II‐5.
What types of childcare are Estes Valley households using?
Note: n=54 households with infants/toddlers, n=73 households with children under age 3, n=96 households with children ages 3 through 6, and
n=132 households with children ages 6 or younger. Multiple responses are possible and households may appear in multiple categories if
they have children of different ages. The final category “Percent of Households with Children Age 6 and Younger” includes all households
in the previous three age categories.
Source: BBC Research & Consulting from the 2017 Estes Valley Childcare and Early Childhood Education Survey.
Who is using which types of care? Figure II‐6 provides a snapshot of the demographic
characteristics of households using childcare centers, licensed family homes, preschools,
friend/family care or parent‐only care for childcare. Types of childcare providers used vary by
household composition, income, and ethnicity.
As shown, 11 percent households using licensed family home providers are single parents.
Seventeen percent of those using friend/family care providers have other adult family members
living in their household. One in five of the households (21%) using parent‐only care are
Hispanic.
The median income of households using childcare centers and preschools falls within the
$75,000 to $99,999 range, which is higher than the median income range of $50,000 to $74,999
for households using licensed family home providers, friend/family care, and parent‐only care.
Type of Childcare Used
Childcare center 19% 14% 31% 27%
Preschool (part day)26% 21% 49% 36%
Licensed family provider 33% 42% 22% 32%
Nanny 19% 14% 7% 8%
Stay home parent 13% 18% 20% 20%
Parents stagger work shifts 28% 25% 22% 23%
Adult relative 19% 19% 8% 14%
Older sibling 0% 0% 3% 2%
Friend or neighbor 7% 10% 10% 10%
Percent of
Households with
Infants/Toddlers
Percent of
Households with
Children Under
Age 3
Percent of
Households with
Children Ages 3
through 6
Percent of All
Households with
Children Age 6 and
Younger
50
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 6
Figure II‐6.
Snapshot of Households Using Childcare Centers, Licensed Family Homes, Preschool or
Friend/Family or Parent‐Only Childcare
Note: n=35 households using childcare centers, 42 households using licensed family homes, 47 households using preschool, 29 households using
friend/family and 101 households using parent‐only care for childcare.
Source: BBC Research & Consulting from the 2017 Estes Valley Childcare and Early Childhood Education Survey.
Satisfaction with non‐parent childcare. Parents using some type of non‐parent childcare
rated their satisfaction with childcare on a scale from “extremely unsatisfied” (rating of 0) to
“extremely satisfied” (rating of 9). Figure II‐7 considers parent satisfaction with their childcare
from a number of perspectives, including types of childcare used by the household, ages of
children in the household, respondent ethnicity and household income.
Overall, Estes Valley parents that use non‐parent childcare for children age six or younger are
relatively satisfied with the childcare provided to their children: 67 percent rated their
satisfaction between seven and nine. However, 30 percent indicated they were unsatisfied with a
rating of zero through four. The average satisfaction rating overall was a 6.8 (on a 9‐scale).
Households whose care providers include childcare centers are least satisfied: 26 percent of
these parents are unsatisfied and the average satisfaction rating among childcare center users
was 5.9. Friend/family care users had the highest proportion of satisfied parents (84%) followed
by licensed family home care users (78%).
Live in Estes Park 91% 86%87% 86% 86%
Single parent 3% 11%8% 4% 2%
Household includes other adult relatives 9%3%3% 17% 2%
Hispanic 17%7%6% 10% 21%
Responded in Spanish 9%5%2% 3% 19%
Age
18 to 24 4%0%0% 4% 6%
25 to 34 52% 49%45% 50% 48%
35 to 44 33% 51%53% 46% 42%
45 to 54 7%0%3% 0% 1%
55 to 64 4%0%0% 0% 2%
Income
Median income range
Under $15,000 0%5%3% 4% 7%
$15,000–24,999 11%3%0% 0% 6%
$25,000–34,999 7% 14%11% 17% 12%
$35,000–49,999 11%3%18% 4% 22%
$50,000–74,999 18% 30%13% 25% 31%
$75,000–99,999 18% 24%18% 25% 12%
$100,000 or more 36% 22%37% 25% 10%
n= 35 42 47 29 101
$75,000 to
$99,999
$50,000 to
$74,999
$75,000 to
$99,999
$50,000 to
$74,999
$50,000 to
$74,999
Childcare
Center
Licensed Family
Home Preschool
Friend/
Family Care
Parent
Care Only
51
BBC
Ave
a sig
uns
chil
Hou
par
Figu
On
9, w
“Ext
Uns
“Ext
Sati
sati
with
prov
chil
Sourc
BBC R
the 20
and E
Surve
Ch
On
whe
like
with
C RESEARCH & C
erage satisfac
gnificantly hi
satisfied with
ldren under a
useholds with
ent childcare
ure II‐7.
a scale from 0
where 0 is
tremely
satisfied” and
tremely
isfied,” how
sfied are you
h the childcar
vided to your
dren?
ce:
Research & Consultin
017 Estes Valley Chil
arly Childhood Educa
ey.
ildcare Pre
average, Este
en choosing t
ely than other
h children ag
ONSULTING
tion ratings d
igher proport
care (satisfac
age three: 30
h incomes ran
e options than
0 to
9 is
re
r
ng from
dcare
ation
eferences &
es Valley pare
their current
rs to evaluate
e six or youn
didn’t differ su
tion of househ
ction rating o
percent comp
nging from $5
n households
& Needs
ents of childre
provider. Par
four or more
ger.
ubstantially b
holds with ch
of zero throug
pared to 14 p
50,000 up to $
with higher o
en age six or y
rents with inf
e providers (2
by age of child
hildren ages th
gh four) comp
percent, respe
$75,000 are l
or lower inco
younger eval
fants/toddler
28%), compa
d but it shoul
hree through
pared to hous
ectively.
ess satisfied w
omes.
uated 2.3 chi
rs in the hous
ared to 18 per
SECTION II, PA
ld be noted th
h six were
seholds with
with their no
ldcare provid
ehold are mo
rcent of paren
AGE 7
hat
on‐
ders
ore
nts
52
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 8
Parents with a child in some type of non‐parent childcare rated the importance of 17 factors in
their decision to select a childcare provider. These factors range from trust and safety to child
development opportunities. Preference factors are discussed below by age of child and by type
of childcare provider being used.
Preferences by age of child in household. For childcare for children ages six and younger,
the factors parents considered most important when choosing a provider do not vary
substantively by age. On average, parents rate factors associated with trust, the provider’s values
aligning with their own and the provider’s reputation as most important, followed by hours of
operation, availability of care and cost.
Figure II‐8.
Think about the factors you considered when you were evaluating different childcare providers
for your child/children. Please rate the importance of each of the following factors on a scale
from 0 to 9, where 0 means not important at all and 9 means very important.
Source: BBC Research & Consulting from the 2017 Estes Valley Childcare and Early Childhood Education Survey.
Preferences by type of childcare provider. When considered by the type of childcare
providers used, the factors parents consider most important are very similar to those when
examined by ages of children in the household—trust, comfortable with the provider, reputation
and hours of operation.
There are subtle differences. For example, the hours of operation of childcare centers were more
important to parents using childcare centers than to parents with children in part‐day preschool.
Wanted child cared for by someone I trust 9.0 8.9 8.7 8.7
Values/comfortable with this provider 8.4 8.4 8.1 8.2
Reputation/referrals 8.2 8.2 7.8 7.8
Hours of operation 7.9 7.7 7.0 7.2
Only type available/nothing else available 7.3 7.0 5.7 6.1
Affordability/Cost 7.2 7.5 7.1 7.2
Wanted an emphasis on child
development/education 7.2 7.1 7.3 7.2
Location/convenience/close to home/ close
to work 6.8 6.8 5.6 5.9
The learning activities offered/curriculum 6.7 6.8 7.0 6.8
Wanted a licensed provider 5.9 6.2 6.1 6.2
Wanted a family/home environment 5.1 5.6 5.0 5.3
Wanted supervision of providers/more than
one adult with child 4.3 3.9 4.4 4.0
My other children are already with this
provider/went to this provider 4.2 3.9 3.7 3.7
Wanted one‐on‐one care for the child 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.1
Wanted child to be cared for by a relative 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.4
They speak a language other than English 2.4 2.7 2.1 2.2
They were able to accommodate my child’s
special needs 1.8 2.1 2.5 2.4
Households
with Infants/
Toddlers
Households
with Children
Under Age 3
Households with
Children Ages 3
through 6
All Households
with Children Age
6 and Younger
53
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 9
A family home environment is more important to households choosing licensed family care
providers and friend/family care. While still very important, parents choosing licensed family
home providers rate child development and learning activities slightly lower in importance than
parents with children in childcare centers, preschool, and friend/family care.
Figure II‐9.
Think about the factors you considered when you were evaluating different childcare providers
for your child/children. Please rate the importance of each of the following factors on a scale
from 0 to 9, where 0 means not important at all and 9 means very important.
Source: BBC Research & Consulting from the 2017 Estes Valley Childcare and Early Childhood Education Survey.
Desire to change childcare arrangements. Overall, 70 percent of Estes Valley parents of
children age six or younger would change something about their childcare/preschool
arrangement if they could. Desire to change some aspect of their care arrangement varies by age
of children in the household, type of care providers, and income (see Figure II‐10).
Households that include an infant are more likely to want to change something about their
childcare arrangement (80%) than households with children ages three through six (67%).
Compared to the average Estes Valley household using childcare, Hispanic respondents are
much less likely to want to change something about their childcare arrangements (70%
overall compared to 58% of Hispanic respondents).
Households with incomes of $75,000 or more are much less likely than lower income
households to want to change some aspect of their childcare arrangements.
Wanted child cared for by someone I trust 8.5 8.8 8.8 8.8
Values/comfortable with this provider 7.9 8.4 8.0 8.6
Hours of operation 7.7 7.6 6.0 7.3
Reputation/referrals 7.4 8.0 7.7 7.5
Wanted an emphasis on child
development/education 7.3 6.7 7.3 7.3
The learning activities offered/curriculum 7.0 6.0 6.7 6.8
Affordability/Cost 6.4 6.7 6.6 7.0
Wanted a licensed provider 6.2 7.2 5.9 4.6
Only type available/nothing else available 5.8 6.1 4.7 7.1
Location/convenience/close to home/close to
work 5.3 6.3 5.2 6.2
Wanted supervision of providers/more than
one adult with child 5.0 3.3 4.2 3.0
Wanted a family/home environment 4.7 6.1 5.2 6.5
Wanted one‐on‐one care for the child 4.4 3.7 3.9 4.5
My other children are already with this
provider/went to this provider 3.2 3.6 3.2 5.2
They were able to accommodate my child’s
special needs 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.1
Wanted child to be cared for by a relative 2.4 1.5 2.3 5.3
They speak a language other than English 2.4 2.4 1.5 2.5
Childcare
Center
Licensed
Family Home Preschool
Friend/Family
Care
54
BBC
Figu
Perc
Sourc
Wh
usin
com
pro
Figu
If yo
child
arra
Note:
n=132
Sourc
BBC R
Estes
Childh
The
inco
like
age
the
C RESEARCH & C
ure II‐10.
cent of House
ce: BBC Research &
at would par
ng non‐paren
mmon aspects
vider type, an
ure II‐11.
ou could chang
dcare/prescho
angements, wo
:
2.
ce:
Research & Consultin
Valley Childcare and
hood Education Surv
e top reasons
ome, or type o
ely to express
s three throu
Valley and pa
ONSULTING
eholds That W
Consulting from the
rents change
nt care indicat
s respondents
nd staying ho
ge your
ool
ould you…
ng from the 2017
d Early
vey.
did not vary
of childcare p
a desire to ch
ugh six (13%)
arents are les
Would Change
e 2017 Estes Valley C
about their c
ted they woul
s said they wa
ome with thei
substantially
provider. How
hange provid
. This is likely
ss likely to be
Some Aspect
hildcare and Early Ch
childcare arra
ld like to mak
anted to chan
r children.
y by age of chi
wever, house
der types (21%
y related to th
e able to find t
t of Their Child
hildhood Education S
angements? T
ke are shown
nge were hou
ildren in the h
holds with in
%) compared
he fact that in
the type of ca
dcare Arrange
Survey.
The changes
n in Figure II‐1
urs or days ca
household, ho
nfants/toddle
d to househol
nfant care is v
are they desir
SECTION II, PAG
ement
respondents
11. The most
re is offered,
ousehold
ers were more
ds with child
very limited in
re. As discusse
GE 10
e
ren
n
ed
55
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 11
earlier in this report none of the childcare centers offer infant/toddler care and there is a long
infant waitlist for licensed family care homes that offer infant care.
Respondents that indicated they wanted to change provider types did not provide detail on
which types of care they would choose. However, the proportions wanting a change in type care
for children age six or under were similar across users of different types of current full‐day care
(12% of those using family/friend care, 13% of those using childcare centers, and 18% of those
using licensed family care).2 As such, there does not appear to be a clearly identifiable trend in a
specific type of care that is most commonly preferred.
Hours and days of week care is needed, but not provided. As discussed above, the top reason
parents would change their childcare arrangement is to change the days or hours care is offered.
Fewer than two in five households with children age six or younger have access to childcare
during all of the hours and days of week needed. Figure II‐12 presents the additional hours and
days of week needed by the age of children in the household.
Regardless of the age of children in the home, 26 percent of parents need childcare earlier in the
morning than currently offered. About 15 percent of parents expressed a need for hourly drop in
care, weekend care and summer care. Just four percent of households require night shift or
overnight childcare.
Figure II‐12.
Are there hours and/or days that you need childcare for children six or under to accommodate
household members’ work schedule and it is not provided? Age of Children in the Household
Note: n=54 households with infants/toddlers, n=73 households with children under age 3, n=96 households with children ages 3 through 6, and
n=132 households with children ages 6 or younger.
Source: BBC Research & Consulting from the 2017 Estes Valley Childcare and Early Childhood Education Survey.
Parents using childcare centers and friend/family care are least likely to have care providers
with hours that adequately meet their current needs and half of those households with children
in preschool have providers with hours that adequately meet their needs. Earlier morning hours
are needed by 37 percent households with children in childcare centers and 34 percent of
2 The slightly higher proportion of those using licensed family care wanting a change in type of care may be reflecting the
higher proportion of infant/toddler households that want a change in type of care.
No – the hours offered by my current
provider adequately meet my needs 37%34%39%38%
Yes – I need earlier morning hours
(daycare/preschool opens too late)24%23%25%26%
Yes – I need evening hours 17%21%16%20%
Yes – I need drop‐in hourly care 15%14%16%14%
Yes – I need summer care 15%16%15%17%
Yes – I need weekend hours 13%14%16%17%
Yes – I need night shift or overnight hours 4%4%2%4%
Households
with Infants/
Toddlers
Households with
Children Under
Age 3
Households with
Children Ages 3
through 6
All Households with
Children Ages 6 and
Younger
56
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 12
households using friend/family care. Fourteen percent of households that use friend/family
childcare providers need night shift or overnight hours.
Figure II‐13.
Are there hours and/or days that you need childcare for children six or under to accommodate
household members’ work schedule and it is not provided? Type of Childcare Provider Used
Note: Data are sorted from largest to smallest proportion of need for households using licensed family home providers. n=35 households using
childcare centers, 42 households using licensed family homes, 47 households using preschool, 29 households using friend/family and 101
households using parent‐only care for childcare.
Source: BBC Research & Consulting from the 2017 Estes Valley Childcare and Early Childhood Education Survey.
Biggest challenges in finding and using childcare. In the past year, nearly all parents
(89%) of children age six and younger experienced one or more challenges finding and using
childcare in the Estes Valley. Figure II‐14 displays the biggest challenges parents faced by age of
children in the household.
Among households with infants/toddlers, finding care for an infant was a challenge for more
than half (54%); one in three encountered long waitlists or lack of availability on needed days
and one‐third had difficulty finding someone they trust. Hours of operation, trust, finding care
for an infant and cost are challenges experienced by one in four households with children ages
three through six. Work seasonality, transportation and provider location were not a challenge
for most parents.
About 11 percent of households with children age six or younger said they can’t get approved for
financial assistance such as CCAP. It should be noted that the Larimer County CCAP has a waitlist
of 111 spots county‐wide.
No – the hours offered by my current
provider adequately meet my needs 34% 43% 51% 38%
Yes – I need earlier morning hours
(daycare/preschool opens too late)37% 29% 19% 34%
Yes – I need evening hours 26% 26% 15% 28%
Yes – I need summer care 23% 19% 17% 17%
Yes – I need weekend hours 26% 17% 9% 24%
Yes – I need drop‐in hourly care 23% 10% 13% 24%
Yes – I need night shift or overnight hours 6% 2% 2% 14%
Childcare Center
Licensed Family
Home Preschool
Friend/Family
Care
57
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 13
Figure II‐14.
In the past 12 months, what were the biggest challenges, if any, you had in finding and using
childcare/preschool for your children?
Note: n=54 households with infants/toddlers, n=73 households with children under age 3, n=96 households with children ages 3 through 6, and
n=132 households with children ages 6 or younger.
Source: BBC Research & Consulting from the 2017 Estes Valley Childcare and Early Childhood Education Survey.
Parent‐only care. As discussed in the beginning of this section, 43 percent of Estes Valley
parents with children ages six or younger do not regularly use non‐parent childcare providers.
The primary reason why these households do not have someone else regularly watch their
children varied. The top three greatest proportions of parents choose parent‐only care because:
I can’t afford it (29%);
I can’t find/get into quality care (20%); and
It’s important to me that I or my partner care for our children (12%).
These factors did not vary by the age of children in the household; cost was the primary factor to
a greater proportion of Hispanic respondents (43%) and more than half (58%) of households
with incomes of less than $25,000.
Sixty‐eight percent of households not currently using non‐parent childcare plan to do so in the
future. For children ages three through six, public preschools or ECE programs would be the
preferred arrangement for 29 percent and a childcare center would be best for 27 percent. For
children under age three, childcare centers (30%), a parent or guardian at home (19%), or a
licensed family home provider (18%) is the preferred arrangement.
Friend/family care. Overall, 22 percent of households using some type of non‐parent
childcare use friend/family care. Grandmothers (44%), grandfathers (23%), and
friends/neighbors (18%) comprise the majority of friend/family childcare providers used by
Cost too much/cannot afford it 20% 25% 23% 26%
Can’t get approved for financial
assistance (CCAP or other)7% 8% 11% 11%
Finding care for an infant 54% 47% 26% 32%
Finding someone I trust 33% 37% 26% 30%
Gaining knowledge of what’s
available/needing information 19% 16% 10% 14%
Hours of care/hours of operation 22% 26% 26% 29%
Seasonality of my job—I only need
childcare in the summer or winter 4% 4% 5% 5%
Location of provider was too far away 2% 1% 3% 2%
None/I have had no problems 4% 5% 14% 11%
Reliability of provider 19% 16% 9% 11%
Transportation 0% 1% 6% 5%
Waiting list too long or days I needed
not available 35% 30% 17% 21%
Households
with Infants/
Toddlers
Households with
Children Under
Age 3
Households with
Children Ages 3
through 6
All Households with
Children Ages 6 and
Younger
58
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 14
Estes Valley households. Most of these providers (77%) are between the ages of 54 and 74. For
slightly more than half (52%) of parents using friend/family care, having a friend or relative care
for their child was not their first choice. Overall, the primary reason the greatest proportion of
households with kids ages six and younger use friend/family care is trust (48%), followed by
“only option” (38%), and “most affordable option/only type of care I can afford” (28%). For 43
percent of households with infants/toddlers, friend/family care is their “only option” for
childcare; 29 percent are on the waitlist for another provider.
When asked what types of training or child development education, if any, they wished their
friend/family provider had, the greatest proportion of households identified CPR/first aid
(31%), followed by child development (28%), and health and safety training (24%).
Cost of Childcare
Parents responding to the survey shared the monthly amount they spend per child on childcare
services. Figure II‐15 presents the average weekly cost per child of childcare services by the type
of provider used by the household.3 On average, parents spend the most per week on part‐time
or full‐time care if a childcare center is one of the household’s childcare providers (part‐ or full‐
time at a childcare center). Households whose providers include friend/family care four to five
days per week spend the least on full‐time care ($92/week per child).
Figure II‐15.
Average Weekly Per‐Child Cost of Childcare by Type of Childcare Used by Household
Note: n=34 households using childcare centers, 44 households using licensed family homes, 43 households using preschool, and 26 households
using friend/family.
Source: BBC Research & Consulting from the 2017 Estes Valley Childcare and Early Childhood Education Survey.
Figure II‐16 presents the average weekly cost of childcare per child by types of childcare
providers used by households children ages three and younger, and households with children
ages three through six. Note that the cost data are total household spending per child, regardless
of the number of providers used in the course of a week.
3 Note that the weekly spending shown in the figure is spending on all childcare providers per week for one child.
Provider Type
Childcare Center $112 $169 33%
Licensed Family Home $97 $140 58%
Part‐day Preschool $65 $105 52%
Friend/Family Care $96 $92 73%
Part Time at Provider Type
(1‐3 Days/Week)
Full Time at Provider Type
(4‐5 Days/Week)
Percent Part Time (1‐3 days/
week) with Provider Type
59
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 15
Figure II‐16.
Average Weekly Per‐Child Cost of Childcare by Age of Child
Note: ‐ too few households using care type to assess cost data.
Source: BBC Research & Consulting from the 2017 Estes Valley Childcare and Early Childhood Education Survey.
As shown in Figure II‐17, 60 percent of households are able to cover the cost of childcare
without too much difficulty (“it is not difficult at all” or “we are able to cover the cost of care
without too much difficulty”). Thirty‐one percent said covering the cost of care is “difficult” or a
“major challenge” and another 9 percent said they are only able to cover childcare costs because
of assistance received. Results do not vary substantially by the ages of children in the home.
Figure II‐17.
How would you characterize the amount you pay for childcare/preschool per month?
Note: n=42 households with infants/toddlers, n=57 households with children under age 3, n=80 households with children ages 3 through 6, and
n=110 households with children ages 6 or younger.
Source: BBC Research & Consulting from the 2017 Estes Valley Childcare and Early Childhood Education Survey.
If they couldn’t afford the cost of care, parents would adopt a variety of strategies to manage:
More than one‐third (36%) of households with infants/toddlers would “leave the Estes
Valley” if they couldn’t afford childcare; one in four would find “alternative care” such as
Cost n=Cost n=
Households with Children Under Age 3
Licensed Family Home $90 19 $127 13 59%
Nanny ‐ 3 $143 9 25%
Households with Children Ages 3 through 6
Childcare Center $99 9 $154 20 31%
Licensed Family Home $98 16 $149 9 64%
Nanny ‐ 2 $145 8 80%
Preschool $61 23 $105 21 52%
Part Time at
Provider Type
(1‐3 Days/Week)
Percent Part Time
(1‐2 days/week)
with Provider Type
Full Time at
Provider Type
(4‐5 Days/Week)
It is not difficult at all for us to make the
payments 10%14%14%15%
We are able to cover the cost of care
without too much difficulty 57%49%49%45%
The cost of care is difficult for us to cover,
but we are able to get by through cutting
back in other areas
14%14%15%16%
Covering the cost of care is a major
challenge for our household 19%18%14%15%
We are able to afford care because of
assistance that we receive 0%5%9%9%
n=42 57 80 110
Households
with Infants/
Toddlers
Households
with Children
Under Age 3
Households with
Children Ages 3
through 6
All Households with
Children Ages 6 and
Younger
60
BBC
Sch
Par
chil
the
wor
chil
figu
wha
par
Figu
Wh
him
Note:
Sourc
Com
C RESEARCH & C
home care o
resign from
Among hou
they could n
in 10 would
would seek
hool Readi
ents describe
ld in order to
top things pa
rds parents u
ldren in the h
ures visually d
at is needed t
ents used it.
ure II‐18.
at do you thin
m or her for kin
: n=32 parents of
ce: BBC Research &
mments abou
“Learn skills
ONSULTING
or bringing in
m their job and
useholds with
not afford chi
d seek anothe
k financial ass
iness
ed what they
prepare the c
arents think a
used to descri
household or t
depict the 50
to prepare a c
nk are the mo
ndergarten? P
an infant.
Consulting from the
t school read
s to socialize.
n grandparen
d 5 percent w
h children age
ildcare; nearl
er job and 14
istance from
consider to b
child for kind
are needed to
be these nece
the types of c
most commo
child for kind
ost important
Parents with a
e 2017 Estes Valley C
iness from pa
Basic letters,
nts to watch th
would seek a d
es three to six
ly one in five
percent woul
either the sta
be the most im
dergarten. Ov
o prepare thei
essary skills d
childcare prov
on words diffe
ergarten. The
things to do f
an Infant in th
hildcare and Early Ch
arents of infa
numbers, wri
heir children.
different job.
x, 30 percent w
(18%) would
ld resign from
ate or EVICS.
mportant thin
verall, reading
ir child for kin
did not vary s
viders the ho
erent types o
e larger the w
for/with your
he Household
hildhood Education S
ants/toddlers
ite his name, c
. About 15 pe
would seek a
d leave the Es
m their job. A
ngs to do for o
g, play and so
ndergarten. T
substantially
usehold uses
of parents use
word, the mor
r child in orde
Survey.
include:
colors, days of
SECTION II, PAG
ercent would
alternative car
stes Valley. On
About 14 perc
or with their
cialization w
The types of
by the age of
s. The followin
ed to describe
re frequently
r to prepare
of the week.”
GE 16
re if
ne
ent
ere
f
ng
e
61
BBC
Figu
Wh
him
Note:
Sourc
Com
C RESEARCH & C
“Aqudarlo a
children an
“Read to he
“Lots of play
motor skills
through sto
ure II‐19.
at do you thin
m or her for kin
: n=51 parents wi
ce: BBC Research &
mments abou
“Playing ou
sensory acti
“Socializatio
teach or enr
communica
which is ver
“Ayudarlos
age.]
“Reading, en
those intere
ONSULTING
a que se relaci
d learn Engli
r; let her expl
y to learn soci
s, particularly
rytelling and
nk are the mo
ndergarten? P
th children ages thre
Consulting from the
t school read
utside, develop
ivities, learnin
on and intera
rich at home a
ate, how to list
ry important a
con el aprend
ngage with th
ests. Reduce T
ione con otros
sh.]
lore new thing
ial skills and s
art, music, an
play.”
ost important
Parents Childr
ee through six.
e 2017 Estes Valley C
iness from pa
ping fine moto
ng by playing.
action with oth
are those that
ten to other a
as well.”
dizaje desde [s
hem, pay atten
TV time and fo
s niños y apre
gs; have her so
self‐regulation
nd dance. Ear
things to do f
ren Ages Thre
hildcare and Early Ch
arents of child
or skills, learn
”
her children is
t she gets from
dults, etc. I am
su] pequena e
ntion to their
cus on healthy
ender ingles.”
ocialize with
n. Play that e
rly literacy an
for/with your
e through Six
hildhood Education S
dren ages thr
ning sounds, c
is very import
m school‐ how
m able to rea
edad.” [Help w
interests and
hy eating habi
[Help him rel
other kids her
encourages gr
nd language d
r child in orde
x
Survey.
ree through s
colors, numbe
tant to me. Le
w to share, how
d and count a
with learning
d build educat
its.”
SECTION II, PAG
late to other
r age.”
ross and fine
development
r to prepare
ix include:
rs, shapes, etc
essons I canno
w to
at home with h
from a young
tional pieces in
GE 17
c.,
ot
her,
g
nto
62
BBC
Ch
Par
chil
thes
use
pro
you
Figu
Wh
Note:
Sourc
Mos
Tho
care
Abo
hou
par
hou
C RESEARCH & C
ildcare for
ents with chi
ldren outside
se children, fo
d, including b
vided by a fri
unger than 18
ure II‐20.
at type of car
: n=69 parents wi
ce: BBC Research &
st parents (76
ose parents w
e and activitie
“I believe w
shouldn't be
community.
“Porque no
are left alon
“Program c
out two‐third
urs or days of
ents need sum
urs and times
ONSULTING
r School‐Ag
ldren ages se
of normal sc
ollowed by ad
before and aft
iend or neigh
8 (6%).
re do you typi
th children ages seve
Consulting from the
6%) are very
who were not
es, cost and li
ith as many c
e scrounging f
. Same frustra
me quedo tra
ne.]
ost for after s
s of parents w
f week when t
mmer care an
of year when
ge Childre
even through
chool hours. N
dult relatives
ter school pro
hbor (13%). F
cally use for y
en through 12.
e 2017 Estes Valley C
satisfied with
satisfied poin
imited hours
hildren as are
for after scho
ations with lac
anquilo que se
school care an
with school‐a
their current
nd 16 percent
n out‐of‐schoo
n
12 employ di
Nearly half (4
(29%). Figur
ograms (14%
Few stay hom
your seven to
hildcare and Early Ch
h the childcar
nt to a lack of
of care in the
e currently liv
ol & SUMMER
ck of options a
e queden solos
nd short hours
age children n
arrangement
t need after s
ol‐time childc
ifferent types
8%) have a p
re 11‐20 pres
%), a YMCA pr
e alone (9%)
12 year old(s
hildhood Education S
re provided t
f choice or op
e Estes Valley
ving year‐roun
R activities in
as for our tod
s.” [Because I
s.”
need out‐of‐sc
t is not availa
chool hours.
care is neede
s of care for th
parent or guar
sents the othe
rogram (14%
or in the car
s) outside nor
Survey.
to their seven
tions for out‐
y.
nd in the Este
such a wealth
ddler currently
am not comf
chool‐time ch
able. One in fiv
Figure II‐21 p
d.
SECTION II, PAG
hese older
rdian watchin
er types of ca
) or care
e of a sibling
mal school ho
n to 12 year ol
‐of‐school tim
es Valley, kids
hy & privilege
y.”
fortable that t
hildcare durin
ve of these
presents the
GE 18
ng
are
ours?
ld.
me
ed
they
ng
63
BBC
Figu
Are
that
you
12 t
hou
sche
not
Note:
n=69
throu
Sourc
BBC R
Estes
Educa
C RESEARCH & C
ure II‐21.
there hours a
t you need ch
ur children age
to accommod
usehold memb
edule and chi
available?
:
parents with childre
gh 12.
ce:
Research & Consultin
Valley Childcare and
ation Survey.
ONSULTING
and/or days
hildcare for
ed seven to
ate
bers’ work
ldcare is
n ages seven
ng from the 2017
d Early Childhood
SECTION II, PAGGE 19
64
S
Be
an
ECTIO
enefits
nd Pro
ON II
s and B
vider S
II.
Barriers
Survey
s of Ch
hildcaree: Employer
65
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 1
SECTION III.
Benefits and Barriers of Childcare:
Employer and Provider Survey
This section discusses the benefits and barriers of childcare in the Estes Valley. It begins with a
brief discussion of the social/economic benefits of childcare based on prevailing academic
research then reports the results of an employer survey on the impacts of childcare to
businesses in the Valley. The section concludes by discussing barriers to providing childcare
services in the Estes Valley and the barriers to accessing childcare from the perspective of Estes
Valley providers and parents.
Benefits of Childcare
The positive impacts of early childhood education/childcare are well‐documented in prevailing
academic research. These impacts include individual benefits for the child and family as well as
economic and social benefits realized by the broader community.
Academic studies highlight the need for early intervention to support identified benefits based
on the pace of brain development from birth through age six and the early development of
noncognitive skills such as motivation, self‐control and time preference.1 The research is clear
that the types of early experiences that help children thrive include “stable and nurturing
relationships with caregivers, language‐rich environments, and encouragement to explore
through movement and senses;” while the types of experiences that negatively impact
development include “poverty; exposure to violence, abuse or neglect; and an incarcerated or
mentally ill parent.”2 Toxic stress, caused by these adverse experiences, has an immediate impact
on children’s ability to learn and self‐regulate but also has long‐term mental and physical health
impacts.3
In response to psychological, behavioral, and economic research on this issue, early childhood
development programs are designed to create supportive environments and help foster healthy
development from the earliest years. According to research from the Minneapolis Federal
Reserve, “programs that offer enriched experiences for children and involve parents and other
1 Douglas Clement, “Interview with James Heckman’” The Region, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 2005. Available online
at www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the‐region/interview‐with‐james‐heckman
2 Rob Grunewald, “Investments in Young Children Yield High Public Returns,” Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 2016.
Available at www.philadelphiafed.org/community‐development/publications/cascade/93/04_investments‐in‐young‐children
3 Maxia Dong, Wayne H. Giles, Vincent J. Felitti, et al. “Insights into Causal Pathways for Ischemic Heart Disease: Adverse
Childhood Experiences Study,” Circulation, 2004, 110(13). Available at http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/110/13/1761.full.
66
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 2
caregivers provide benefits for all children but have the strongest impact on children from
disadvantaged environments.”4
The most prominent studies of early childhood education impacts are based on the Perry
Preschool Project in Michigan (ages 3–4 years), the Chicago Child–Parent Centers program (ages
3–4 years), the Carolina Abecedarian Project in North Carolina (ages 3 months through 4 years),
and the Prenatal/Early Infancy Project in Elmira, NY (prenatal to age 2 years). These studies
document the individual gains (both immediate and persistent) and the community benefits
resulting from the provision of high‐quality early learning programs—particularly those
targeted to children from disadvantaged environments.5
Individual benefits found in these studies include higher school achievement, educational
attainment and earnings along with health improvements such as reductions in smoking
rates, heart disease and diabetes.6
Social and economic benefits documented in these studies include reduced societal costs
(e.g., reduced incarceration rates and reduced need for special education resources),
increased tax revenue, increased labor force productivity, and higher labor force
engagement among parents.7
Benefit–cost ratios from the projects analyzed range from $4 to $16 returned for every
dollar invested—and the public benefits measured were higher than the private benefits. A
study of labor force impacts shows that parent absenteeism and productivity reductions
due to child‐care breakdowns cost U.S. businesses more than $3 billion annually.8
A report on the Economic Impact of Child Care in Colorado confirms similar findings locally and
classifies the economic impacts in Colorado as follows:
The immediate economic effect in which spending on childcare services contributes to
state/local employment and economic output ($2 billion in sales/services and earnings in
Colorado in 2012);
The enabling economic effect, in which the provision of childcare allows parents to
participate in the workforce ($4.4 billion in Colorado in 2015); and
4 Rob Grunewald, “Investments in Young Children Yield High Public Returns,” Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 2016.
Available at www.philadelphiafed.org/community‐development/publications/cascade/93/04_investments‐in‐young‐children
5 Ibid. and James J. Heckman, Rob Grunewald, and Arthur J. Reynolds, “The Dollars and Cents of Investing Early: Cost–Benefit
Analysis in Early Care and Education,” Zero to Three, July 2006, 26(6).
6 Karen Shellenback. “Child Care and Parent Productivity: Making the Business Case,” Linking Economic Development & Child
Care Research Project, Cornell University, 2004.
7 Rob Grunewald, “Investments in Young Children Yield High Public Returns,” Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 2016.
Available at www.philadelphiafed.org/community‐development/publications/cascade/93/04_investments‐in‐young‐children
8 Ibid
67
BBC
Wh
the
in th
Em
Thi
Sur
pro
Emp
Abs
pro
surv
emp
per
pro
emp
Figu
Doe
emp
chil
Note:
Sourc
In 2
chil
9 But
An E
cont
C RESEARCH & C
The investm
returns der
expenditure
ile these data
same types o
he Estes Valle
mployer Im
s section pres
vey of emplo
blems on loca
ployer Survey
senteeism,
blems is a fre
vey, and has s
ployee recrui
cent of emplo
blem for mos
ployee childc
ure III‐1.
es your busine
ployee childca
dren, etc.)?
: n=46 employers
ce: BBC Research &
2017, 23 perc
ldcare proble
tler Institute for F
conomic Analysis
ent/uploads/201
ONSULTING
ment effect, in
rived from hig
es, and impro
a are not avai
of benefits on
ey follows, ba
mpacts
sents results
yers (Employ
al business op
y.
trouble rec
equent occurr
some impact
iting for one i
oyers. Childca
st employers
are problems
ess experience
are problems
s.
Consulting from the
cent of partici
ms. These em
Families and Brod
s,” Prepared for E
17/08/full_report
n which childc
gher lifetime
oved worker p
lable at the lo
a proportion
ased on result
from the Este
yer Survey) a
perations. A t
cruiting and
rence for one
on 85 percen
n 10 employe
are problems
surveyed (61
s lead to abse
e absenteeism
(unavailable
e 2017 Estes Valley C
ipating emplo
mployers estim
dsky Research an
Early Milestones C
t_bearing_the_cos
care spending
incomes, low
productivity
ocal level, it is
nal scale. A qu
ts from the em
es Valley Chil
nd examines
total of 56 Est
turnover. A
e in five Estes
nt of employe
ers, although
leading to em
1%). Figure II
enteeism, trou
m, trouble rec
care, unreliab
hildcare and Early Ch
oyers lost betw
mated the tot
nd Consulting, “Be
Colorado, 2017. A
st_2017.pdf
g generates in
wer incarcerat
($832 million
s certain that
ualitative disc
mployer surv
ldcare and Ea
the impact o
tes Valley bus
Absenteeism
Valley emplo
ers. Childcare
this is rarely
mployee turn
II‐1 presents
uble recruitin
cruiting, or tur
ble care, no ca
hildhood Education E
tween one and
tal cost to hir
earing the Cost of
Available online a
ndividual and
tion rates, low
n annually in
t the Estes Val
cussion of em
vey conducted
arly Childhood
f employees’
sinesses part
due to emplo
oyers particip
problems fre
y or never an
nover is rarely
the frequenc
ng or turnove
rnover becaus
are available f
Employer Survey.
d four emplo
re replacemen
f Early Care and E
at http://earlymil
SECTION III, PA
d community
wer welfare
Colorado).9
lley experien
mployer impac
d for this repo
d Education
childcare
ticipated in th
oyee childcare
pating in the
equently imp
issue for 47
y or never a
y with which
r.
se of
for sick
yees due to
nt employees
Education in Colo
lestones.org/wp‐
AGE 3
ces
cts
ort.
he
e
act
h
at
rado:
68
BBC
mor
imp
Issu
em
fact
spe
fact
par
Figu
How
emp
Fact
Note:
Sourc
C RESEARCH & C
re than $23,0
pact of childca
“Job offers I
tends to stru
“No direct d
every busine
“We can't h
come in for
nature of th
ues impacti
mployees. Ho
tors impactin
cific to childc
tors, neither a
king and the
ure III‐2.
w important a
ployees? (Rat
tor)
: n=46 employers
ce: BBC Research &
ONSULTING
000 and the co
are availabilit
I give are mos
uggle to find c
defined impac
ess in the Vall
ire young fam
their shift & t
he business.”
ng the abili
ousing afforda
g local busine
care (e.g., relia
among the mo
ability to wor
are the follow
e on scale fro
s.
Consulting from the
ost to retrain
ty on their bu
st often accept
care and usua
ct presently, bu
ley.”
milies because
the workplace
ity of Estes V
ability and av
esses’ ability
ability, availa
ost important
rk from home
wing issues to y
om 0 to 9, whe
e 2017 Estes Valley C
at nearly $10
usiness includ
ted by those w
ally turns the j
ut probable. I
they don't ha
e is not suitab
Valley emp
vailability and
to recruit and
ability) fall int
t nor the leas
e are the least
your business
ere 0=Not at A
hildcare and Early Ch
0,000. Emplo
de:
with no childr
job down.”
Indirectly, chi
ave care. We g
ble for a child
ployers to re
d the cost of l
d retain empl
to the range o
st. Of the 14 fa
t important c
s’s ability to a
All Important,
hildhood Education E
yer comment
ren. Anyone w
ldcare availab
get screwed if
to be present
ecruit and re
iving are the
loyees. Consi
of being some
actors rated,
consideration
ttract and ret
, 9=Extremely
Employer Survey.
SECTION III, PA
ts about the
ith children
bility affects
f people can't
t due to the
etain
most importa
derations
ewhat import
employee
ns, on average
tain
y Important
AGE 4
ant
tant
e.
69
BBC
Emp
incl
Mos
affo
chil
stat
emp
pro
Figu
Wh
stat
rep
Note:
n=46
Sourc
BBC R
2017
Childh
Add
C RESEARCH & C
ployer comm
lude:
“Affordable
“Housing is
cost/availab
all.”
“We current
finding care
anticipate t
become an i
“The need is
“My staff ha
to work. The
worry and d
st employers
ordability of c
ldcare as an is
tements abou
ployers (56%
blems in the
ure III‐3.
ich of the foll
tements best
resents your o
:
employers.
ce:
Research & Consultin
Estes Valley Childcar
hood Education Emp
ditional comm
“The need is
“The increas
factors. I fee
shop, well th
childcare co
away from E
ONSULTING
ments about th
housing is mo
the #1 proble
bility. If we do
tly only have
e for a child un
that in a few y
issue for four
s great especi
ave had difficu
ey also have t
distraction at
(60%) state
childcare for t
ssue in the Es
ut childcare b
%) felt the stat
Estes Valley”
owing
opinion?
ng from the
re and Early
ployer Survey.
ments from em
s great especi
singly astrono
el like my surv
hey don't have
osts are very i
Estes because
he issues imp
ore importan
em. We are los
on't solve the
two employee
nder the age o
years, as they s
more membe
ally from ages
ulties finding i
trouble finding
work.”
that their futu
their workers
stes Valley, em
est captured
tement, “Relia
” best represe
mployers reg
ally from ages
omical cost of
vey doesn't fu
e kids. That co
mportant to m
e the cost of liv
acting their a
t for employe
sing (or are u
housing prob
es with childre
of two is near
start families,
ers of team.”
s 0‐2.”
infant care an
g higher qual
ure hiring pla
s. To further e
mployers wer
their opinion
able and affor
ented their op
arding childc
s 0‐2.”
f living, and th
lly reflect tha
ould change a
my wife and I.
ving / housing
ability to recr
rs of Estes.”
unable to attra
blem, there wi
en under the a
rly impossible.
s, child care ne
nd sometimes
lity care that t
ans are impac
explore empl
re asked to in
n. As shown in
rdable childc
pinion.
care in the Est
he cost of chil
at. My CURREN
any time. I kno
. In addition, I
g got too exce
ruit and retain
act) families d
ll be no need f
age of 13. One
. We have a yo
eeds could inc
s have to bring
they would pr
cted by the av
loyer perspec
ndicate which
n Figure III‐3
are is one of t
tes Valley inc
ldcare, are suc
NT workforce
ow childcare
I've had many
essive.”
SECTION III, PA
n employees
due to housing
for childcare
e stated that
oung crew an
creasingly
g young childr
refer, causing
vailability and
ctives on
h of four
, the majority
the more seri
clude:
ch important
e at my humbl
access and
y friends move
AGE 5
g
at
nd
ren
g
d
y of
ious
le
e
70
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 6
“Our community is diversifying, and more immigrant workers are here filling hospitality jobs.
They are low wage workers and are in special need of childcare/affordable housing attention.
Next, our large cohort of Boomers are retiring from the middle‐class jobs we offer. Now the
Millennial generation is ready to fill the ranks, but we need a place for them to live and to care
for their young children when both parents are working. The economic position of Northern
Colorado has shifted, and if we hope to keep our community a 'community', we need to find
funding for this critical service.”
“Limited (or absurdly long) school bus routes contribute to the problem, because for school
age kids, there are some after school options that we would use more if the school bus went
there (i.e., no bus to the Mountain Shop, which has both dance classes and climbing classes for
kids after school).”
Barriers to Providing Childcare
As part of the study, BBC conducted interviews with various Estes Valley Childcare providers
including each of the primary facility‐based childcare providers (Mountain Top, YMCA, Park
Place, and Life Long Learning) and EVICS. Discussions were focused on current service provision
and barriers providers face in providing childcare services. Top themes shared by childcare
providers and EVICS are discussed below.
Financial solvency. One of the biggest challenges in providing care in the Estes Valley is
bridging the gap between operational costs and the revenue received from tuition. Many families
that need care have relatively low incomes—driven by the tourism economy in the Valley—and
are not able to pay higher rates for childcare. However, the tuition rates are not sufficient to
recover the full cost of providing care. This is particularly true for facility‐based
childcare/preschool, some of which must supplement revenue with fundraising efforts,
subsidize their childcare/preschool through other programs (e.g., YMCA summer camp revenue
helps offset operational losses for year‐round childcare), or rely on free/discounted building
space. The cost vs revenue balance is also a challenge for existing licensed family providers and
poses additional challenge for recruiting new family providers who perceive the industry to have
relatively low pay for the work required.
The cost differential exacerbates the inadequate provision of infant and toddler care. Infant care
is more costly to provide from an operational standpoint (higher staff ratios and costs) and the
costs of modifying/expanding facilities to accommodate infant care would be a high cost
endeavor especially considering the high land and construction labor costs in mountain
communities. Typically, childcare centers that include infant care are cross‐subsidizing the costs
of providing infant care with revenue from preschool care but in a situation where preschool
care is a financial challenge, adding an infant care option is essentially cost‐prohibitive.
EVICS and the State of Colorado do offer tuition assistance for qualifying families and some
preschools have their own scholarship programs or discounts for qualifying families. Some
providers are also able to subsidize costs with grant money and fundraising. Even so, providers
all discussed the tension between managing their operations and keeping costs down for
families. For all providers, the highest operational cost is staff salaries.
71
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 7
Operations and staffing. In addition to financial challenges, providers also identified staffing
concerns, administrative requirements, and program management as barriers to providing
childcare in the Estes Valley.
Staffing was identified as a key challenge among most—though not all—providers.
Recruitment and retention are particularly challenging in a small, high cost community like
Estes Park. The pool of qualified staff is relatively low due to the size of the community and
high housing costs make it difficult to keep good employees in the community with wages
typical of the childcare industry.
Administrative requirements were a barrier for some facility‐based and home care
providers alike. For facility‐based childcare/preschool, the administrative burdens were
primarily related to program management and the tension between fulfilling dual roles of
director and teacher. For family home care providers the administrative challenges were
primarily related to increasing paperwork and repetitive training requirements. Providers
expressed a desire to be able to test out of certain training/paperwork requirements based
on experience or track record.
Family home care providers also face unique challenges related to scheduling and
operations. Licensed family providers are more likely than childcare centers to offer
flexibility for families’ schedules since their operations are not tied to facility hours.
However, as sole providers, they face challenges in managing their own sick time, vacation
schedules, and training requirements during which they are not able to provide care.
Unmet needs. The most common unmet need, according to current providers, is
infant/toddler care. In addition, providers identified a need for more bilingual childcare, high
quality full‐day preschool, and additional licensed family home providers.
All providers interviewed—even those not currently providing infant care—highlighted the
need for infant/toddler care as one of the top childcare concerns in the Estes Valley. Infant
demand is more challenging to accommodate as teacher‐to‐child ratios are higher for infant
care. Most providers had capacity to accept more preschool‐aged children, at least some
days per week. Higher demand for younger age groups with an associated low demand for
preschoolers poses a unique operational and financial challenge for providers due to higher
costs of providing care for younger children relative to preschoolers.
None of the existing providers interviewed believe there is a current need for another
traditional childcare center or preschool serving children aged two and a half or older.
Providers generally felt they would be able to absorb a marginal increase in demand at that
age level while maintaining current standards of care. However, some providers felt that
extending part‐day preschool programs to full‐day is a need in the community and would
provide another high‐quality educational option for full‐day care.
Providers also identified a need for more bilingual and English as a Second Language (ESL)
options to accommodate the growing Hispanic population. At the elementary level, there is
a stark achievement gap between native English and Spanish speakers. Providers feel that
72
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 8
providing more language rich environments for preschool‐age ESL students would help
close that gap.
Some providers—including some facility‐based providers—noted a particular need for
additional licensed family homes and additional supports/resources for other non‐licensed
care options that offer care in a home‐setting (nannies, friend/family care, etc.). Providers
felt that this scale and type of care was conducive to meeting the needs of the community
and maintaining a healthy diversity of care types in the Valley. Existing family providers
desired to encourage others to enter the industry and increase interest in starting licensed
family care businesses.
Childcare for children with special needs was also identified as a need in the Estes Valley.
Park Place Preschool (the preschool affiliated with the local public elementary school)
currently dedicates six childcare spots for those needing special education but most
providers do not have programming tailored to meet this need.
Suggested solutions. As part of the provider interviews, BBC also asked providers what they
felt the Town, the Childcare Committee and/or EVICS could do to help address the childcare
needs in the community. A summary of suggested solutions and provider comments are below:
Most providers identified housing costs and cost of living as a local issue that exacerbates
the challenges of providing and accessing childcare. Relatively low wages combined with
high housing costs make it very difficult for families to pay for childcare and the high cost of
living also makes it difficult to the recruit/retain childcare workers. Providers suggested
the Town address housing needs as a related issue to childcare.
Some providers suggested the Town, the Estes Park EDC Childcare Committee, and/or
EVICS help fund infant/toddler care in the Valley. Advocates of this solution noted that
other amenities such as libraries, schools, etc. are publicly funded and suggested that
childcare should be considered a similar type of public service.
Some providers expressed concern that the Estes Park EDC Childcare Committee seems to
be focused primarily on facility‐based solutions to childcare needs. Their desire was to
ensure there are a diversity of options in the Valley—including support for friend/family
care, nannies, and other alternative options. Providers expressed a desire to accommodate
different parent preferences for childcare types throughout the valley, regardless of race,
ethnicity, income, family composition, and employment status.
Some providers suggested the Town and/or the Estes Park EDC allocate economic
development resources to recruiting additional family home care providers. There is a
perception that this type of business is not profitable but it can be a great option for many
existing residents—particularly if they desire to work from home or earn an income while
caring for their own young children. EVICS has resources to help potential providers initiate
a family home care business but current provider perception was that more marketing
might help attract more providers.
73
BBC
Ba
Sect
pre
chil
In t
mor
cha
Figu
In th
wha
cha
had
usin
pres
chil
Note:
n=132
Sourc
BBC R
the 20
Early
Find
hou
and
chil
in r
C RESEARCH & C
Additional f
was sugges
and grant fu
rriers to A
tion II, which
ferences and
ldcare, as exp
he past year,
re challenges
llenges faced
ure III‐4.
he past 12 mo
at were the bi
llenges, if any
d in finding an
ng childcare/
school for you
dren?
:
2.
ce:
Research & Consultin
017 Estes Valley Chil
Childhood Education
ding infant ca
useholds and
d cost were ch
ldren aged six
esponse to ot
Nearly two‐
waitlist. Mo
signed up fo
Fewer than
during all o
ONSULTING
financial supp
ted in severa
unding.
Accessing C
h describes re
challenges re
pressed by pa
nearly all par
finding and u
d by all househ
onths,
iggest
y, you
d
ur
ng from
dcare and
n Survey.
are was the m
over half of h
hallenges exp
x or younger
ther question
‐thirds of hou
ost spent six m
or waitlists d
n two in five h
of the hours an
port for child
l different for
Childcare
esponses to th
elated to child
rents respon
rents (89%) o
using childca
holds with ch
most common
households th
erienced by m
that respond
ns throughout
useholds with
months to a y
uring their pr
households w
nd days of we
dcare in the va
rms including
he Parent surv
dcare. The mo
ding to the su
of children ag
re in the Este
hildren six or
n challenge—e
hat include an
more than 25
ed to the surv
t the survey:
h an infant/to
year or more o
regnancy.
ith children a
eek needed. R
alley was also
g additional s
vey, includes
ost common b
urvey, are sum
ge six and you
es Valley. Figu
younger.
experienced b
n infant/todd
5 percent of E
vey. These ch
oddler have b
on a waitlist;
age six or you
Regardless of
o a proposed
scholarship, tu
s a detailed an
barriers to ac
mmarized be
unger experie
ure III‐4 displ
by one‐third
ler. Trust, ho
stes Valley ho
hallenges wer
been (or are c
several comm
unger have ac
f the age of ch
SECTION III, PA
solution. This
uition suppor
nalysis of par
ccessing
low.
enced one or
lays the top
of all
urs of operat
ouseholds wi
re also expres
urrently) on
mented that t
ccess to childc
hildren in the
AGE 9
s
rt,
ent
tion,
ith
ssed
a
they
care
74
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 10
home, about one in four parents needs childcare earlier in the morning than currently
offered. About 15 percent of parents expressed a need for hourly drop in care, weekend
care and summer care.
Thirty‐one percent of households with children under age six said covering the cost of
childcare is a “major challenge” or is “difficult but we are able to get by through cutting back
in other areas.” Another 9 percent said “we are able afford care because of assistance that
we receive.” When asked what they would do if they couldn’t afford the cost of childcare,
around one in five would leave the Estes Valley and about 15 percent would resign from
their job.
For the 43 percent of Estes Valley parents with children ages six or younger who do no
regularly use non‐parent childcare providers, the biggest barriers to accessing childcare
were cost (29%) and finding/getting into quality care (20%). These factors did not vary by
the age of children in the household.
BBC also asked current childcare providers about their perception of the barrier parents face
accessing childcare in the Estes Valley. Their responses were similar to the parent perspectives
described above with an emphasis on the cost of childcare relative to average earnings and the
lack of infant/toddler care.
75
S
D
ECTIO
emand
ON IV
d Analy
V.
ysis and Recoommenndationns
76
BBC RESEARCH &CONSULTING SECTION IV,PAGE 1
SECTION IV.
Demand Analysis and Recommendations
This section contains the results of an analysis of current and future demand for licensed full-daychildcare in the Estes Valley. It begins with a discussion of current usage and then projectsdemand for childcare through 2027. The section concludes with a summary of key issues (basedon all previous report sections) and offers recommendations on how to meet those needs.
Current UsageAs discussed in Section I,the daily capacity in the Estes Valley for full-time licensed childcare is104 children (12 infants/toddlers and 92 preschoolers) provided by six licensed family homesand two facility-based childcare centers. (Note that the other two facility-based options onlyprovide half-day care options).Those providers currently serve 121 individual children. The number of children served ishigher than daily capacity due to usage and scheduling differences. Another 12 children (allinfants/toddlers) are on waiting lists for care through licensed home care providers.Figure IV-1shows current demand for licensed childcare in the Estes Valley as the number of childrencurrently in that type of care along with the number of children on the waitlist for that type ofcare. There are currently 133 children using or on a waitlist for licensed full-day care—24infants/toddlers and 109 preschoolers.Of the 133 children,about 13 are children of in-commuters and 120 are children of Estes Valley residents. These 120 resident children make up24 percent of the total population of children under the age of six in the Estes Valley. Saidanother way, the current usage rate for licensed full-day childcare among Estes Valley residentchildren is 24 percent.It should be noted that this estimate of demand is likely a lower bound. While it does representthe most current and accurate assessment of use,many families participating in the parentsurvey indicated they would use licensed childcare if they could afford to do so or if itaccommodated the hours they needed or if infant care was available. Any changes to cost orschedule could impact this demand estimate.At present, as indicated above, less than 25 percent of the children under the age of six in theEstes Valley are enrolled in some kind of licensed infant or childcare program (121 out of a totalof 489). The three demand scenarios—particularly the first two scenarios—that follow assumethat the percentage of children receiving infant and childcare will remain relatively constantgoing forward. However, there is every reason to believe that a community willing and able toaddress the barriers identified in this report will over time see an increase in the percentage ofchildren under the age of six whose parents seek to enroll them in some form of childcare.Indeed, it would be surprising if this were not the case. This will be increasingly true in thosecommunities that identify access to quality childcare as a key component in building andsustaining a family-friendly, family-oriented community. To the extent this happens in Estes
77
BBC RESEARCH &CONSULTING SECTION IV,PAGE 2
Park, the number of available spaces for infant and childcare will need to be expanded beyondthose projected by the demand scenarios included here.
Figure IV-1.Current Usage andDemand for Licensed Full-Day Childcare in the EstesValley
Source:
Childcare provider data and BBC
Research & Consulting.
The full-day providers in the Estes Valley indicated they could collectively accommodate anothereight full-time children over age two and a half in licensed care. Demand for infant/toddler careexceeds the current capacity.
Demand ScenariosIn order to quantify growth in demand for licensed childcare in the Estes Valley through 2027 (a10-year time horizon), BBC developed a custom childcare demand model. This section describesthe assumptions and methodology used to create the model. Results from the demand modelingeffort follow under the heading “Future Demand.”The primary demand model focuses on full-day licensed childcare options in the Estes Valley—that is, childcare centers (excluding part-day preschools) and licensed home providers, thoughdemand for part-day preschools is also discussed at the end of this section.There are twoprimary components or drivers of demand in the childcare demand model: residents and in-commuters. The demand model accounts for both components of demand, using currentchildcare usage rates as a baseline.The demand model is structured around three possible scenarios impacted by the investmentsand policy priorities of the Estes Valley over the next 10 years. The three scenarios are:
1.Status quo.This demand scenario assumes current housing and demographic trendscontinue into the future. As discussed in Section I, the proportion of non-seasonalhouseholds in the Valley has declined (from 62% to 57%) since 2000—replaced byseasonal/recreational homes. The proportion of the non-seasonal population that arechildrenalso declined over that period—from 17 percent in 2000 to 12 percent in 2015,though the percent of the non-seasonal population that is under six has stayed fairlyconstant at 5 percent. Overall,household growth has been relatively slow over the past 5to 15 years,and population growth has been even slower—that is, few households have
Type of Provider
Number of Children in Care
Licensed Home Care Providers 12 41 53
Childcare Centers (full-time)0 68 68
Total 12 109 121
Number of Children on Waitlist
Licensed Home Care Providers 12 0 12
Childcare Centers (full-time)0 0 0
Total 12 0 12
Total Demand
Licensed Home Care Providers 24 41 65
Childcare Centers (full-time)0 68 68
Total Demand 24 109 133
Age of Child
Under 2 ½2 ½ to 6 Total
78
BBC RESEARCH &CONSULTING SECTION IV,PAGE 3
been added and those that have, contain fewer people and are less likely to be familieswith children. The status quo demand analysis continues those trends into the futureusing the period between 2010 and 2015 as the base trend.
2.Increased investments in workforce housing.The Town of Estes Park hasidentified workforce housing development as a key priority for future investment and acritical step to ensure that Estes Park can be a full life-cycle community for futureresidents. Investments in workforce housing are very likely to increase the population offamilies living the Valley—above and beyond a forecast that relies solely on historicaltrends to forecast population and demographic changes. This demand scenario assumesthe Town of Estes Park does produce 500 additional workforce housing units andattracts a higher proportion of families—many of whom will need childcare—to theEstes Valley. It results in a higher level of demand than the status quo analysis.
3.Investments in both workforce housing and childcare.The Town of Estes Parkhasalso acknowledged the impact of childcare on their ability to attract and retainfamilies to be part of their community. While investments in workforce housing arelikely to bring more families into the community, investments in childcare have amultiplicative affect in that they make the community as a whole more attractive tofamilies and they also increase the proportion of children in the Valley—both existingand new residents—more likely to use childcare. Investments in childcare increaseusage rates of childcare by expanding the availability of childcare, by removing barriersto access through financial subsidy, and/or by raising awareness about the benefits ofearly childhood education.Currently about 24 percent of Estes Valley children under agesix are either using or waitlisted for full-day licensed care in the Estes Valley. The “statusquo” and “increased investments in workforce housing” scenarios both assume thatproportion will remain constant through 2027.However,if the Town chooses to investin childcare through the educational efforts of EVICS and the childcare committeeand/or possible efforts to increase families’ access to childcare in the Valley, it is likelythat the proportion using/needing licensed care will increase over time.This scenario(investments in both workforce housing and childcare) assumes the same populationgrowthas scenario 2 but increases the childcare usage rate from 24 percent to 28percent.For comparison, the usage rate in the Town of Breckenridge, which has beeninvesting in childcare infrastructure for some time, was 36 percent as of 2015 (accordingto a Childcare Needs Assessment completed in 2016).
Future DemandEstes Valley residents account for 90 percent of current licensed childcare use in the EstesValley. As such, they are the key component to determining future demand. To determine futurechildcare needs among residents, BBC first examined the current number and proportion of non-seasonal Estes Valley residents that are children under six years old and the number andproportion of those that are currently using licensed care. BBC then applied the varying growthrates outlined in the demand scenarios (above) to the next 10 years to forecast the number ofhomes that are likely to be occupied by permanent residents by 2027,the proportion ofhouseholds with children under the age of six, and the total number of children under age sixliving in the Estes Valley.Childcare usage rates were applied to the population of children under
79
BBC RESEARCH &CONSULTING SECTION IV,PAGE 4
six according to the varying scenarios to determine the demand for licensed full-day childcare in2027.Childcare users that work in the Estes Valley but do not live in the Estes Valley (in -commuters)are the second driver of demand for childcare in the Valley. In order to forecast demand fromthis segment BBC followed a similar methodology as discussed for residents, beginning with thecurrent number of in-commuters and the proportion with children currently in licensed care inthe Estes Valley. BBC compared job growth forecasts over the next 10 years to the forecastedhousing growth to predict the change in in-commuters and then evaluated the proportion ofthose in-commuters expected to use Estes Valley childcare options.Methodological details and demand results from each scenario are presented below.
Status quo scenario.The status quo scenario uses recent household growth trends andexisting childcare usage rates to forecast demand in 2027.Based on recent growth trends, BBCestimates the 2017 non-seasonal population of the Estes Valley to be 10,186, up from 10,023 in2015.1 Applying age proportions from the 2015 ACS to the 2017 population indicates that 497residents (4.9% of all residents) are under the age of six. According to data from providers,120children currently in (or on the waitlist for)licensed full-day childcare are Estes Valley residents.As such, the Estes Valley resident children in full-day licensed care account for 24 percent of allEstes Valley children under age six.The current Estes Valley population of 10,186 lives in 4,977 households—approximately 2.05residents per household.The compound annual growth in permanent resident households in theEstes Valley was 0.8 percent between 2010 and 2015 (a slightly higher growth rate than housingunits overall and a higher growth rate than the Valley experienced between 2000 and 2010).Assuming the same annual growth for the next 10 years, there will be 5,396 resident householdsin the Estes Valley in 2027.The associated increase in resident population will increase total population in the Estes Valleyto 11,044 and the population under six years old in the Estes Valley to 539. Assuming the sameproportion of children under six will use (and waitlist for) full-day licensed care in 2027, thefuture resident childcare demand is likely to be 130 children—an increase of 10 children undersix using/needing licensed full-date care between 2017 and 2027.As of 2017, there were approximately 1,280 in-commuters to the Estes Valley.2 Just 1 percent ofin-commuters had children that were in licensed full-day childcare in the Estes Valley.3 Jobprojections between 2015 and 2020 indicate a higher pace of growth (1.9% annually) thanhousehold growth resulting in a forecasted increase in the number of in-commuters to the EstesValley (1,541 by 2027).Assuming the same proportion of in-commuters in 2027 will use
1 2015 data from 2015 ACS. 2017 estimate extrapolates the 2010-2015 annual household growth rate calculated from the2010 Census and the 2015 ACS to the 2015 to 2017 period.2 Estimate based on data and forecasts from the 2015 Estes Park Area Housing Needs Assessment conducted by ReesConsulting and WSW Consulting.3 2017 BBC Parent Preference Survey percentage applied to current childcare usage.
80
BBC RESEARCH &CONSULTING SECTION IV,PAGE 5
licensed childcare options in the Estes Valley as they did in 2017 results in a projected childcaredemand of 16 children among non-Estes Valley residents in 2027, up from 13 in 2017.Including both resident and in-commuter demand, BBC estimates the total number of childrenusing/needing licensed full-day childcare in the Estes Valley to be 146 in 2027 under the statusquo scenario,up from 133 in 2017—an increase of 13 children. Figure IV-2 displays current andfuture childcare demand among residents and in-commuters under the status quo scenario.
Figure IV-2.Number of Children NeedingChildcarein 2017 and 2027—Status Quo Scenario
Source:
BBC Research & Consulting.
Investments in workforce housing scenario.In addition to the trend-related growthdiscussed in the status quo analysis, the Estes Park Economic Development Corporationanticipates an increase in workforce housing construction over the next 10 years. In total about500 units designated for occupancy by non-seasonal workforce residents is anticipated between2017 and 2027;BBC estimates that only 113 of those units are included in the trend-basedforecast.4 As such, BBC adjusted the trend-based forecast upward by an additional 387 units toaccount for workforce housing development. The resulting forecast, including both trend-relatedgrowth and workforce housing units, is 5,783 non-seasonal resident households by 2027.The associated increase in resident population will increase total population in the Estes Valleyto 11,836 and the population under six years old in the Estes Valley to 630.Note that trend-related growth assumes a constant proportion of the population is under six (4.9%); workforcehousing assumes a higher proportion of the resident population is under six (12%).5Assuming the same proportion of children under six will use (and waitlist for)full-day licensedcare in 2027, the future resident childcare demand is likely to be 152 children—an increase of32children between 2017 and 2027.
4 Estimate based on historical production of workforce housing units in Estes Park according to the 2015 Housing NeedsAssessment.5 The 12 percent estimate is derived from 2015 ACS data on population under age six per household with workforce age adults.
2017 2027
Estes Valley Residents
Resident Households 4,977 5,396 419
Resident population 10,186 11,044 858
Number of children under 6 497 539 42
Children under 6 in full-day licensed care
or on waitlist 120 130 10
In-commuters and non-residents
In-commuters to the Estes Valley 1,280 1,541 261
Non-resident children in full-day licensed
care in the Estes Valley 13 16 3
Total children using/needing licensed care
in the Estes Valley 133 146 13
Difference
81
BBC RESEARCH &CONSULTING SECTION IV,PAGE 6
In-commuter demand under the workforce housing scenario is assumed to be the same as underthe status quo demand analysis (16 in-commuter children using/needing licensed full-daychildcare in the Estes Valley in 2027).Including both resident and in-commuter demand,BBC estimates the total number of childrenusing/needing licensed full-day childcare in the Estes Valley to be 168 in 2027 under theworkforce housing scenario, up from 133 in 2017—an increase of 35 children.Figure IV-3displays current and future childcare demand among residents and in-commuters under theworkforce housing scenario.
Figure IV-3.Number of Children NeedingChildcarein 2017 and 2027—Workforce HousingInvestmentScenario
Source:
BBC Research & Consulting.
Investments in workforce housing and childcare scenario.The final demand scenariouses the same household and population growth described in the investments in workforcehousing scenario but increases the proportion of both residents and in-commutersusing/needing licensed full-day childcare in the Estes Valley. Currently about 24 percent of EstesValley children under age six are either using or waitlisted for full-day licensed care in the EstesValley. The previous two scenarios assume that proportion remains constant through 2027.Given the efforts of the childcare committee to raise awareness about the benefits of earlychildhood education and possible efforts to increase families’ access to childcare in the Valley, itis feasible that the proportion using/needing licensed care will increase over time. Additionalinvestments in childcare—through quality or capacity improvements or through financialsubsidy are also likely to increase demand and usage of licensed full-day care.In order to investigate the potential impact of a shift in preference for licensed care, BBCadjusted the proportion of children using/needing care from 24 percent to 28 percent forresident children. BBC also modeled an increase in in-commuter usage from 1.0 percent of all in-commuters using care in the Estes Valley to 1.25 percent of in-commuters using care in the EstesValley. This exercise provides a reasonable upper bound estimate of the need for full-daylicensed childcare and increases the forecast from 168 children needing care in 2027 to 195children needing care in 2027—a 16 percent jump from the workforce housing investmentprojection and difference of 27 childcare spots.
2017 2027
Estes Valley Residents
Resident Households 4,977 5,783 806
Resident population 10,186 11,836 1,650
Number of children under 6 497 630 133
Children under 6 in full-day licensed care
or on waitlist 120 152 32
In-commuters and non-residents
In-commuters to the Estes Valley 1,280 1,541 261
Non-resident children in full-day licensed
care in the Estes Valley 13 16 3
Total children using/needing licensed care
in the Estes Valley 133 168 35
Difference
82
BBC RESEARCH &CONSULTING SECTION IV,PAGE 7
This scenario clearly illustrates the impact of small changes to usage rates on overall demand: a4percentage point increase in usage resulted in a 16 percent increase in demand.Figure IV-4displays current and future childcare demand among residents and in-commuters under theworkforce housing and childcare investments scenario.
Figure IV-4.Number of Children NeedingChildcarein 2017 and 2027—Workforce Housing andChildcare InvestmentsScenario
Source:
BBC Research & Consulting.
As noted earlier, the Town of Breckenridge has a childcare usage rate of 36 percent.If the 36percent usage rate were applied to the 2027 forecasted population of children under six living inthe Estes Valley, demand for licensed full-day care in the Estes Valley would increase to 227children (51 more children than the 28% usage rate).
Capacity vs Demand.Figure IV-5 compares the demand scenarios in 2017 and 2027 withmaximum capacity of the current Estes Valley licensed childcare options.The current capacitymeasure accounts for typical number of days that children are in care and is based on data fromproviders that indicate there are 12 infants/toddlers and 109 preschoolers currently accessingfull-day licensed care in the Estes Valley and another eight spots for full-day, full-timepreschoolers available (117 preschooler spots total).Demand in 2017 includes the 12infants/toddlers currently on a waitlist for licensed full-day care.
Figure IV-5.Licensed Full-Day Childcare Demand Scenarios and Capacity Comparison, Estes Valley, 2017-2027
Source:BBC Research & Consulting.
2017 2027
Estes Valley Residents
Resident Households 4,977 5,783 806
Resident population 10,186 11,836 1,650
Number of children under 6 497 630 133
Children under 6 in full-day licensed care
or on waitlist 120 176 56
In-commuters and non-residents
In-commuters to the Estes Valley 1,280 1,541 261
Non-resident children in full-day licensed
care in the Estes Valley 13 19 6
Total children using/needing licensed care
in the Estes Valley 133 195 62
Difference
83
BBC RESEARCH &CONSULTING SECTION IV,PAGE 8
In 2017 the gap between capacity and demand is relatively small but by 2027 the shortage ofchildcare spots ranges from 17 full-time childcare spots under the status quo scenario to 66 full-time childcare spots under the workforce housing and childcare investments scenario.Figure IV-6 shows the gaps in provision by age group, assuming the age distribution of childrenneeding/receiving care stays the same through 2027.
Figure IV-6.Licensed Full-DayChildcare Demand andCapacity Comparison byAge of Children, EstesValley, 2017 and 2027
Source:
BBC Research & Consulting.
As shown in the figure, infant/toddler demand already exceeds supply by 12 children (reflectedby those currently on waiting lists for infant/toddler care). Assuming the age distribution ofchildren needing/receiving care stays the same, infant/toddler demand will increase to between26 and 35 children by 2027, depending on the demand scenario. Assuming the Town of EstesPark moves forward with anticipated workforce housing and childcare investments, infantdemandwillexceed current supply by 23 childcare spots in 2027.In 2017 the capacity of current providers is sufficient to accommodate the preschool-agedemand and has additional capacity of about eight full-day preschool spots. By 2027 demandwill exceed supply by about 21 children if workforce housing investments are made.If bothworkforce housing and childcare investments are made, preschool-age demand will exceedsupply by 43 children.
Number of children needing part-day preschool.The core demand model (discussedabove) focuses specifically on children needing full-day care as these are generally the optionsused by parents that require care to accommodate their work schedules. However, there are twoadditional part-day licensed preschools operating in the Estes Valley that serve 69 children. Itshould be noted that there may be some duplication in the children served by licensed full-dayproviders (particularly family providers) and part-day preschools. Assuming the duplication isabout 10 percent of all part-day preschoolers, there are a total of 195 individual children usinglicensed care (full or part-day) or on the waitlist for such care in the Estes Valley. Applying thesame demand model to part-day preschool users yields an estimate between six and 29
Current Capacity 12 117 129
Demand
2017 24 109 133
2027
Status Quo 26 119 146
Workforce Investments 30 138 168
Workforce & Childcare Investments 35 160 195
Gaps in Provision (Difference in Capacity and Demand)
2017 -12 8 -4
2027
Status Quo -14 -2 -17
Workforce Investments -18 -21 -39
Workforce & Childcare Investments -23 -43 -66
Supply/Demand Under 2 ½2 ½ to 6 Total
Number of Children by Age
84
BBC RESEARCH &CONSULTING SECTION IV,PAGE 9
additional preschoolers needing part-day preschool in 2027—a total of 213 to 287 childrenneeding full or part-day childcare.
Key Issues and RecommendationsThe following issues were among the most critical needs expressed by service providers andparents and discovered through the data and demand analyses:
Immediate unmet demand for licensed infant/toddler care (this is the only age-group withwaitlists at current licensed providers and was identified as a top need by both parents andproviders);
Funding challenges for providers to achieve full cost recovery for services provided;
Secondary barriers to access care related to trust and scheduling challenges; and
Long-term demand for additional childcare capacity for preschool age children—particularly if the Town pursues additional investments in workforce housing and childcareinitiatives.BBC offers the following recommendations to address the demand for care through 2027 and theexisting challenges faced by care providers and parents.
1.Consider options to help licensed providers raise tuition rates while maintaining
affordability for families.This may require dedicating funding for valley-wide childcareservicesto help offset rate increases for qualifying families. This effort is similar to a effortsmade by the Town of Breckenridge in 2007: one of the original goals of the BreckenridgeChildcare Tuition Assistance program was to facilitate an increase in rates charged by thelocal providers such that they could pass on the true cost of care and become morefinancially stable. Providers and families speak very highly of the program and indicate itssuccess.Action steps to achieve this goal may include:A.Work with current providers and monitor the Colorado Childcare Market Surveyto understand the true cost of providing childcare service in the Estes Valley.(Currently, average Estes Valley rates are between 70% and 85% of statewidemarket rates).B.Explore funding options to expand EVICS Child Care Scholarship Program orother supports for valley-wide childcare services. Typical mechanisms forfunding at the local level are General Fund transfers, dedicated sales tax, and/ordedicated property tax mill.Some of the Colorado communities currentlyproviding government funded early childhood initiatives include Denver, Aspen,Boulder County, Summit County, the Town of Breckenridge, San Miguel County,and Elbert County.C.Continue your relationship with The Town of Breckenridge to benefit fromlessons learned from implementation of their Tuition Assistance Program.
85
BBC RESEARCH &CONSULTING SECTION IV,PAGE 10
2.Work collaboratively toward a solution for addressing the infant/toddler care need.Thecommunity at large has demonstrated strong consensus that infant/toddler care is one ofthe most critical childcare needs in the Estes Valley. However, th e community lacksconsensus on how to address that need. Rightly, infant/toddler care is one of the mostchallenging types of care to provide as the financial requirements for care provision arehigh relative to the revenue generated from provision. An approach that is forward thinkingand collaborative has the best chance of success. A strategic planning effort and resourceanalysis should consider the most realistic and impactful options, which could include:A.Expansion of an existing facility-based provider to include infant/toddler care;B.Increasing the number of licensed family providers offering infant/toddler care(discussed in more detail under Recommendation #3);C.Targeting financial subsidies to support infant/toddler care (through directreimbursements for care, in-kind contributions, or capital subsidies forconstruction/expansion of facilities to accommodate infant/toddler care); andD.Direct provision of infant/toddler care as a publicly-funded service.
3.Take proactive efforts to increase the number and quality of licensed family home
providers while also retaining existing quality care providers.Licensed family providersare currently the only resource for infant/toddler care, provide the most flexibility in termsof schedule/hours for families, and have high satisfaction ratings according the Parentsurvey results. Their size and the relatively low overhead costs make them an appropriatelyscaled solution to address demand fluctuations in the Estes Valley. Specific suggestions forcultivating the number and quality of licensed family home providers include:A.Develop/maintain partnerships between EVICS and the Estes Park EDC tomarket licensed family home provider opportunities as a viable businessdevelopment market.B.Work to convert unlicensed family care (typically providing care for up to fourun-related children) to licensed family homes. Implementation of Goal 2 wouldprovide a natural incentive for licensing as participation in an expanded tuitionassistance program would require licensed status.C.Continue to provide training and support (through EVICS) when providers startworking so they understand and can implement quality care techniques from thebeginning.D.Implement a “coach/mentor” model in licensing and training so that family childcare home providers are getting support and training to handle difficultsituations and are able to provide the best educational environment for thechildren in their care.
4.Continue coordinated education and outreach for the benefits of quality early care and
education provision; and the economic impacts of early care and education and the child
care industry.The Estes Park EDC Childcare Committee and EVICS have demonstrated astrong commitment to communicating the benefits of childcare and the need for quality
86
BBC RESEARCH &CONSULTING SECTION IV,PAGE 11
childcare to community members and policymakers. These efforts can have a huge impacton perception of childcare needs and solutions in the community. Decisions about childcareand childcare funding will impact the type of community Estes Park and the Estes Valleychoose to become. Investments in childcare (or lack thereof) are very likely to impact theattractiveness of the community to future residents and families.
5.Continue to support a diversity of childcare options in the Valley to improve quality,
school readiness and parental trust in providers.As evidenced in the parent preferencessection, there are a number of factors that parents evaluate when choosing their childcareproviders—many of these are based on personal values and experiences. A healthy balanceof options in terms of type of childcare, educational philosophy, and other characteristicsare an important component of creating a strong network of childcare providers that meetthe needs of all families in the Valley. Continuing to improve the diversity and quality ofoptions in the Estes Valley will strengthen the childcare infrastructure for working parentsneeding care and will support the provision of nurturing environments for their children.
6.Proactively track the key metrics for preschool age demand to evaluate the appropriate
timeline for increased capacity at the preschool level.Demand at the preschool level isveryclosely tied to workforce housing production and an associated increase in the Valleypopulation under age six.Although the data analysis and status quo scenario do not indicatea severe and immediate need for additional childcare capacity for preschool -age children,focused community action in the areas of workforce housing and childcare will very likelylead to a need for increased childcare capacity for preschool-age children. Additionally, anychanges to the existing childcare landscape in the Valley (e.g., the departure, addition orchange in capacity of any existing providers) may also impact childcare needs for thepreschool age group.As such,BBC recommends tracking the following metrics annually to gauge changingdemand for the preschool age group:A.Track the pace of residential construction,particularly of workforce housing.Pace of growth and timeline on workforce housing development will impact theavailability of housing for new families and workers likely to need childcare.B.Track significant changes in care options as well as provider enrollment,waitlists and capacity.C.Track changes in demographics including number of permanent residenthouseholds, age and family status of residents and trends in employment.D.If possible, work to include several childcare related questions on the Town’sbiennial citizen survey to track childcare needs, preferences and use patternsamong current residents.
7.Continue and expand support and education for non-licensed childcare in the Estes
Valley.Childcare options that do not require licensing will inevitably continue to be part ofthe childcare infrastructure of the Estes Valley. In order to help foster parental trust in allchildcare options and to access the full economic and social benefits of early childhood
87
BBC RESEARCH &CONSULTING SECTION IV,PAGE 12
education, it is important to offer education and supportive services to all local providers,including informal childcare, friend/family care, and stay-at-home parents. Options include:A.Bolster training opportunities in the following areas:
First aid/CPR certification and Standard Precautions and MedicationAdministration training for all providers;
Parental and provider education on the importance of developmentalsupport to their children;
Techniques for working with children with special needs and how toimplement an inclusionary environment for children with special needs;and
School readiness for all children, including children for whom English isa second language.B.Ensure that providers have access to developmentally appropriate educationalmaterials and equipment. Also ensure that providers have access to the properresources and information about how to obtain and use these materials andequipment.
Successful implementation of these recommendations to address childcare needs and
breakdown barriers to providing and accessing childcare in the Estes Valley require that
the Estes Valley community and governments (Town and County) create an atmosphere
of consensus around the need for childcare, generate broad support for a
comprehensive solution and ensure that implementation processes are put in place.
The EDC Childcare Committee desires to encourage the community and governm ents in
that effort such that this report becomes an implementation engine rather than a
document sitting on a desk gathering dust.
88
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: February 27, 2018
RE: GRAND ESTATES APARTMENTS PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT.
Staff is requesting that this item be continued to the March 27, 2018 Town Board
meeting date.
89
90
Community Development Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: February 27, 2018
RE: AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
CHAPTER 11 TO ADD A PROVISION FOR A RESTRICTIVE
COVENANT AGREEMENT.
Staff is requesting that this item be continued to the March 13, 2018 Town Board
meeting date.
91
92
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Robin Becker, Planner I
Date: February 27, 2018
RE: Amended PUD, Amended Development Plan, and Amended Preliminary
Condo Map-Fall River Village II; All of Fall River Village PUD, Outlot A,
Fall River Village & Lot 5A of the Amended Plat of Lot 5, Sunny Acres
Addition, 511 W. Elkhorn Avenue.
Staff is requesting that this item be continued to the March 27, 2018 Town Board
Meeting.
93
94
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Robin Becker, Planner I
Date: February 27, 2018
RE: Preliminary and Final Townhome Plat-Stanley Avenue Townhome; Portion
of Lot 20, Little Prospect Subdivision, 260 Stanley Avenue.
Staff is requesting that this item be continued to the March 27, 2018 Town Board
Meeting.
95
96
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Linda Hardin, Code Compliance Officer
Date: February 27, 2018
RE: Historical Sign Approval – Applicant/Mark Igel, The Taffy Shop
Objective:
Approve or deny the use of the scintillating sign located at 121 W. Elkhorn Ave., in
accordance with the Estes Park Municipal Code, §17.66.071 Historical or Culturally
Significant Signs.
Present Situation:
The prior Estes Park Municipal Code title 17.66 Signs (Sign Code), prohibited the use of
blinking or scintillating lights on a sign in the Town. The previous Sign Code was
adopted in 1997 and brought this provision into effect. Business owners were give a
period of 7 years to amortize their signs out, if they were non-compliant with the new
codes. There were no legal non-conforming signs allowed.
Gradually, all non-compliant signs were phased out. The blinking sign at The Taffy
Shop was discontinued. The sign stayed up but the blinking of the lights was stopped.
The neon that outlined the sign was continued when allowed after the passing of a later
ordinance.
In 2014, the Igel family purchased The Taffy Shop from its original owner, and have
tried to keep authentic. Mr. Igel repaired the iconic sign that had fallen into disrepair
over the years, and returned it to its original state.
The restored sign was in violation of the Sign Code in 2015, and a Notice of Request,
followed by a Notice of Violation, and the sign was reset to stay on and no longer blink
or twinkle. There was no avenue available in the Sign Code to allow for an appeal or
variance for Mr. Igel to allow the sign to operate in its original form.
The Sign Code adopted with Ordinance 01-18, on January 23, 2018, allows for
businesses to apply for the designation of a historical or culturally significant sign. The
code requires that the applicant submit a complete application, with supporting
documentation demonstrating the significance of the sign. Following a public hearing
97
on the application, the Town Board of Trustees is the decision-making body to approve
or deny the application.
Proposal:
To allow the sign to operate with the scintillating lights as was intended with the original
design, and in accordance with EPMC Title 17.66.071 which allows the Town Board of
Trustees to approve signs that can demonstrate the historical significance.
Advantages:
• This sign is considered iconic to the community.
• The sign poses no threat to the health or wellbeing to the public.
• The applicant desires to continue operating the business in its original fashion,
continuing the recognizable character of the shop.
• This sign represents the perfect example of the intent in the recently adopted
Sign Code.
Disadvantages:
• Although unlikely, other businesses in town may apply for newly created similar
signs, which could result in a perceived bias.
Action Recommended:
Staff: Approve the application for this historical sign.
Budget:
There are no budget implications.
Level of Public Interest:
Low: The Town has not received any negative comments in regard to this application.
The applicant submitted letters from community members in support of his application.
Sample Motion:
APPROVAL
I move that the Town Board of Trustees approve the application of The Taffy Shop to
use the sign in its original and authentic form, finding that it meets the requirements of
the Estes Park Municipal Code, title 17.66.071 Historical or Culturally Significant Signs.
Attachments:
1. Application
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
FINANCE DEPARTMENTMemo
To:Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through:
From:
Date:
Town Administrator Lancaster
Duane Hudson, Finance Director
February 27, 2018
RE:Resolution # 03-18, Re-appropriation of 2017 Encumbered Funds and
Project Rollovers to the 2018 Budget
Objective:
Re-appropriate remaining balances on uncompleted 2017 purchase orders in 2018 to
fund completion of the acquisition of goods or services ordered in 2017. This
amendment also includes rollover of two projects, the Community Drive/US 36
Intersection preliminary engineering & design project and the Dynamic Message
System project.
Present Situation:
At the end of each year, the Town will have certain purchases, contracts or projects
already in progress that were not completed within the fiscal year just ending. 2017 was
no exception to this process with several purchase orders still in process at year end.
These purchases were entered into the 2017 accounting records as purchase orders
(PO’s) to encumber the 2017 budgets for specific purchases. At the end of 2017, the
balances left on the PO’s need to be rolled over into the 2018 budget as a budget
amendment to complete these transactions. This is a standard accounting process
common to governmental entities that use purchase orders.
The following contains explanations of the more significant PO’s to be rolled forward
into 2018:
Summary of Supplemental Appropriations:
General Fund – Increase of $754,826
This includes a PO balance of $86,283 to Cornerstone Engineering for work on the
Moraine Bridge project. Also included is a PO balance of $509,337 to Larimer County
Engineering for Fish Creek Road repairs. Related grant revenue increases were
included as well.
111
Community Reinvestment Fund – Increase of $1,789,235
This includes a PO balance of $1,589,712 to Structures Inc. for the Moraine Ave Bridge
construction. Also included is rollover of the project balance of $128,354 plus $10,000
from fund balance (savings on parking garage) for the Dynamic Message System. This
project is being rolled forward now instead of waiting until March 27 (as planned for
most projects) to allow award of the construction contract later this evening. Also
included is rollover of the project balance of $50,000 for the Community Drive / US 36
intersection preliminary design to allow award of this contract later this evening as well.
Related grant revenue increases were also included.
Larimer County Open Space Fund – Increase of $245,045
This includes a PO balance of $239,905 to Larimer County Engineering for the open
space work done as part of the Fish Creek Road Repair project. Related grant revenue
increases were also included.
The remaining amendments for the other funds are detailed out on Attachment B.
Proposal:
Staff is seeking approval of the amended 2018 Budget and its accompanying resolution.
Advantages:
The Town will be able to operate in compliance with statutory requirements regarding
municipal budget law. The Town will also be able to complete the acquisitions already
underway at year end.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of the 2018 supplemental budget appropriation resolution to
roll these encumbered funds forward from 2017 and the two project budgets as
mentioned above.
Finance/Resource Impact:
Rollover of uncompleted 2017 purchase orders was factored into the development of
the 2018 budget. Full use of the existing 2017 PO’s were reflected within the ending
fund balance projections so rollover of these PO’s will not negatively impact fund
balances.
Level of Public Interest
Limited
112
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of Resolution # 03-18 appropriating additional sums of
money for the Town of Estes Park for the budget year ended December 31, 2018.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution for Re-appropriation of 2017 Encumbered Funds and Project
Rollovers to the 2018 budget.
Attachment B: Recaps of Proposed Budget Adjustments and Supporting Documents
113
Attachment A
RESOLUTION FOR
REAPPROPRIATION OF 2017 ENCUMBERED FUNDS AND PROJECT “ROLLOVERS” TO
THE 2018 BUDGET
NO. 03-18
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has adopted the 2018
annual budget in accordance with the Local Government Budget Law on November 28
th, 2017;
and
WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park’s accounting system incorporates a purchase order
system that encumbers the budget appropriation when commitments for the purchase of goods
or services are made; and
WHEREAS, encumbrances that were not liquidated in the fiscal year ended December
31, 2017 are to be re-appropriated in the next fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, appropriations for certain projects underway that have not been encumbered
with a purchase order are to be rolled over to facilitate completion of these projects; and
WHEREAS, it is not only required by law, but also necessary to appropriate the revenues
provided in the budget to and for the purposes described below, so as not to impair the
operations of the Town of Estes Park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
That the appropriations be increased by $3,353,107 for funds specified below and these
amounts are hereby appropriated from additional revenue or available fund balance of each
fund.
Fund
#
Fund Name Existing
Appropriations
Amendment Amended
Appropriations
101 General Fund 17,790,615 754,826 18,545,441
204 Community Reinvestment Fund 937,510 1,789,235 2,726,745
211 Conservation Trust Fund 32,541 0 32,541
220 Larimer County Open Space Fund 267,300 245,045 512,345
236 Emergency Response System Fund 45,685 0 45,685
238 Community Center Fund 696,700 0 696,700
244 Trails Fund 400,000 0 400,000
260 Street Fund 1,679,631 17,744 1,697,375
502 Light & Power Fund 18,419,162 234,432 18,653,594
503 Water Fund 7,561,080 264,361 7,825,441
606 Medical Insurance Fund 2,002,909 0 2,002,909
612 Fleet Maintenance Fund 426,571 0 426,571
625 Information Technology Fund 715,771 0 715,771
635 Vehicle Replacement Fund 208,001 47,464 255,465
Total All Funds 51,183,476 3,353,107 54,536,583
114
Attachment A
ADOPTED this 27th day of February, 2018.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
115
TOWN OF ESTES PARKRECAP OF PROPOSED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTSFOR YEAR ENDED 12-31-2018RESOLUTION 03-18AS OF FEBRUARY 27, 2018101204211220236238244260GENERAL FUNDCOMMUNITY REINVESTMENT CONSERVATION TRUSTLARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACEEMERGENCY RESPONSECOMMUNITY CENTER TRAILSSTREETRevenues, As Amended17,354,656$ 3,010,230$ 32,550$ 608,155$ 69,800$ 696,700$ 352,100$ 1,685,900$ Expenses, As Amended18,545,441 2,726,74532,541512,34545,685696,700400,000 1,697,375Net(1,190,785)283,485 9 95,810 24,115 0(47,900) (11,475)Estimated Beginning Fund Balance, 1/1/185,264,987235,37735,2139,04239,4330146,704 3,462,126Estimated Ending Fund Balance, 12/31/184,074,202$ 518,862$ 35,222$ 104,852$ 63,548$ -$ 98,804$ 3,450,651$ Budget Reserves Community Drive / US 36 Intersection400,000 FLAP reserve3,444,381 Nonspendable Prepaid Fund Balance & Restricted Donations60,000 Total Restricted Fund Balance60,000 400,000 3,444,381 21.6%502 503 606 612 625 635LIGHT & POWER WATER MEDICAL INSURANCE FLEETINFORMATION TECHNOLOGYVEHICLE REPLACEMENT TOTALRevenues, As Amended16,279,710$ 5,596,748$ 2,590,625$ 428,825$ 726,276$ 892,419$ 50,324,694$ Expenses, As Amended18,653,594 7,825,441 2,002,909426,571715,771255,465 54,536,583Net(2,373,884) (2,228,693)587,716 2,254 10,505 636,954(4,211,889)Estimated Beginning Fund Balance, 1/1/186,382,229 5,366,782 381,312 306,098 213,232 1,415,795 23,258,330Estimated Ending Fund Balance, 12/31/184,008,345$ 3,138,089$ 969,028$ 308,352$ 223,737$ 2,052,749$ 19,046,441$ ATTACHMENT B116
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
FOR YEAR ENDED 12-31-2018
RESOLUTION 03-18
AS OF FEBRUARY 27, 2018
Fund/Dept Current Budget
Resolution
# 03-18
Budget
As Amended
101 GENERAL FUND 16,845,319 509,337 17,354,656
204 COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT 1,368,322 1,641,908 3,010,230
211 CONSERVATION TRUST 32,550 - 32,550
220 LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE 368,250 239,905 608,155
236 EMERGENCY RESPONSE 69,800 - 69,800
238 COMMUNITY CENTER 696,700 - 696,700
244 TRAILS 352,100 - 352,100
260 STREET 1,685,900 - 1,685,900
502 LIGHT & POWER 16,279,710 - 16,279,710
503 WATER 5,596,748 - 5,596,748
606 MEDICAL INSURANCE 2,590,625 - 2,590,625
612 FLEET 428,825 - 428,825
625 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 726,276 - 726,276
635 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT 892,419 - 892,419
TOTAL 47,933,544 2,391,150 50,324,694
ATTACHMENT B
117
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
FOR YEAR ENDED 12-31-2018
RESOLUTION 03-18
AS OF FEBRUARY 27, 2018
Fund/Dept Current Budget
Resolution
# 03-18
Budget As
Amended
101 GENERAL FUND
101-1100 Legislative 208,364 4,998 213,362
101-1200 Judicial 80,131 - 80,131
101-1300 Executive 355,110 5,776 360,886
101-1400 Admin Svcs 609,803 4,382 614,185
101-1500 Finance 548,652 800 549,452
101-1600 Com Dev ( Planning)805,068 - 805,068
101-1700 Facilities 1,031,110 22,154 1,053,264
101-1800 Employee Benefits 150,751 8,900 159,651
101-1900 Community Service Grants 1,059,065 - 1,059,065
101-2100 Police - Patrol 3,353,963 5,674 3,359,637
101-2155 Police - Communications 1,003,181 - 1,003,181
101-2175 Police - Comm Svcs 348,097 - 348,097
101-2300 Building Safety Divison 559,092 - 559,092
101-2400 Engineering 378,796 133,616 512,412
101-2600 Visitor Center 461,529 - 461,529
101-3100 Streets 1,144,162 547,912 1,692,074
101-5200 Parks 1,164,200 18,404 1,182,604
101-5304 Senior Center 21,250 - 21,250
101-5500 Special Events 2,333,439 - 2,333,439
101-5600 Transit 466,678 - 466,678
101-5700 Museum 357,852 2,210 360,062
101-9000 Transfers 1,350,322 - 1,350,322
101 GENERAL FUND 17,790,615 754,826 18,545,441
204 COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT 937,510 1,789,235 2,726,745
211 CONSERVATION TRUST 32,541 - 32,541
220 LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE 267,300 245,045 512,345
236 EMERGENCY RESPONSE 45,685 - 45,685
238 COMMUNITY CENTER 696,700 - 696,700
244 TRAILS 400,000 - 400,000
260 STREET 1,679,631 17,744 1,697,375
502 LIGHT & POWER 18,419,162 234,432 18,653,594
503 WATER 7,561,080 264,361 7,825,441
606 MEDICAL INSURANCE 2,002,909 - 2,002,909
612 FLEET 426,571 - 426,571
625 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 715,771 - 715,771
635 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT 208,001 47,464 255,465
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 51,183,476 3,353,107 54,536,583
ATTACHMENT B
118
TOWN OF ESTES PARKPO & SELECT PROJECT ROLLOVERSRESOLUTION 03-18AS OF FEBRUARY 27, 2018Fund Account Number PO # Date Vendor #` Vendor Name Project PO Balance 2017 Project Rollovers Additional Appropriation from Fund Balance Budget Amendment 101 101-1100-411.26-46 036191 12/29/2017 0004946 VIDEOLINK INC 4,998.00 4,998.00 101 101-1300-413.29-33 036190 12/28/2017 0005965 PINNACLE SCOPES INC CENTWN 5,776.00 5,776.00 101 101-1400-414.22-98 035596 1/11/2017 0004811 ESM CONSULTING SERVICES INC 4,382.50 4,382.50 101 101-1500-415.26-23 036200 12/29/2017 0003195 PRODUCTIVE OFFICE & SCHOOL800.00 800.00 101 101-1700-417.25-02 036081 10/24/2017 0001955 COLORADO DOORWAYS, INC.3,049.96 3,049.96 101 101-1700-417.25-02 036112 11/6/2017 0001955 COLORADO DOORWAYS, INC.3,071.00 3,071.00 101 101-1700-417.33-32 036195 12/31/2017 0005769 INTECONNECT INC16,033.29 16,033.29 101 101-1800-418.22-90 036109 11/1/2017 0003108 MILLIMAN INC8,900.00 8,900.00 101 101-2100-421.26-11 036043 9/27/2017 0003650 PCS MOBILE3,674.00 3,674.00 101 101-2100-421.26-11 036157 12/4/2017 0005825 SAFARILAND TRAINING GROUP2,000.00 2,000.00 101 101-2400-424.22-02 035375 1/1/2017 0002522 CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING ANDMORBRG 86,283.00 86,283.00 101 101-2400-424.22-02 035397 1/1/2017 0005366 ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC STORM 37,038.38 37,038.38 101 101-2400-424.22-02 035398 12/31/2017 0005366 ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC STMFEE 10,294.32 10,294.32 101 101-3100-431.22-02 035634 1/1/2017 0003423 LARIMER COUNTY ENGINEERING5CATC 40,323.24 40,323.24 101 101-3100-431.22-02 035634 1/1/2017 0003423 LARIMER COUNTY ENGINEERINGFHWAFC 334,611.43 334,611.43 101 101-3100-431.22-02 035635 1/1/2017 0003423 LARIMER COUNTY ENGINEERING5CATC 7,395.00 7,395.00 101 101-3100-431.22-02 035635 1/1/2017 0003423 LARIMER COUNTY ENGINEERINGFHWAFC 127,007.00 127,007.00 101 101-3100-431.25-04 036173 12/15/2017 0001039 MACDONALD EQUIPMENT COMPANY14,575.00 14,575.00 101 101-3100-431.26-46 036168 12/14/2017 0000544 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.8,000.00 8,000.00 101 101-3100-431.34-98 036147 11/30/2017 0000957 WATSON (O. J.) COMPANY, INC.10,391.00 10,391.00 101 101-3100-431.34-98 036148 11/30/2017 0000957 WATSON (O. J.) COMPANY, INC.5,609.00 5,609.00 101 101-5200-452.26-46 036168 12/14/2017 0000544 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.7,402.67 7,402.67 101 101-5200-452.34-98 036150 11/30/2017 0000957 WATSON (O. J.) COMPANY, INC.10,000.00 10,000.00 101 101-5200-452.34-98 036159 12/6/2017 0005958 MILE HIGH GOLF CARS1,001.25 1,001.25 101 101-5700-457.25-02 036165 12/12/2017 0004507 SMITH SIGN STUDIO2,210.00 2,210.00 TOTAL GENERAL FUND754,826.04 - - 754,826.04 204 204-5400-544.35-51 036117 11/10/2017 0005928 STRUCTURES INCMORBRG 1,589,711.46 1,589,711.46 204 204-5400-544.35-51 NA NA NA COMMUNITY DRIVE ENGINEERING PROJECT COMMDR50,000.00 50,000.00 204 204-5400-544.35-52 035921 7/13/2017 0005896 KIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES INC5,169.00 5,169.00 204204-5400-544.35-52 035938 7/24/2017 0004866 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTSCVBPRK 6,000.00 6,000.00 204 204-5400-544.36-52 NA NA NA DYNAMIC MESSAGE SYSTEMDYNMSG128,354.00 10,000.00 138,354.00 TOTAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND1,600,880.46 178,354.00 10,000.00 1,789,234.46 ATTACHMENT B119
Fund Account Number PO # Date Vendor #` Vendor Name Project PO Balance 2017 Project Rollovers Additional Appropriation from Fund Balance Budget Amendment 220 220-4600-462.22-02 035391 1/1/2017 0005718 DEERE AND AULT CONSULTANTS INC CDBGCH 5,140.04 5,140.04 220 220-4600-462.22-02 035634 4/17/2017 0003423 LARIMER COUNTY ENGINEERING 11CATG 239,905.10 239,905.10 220 220-4600-462.22-02 035635 4/17/2017 0003423 LARIMER COUNTY ENGINEERING 11CATG - - TOTAL LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUND245,045.14 - - 245,045.14 260 260-2000-420.25-20 035798 4/26/2017 0000144 MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTORS INC. 17STIP 17,743.55 17,743.55 TOTAL STREET IMPROVEMENT FUND17,743.55 - - 17,743.55 502 502-6301-540.25-31 036130 11/22/2017 0001955 COLORADO DOORWAYS, INC. 3,049.96 3,049.96 502 502-6301-540.25-33 035590 1/11/2017 0000461 4 RIVERS EQUIPMENT LLC 7,500.00 7,500.00 502 502-6401-550.26-23 036200 12/29/2017 0003195 PRODUCTIVE OFFICE & SCHOOL2,750.00 2,750.00 502 502-6501-560.22-98 035914 7/11/2017 0005897 UPTOWN SERVICES LLCBB0001 10,000.00 10,000.00 502 502-6501-560.27-04 036035 9/26/2017 0005328 TANTALUS SYSTEMS CORP3,000.00 3,000.00 502 502-7001-580.33-35 035920 7/13/2017 0002879 STUART C IRBY COTRANSF 7,823.80 7,823.80 502 502-7001-580.33-41 036086 10/26/2017 0000143 HOTLINE ELECTRICAL SALESEQUIP 20,638.00 20,638.00 502 502-7001-580.35-57 036009 9/5/2017 0000828 WESTERN UNITED ELECTRIC SUPPLYAP2016 64,412.82 64,412.82 502 502-7001-580.35-58 036068 10/13/2017 0004269 BADGER DRILLING & BLASTING CORPMORAVE 50,000.00 50,000.00 502 502-7001-580.35-58 036082 10/24/2017 0005928 STRUCTURES INCMORB17 15,191.00 15,191.00 502 502-7001-580.35-66 035702 3/2/2017 0005814 BACKBONE FIBER SYSTEMS LLCAP2016 21,244.10 21,244.10 502 502-7001-580.35-66 036178 12/20/2017 0001671 SHERMAN & REILLY INC.28,822.40 28,822.40 TOTAL LIGHT & POWER FUND234,432.08 - - 234,432.08 503 503-6300-540.22-02 035382 1/1/2017 0003601 HDR ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.352.64 352.64 503 503-7000-580.33-36 036180 12/20/2017 0001750 INTEGRATED TELECOMMUNICATION19,360.40 19,360.40 503 503-7000-580.33-36 036181 12/18/2017 0001750 INTEGRATED TELECOMMUNICATION14,000.00 14,000.00 503 503-7000-580.33-36 036182 12/20/2017 0001750 INTEGRATED TELECOMMUNICATION11,732.50 11,732.50 503 503-7000-580.33-36 036183 12/20/2017 0001750 INTEGRATED TELECOMMUNICATION5,300.00 5,300.00 503 503-7000-580.33-36 036186 12/26/2017 0001750 INTEGRATED TELECOMMUNICATION19,814.50 19,814.50 503 503-7000-580.35-54 035742 3/23/2017 0005600 JVA INCORPORATEDPEMPWC 72,000.00 72,000.00 503 503-7000-580.35-54 036083 10/24/2017 0005928 STRUCTURES INCMORB17 91,445.00 91,445.00 503503-7000-580.35-62 035382 1/1/2017 0003601 HDR ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.30,356.31 30,356.31 TOTAL WATER FUND264,361.35 - - 264,361.35 635 635-7000-435.34-42 035917 7/12/2017 0005899 KUSTOM FABRICATED SOLUTIONS LLC11,892.50 11,892.50 635 635-7000-435.34-42 036147 11/30/2017 0000957 WATSON (O. J.) COMPANY, INC.12,852.00 12,852.00 635 635-7000-435.34-42 036150 11/30/2017 0000957 WATSON (O. J.) COMPANY, INC.14,597.00 14,597.00 635 635-7000-435.34-42 036159 12/6/2017 0005958 MILE HIGH GOLF CARS7,997.50 7,997.50 635 635-7000-435.34-42 036168 12/14/2017 0000544 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.125.09 125.09 TOTAL VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND47,464.09 - - 47,464.09 Grand Total3,164,752.71 178,354.00 10,000.00 3,353,106.71 ATTACHMENT B120
ENGINEERING Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From:Kelly Stallworth, EI, Public Works Pavement Manager
David Hook, PE, Public Works Engineering Manager
Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Date:February 27, 2018
RE:Consultant Selection – US 36 and Community Drive Turn Lane
Objective:
To contract with a design consultant to deliver design and bid documents for a
eastbound to southbound left turn lane from US 36 onto Community Drive, and a
westbound to southbound right turn lane from US 36 onto Community Drive.
Present Situation:
At the proposed location, US 36 is a two lane east-west state highway bringing traffic
into Estes Park. Currently, any westbound traffic waiting to make a left turn onto
Community Drive will cause a queue along US 36 back onto the causeway. A traffic
impact study performed in 2009 in conjunction with the construction of the Stanley Park
Fairgrounds Event Center identified the need for both a westbound to southbound and
eastbound to southbound turn lane from US 36 onto Community Drive. As a condition of
approval, CDOT required the Town to install these proposed turn lanes. A traffic impact
study performed in 2016 in conjunction with the Estes Valley Community Center also
identified the need for both turn lanes as a result of increased vehicle trips. Recently
funding has become available to fulfill this obligation, and Public Works has taken the
initiative to begin a process of design and construction to bring this project to
completion.
Proposal:
In January Public Works advertised a Request for Proposal that focused on the
following design areas:
•Design of westbound to southbound left turn lane from US 36 onto Community
Drive
•Design of eastbound to southbound right turn lane from US 36 onto Community
Drive
•Widening of US 36 to accommodate additional turn lanes
•Associated CDOT coordination
121
Three firms responded to the Request for Proposal. Public Works Staff that included
Engineering Manager David Hook and Pavement Manager, Kelly Stallworth rated each
of these 3 firms to select the most qualified. Proposals were rated on 5 criteria:
1. References
2.Adequacy of Proposal
3.Staff Qualifications
4. Schedule
5.Hours and Cost
The following chart contains the ratings for each of the firms:
Firm Name City Ranking Fee
Cornerstone Engineering &
Surveying, Inc.
Estes Park, CO 1 $79,975
The Farnsworth Group Fort Collins, CO 2 $148,878
Juster Civil Engineering/Brown
Civil Engineering
Lafayette, CO 3 $254,109
After the ratings were complete, Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. (CES)
based out of Estes Park was the highest ranked firm. In their proposal, CES
demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the design issues and the project area and
offered a detailed approach and options to widen the roadway while including the two
turn lanes. As a local firm with extensive Estes Park experience, they are intimately
familiar with this location in particular, having been the design engineer for the Lake
Estes Trail. In particular, CES performed design of the pedestrian culvert that will
potentially hold the road widening. Their original fee of $79,975 was $29,975 above the
allocated design budget of $50,000. Therefore, the Town has decided to pursue a
contract with CES for preliminary design and budget assessment for an amount not to
exceed $50,000. At this point the Town will reevaluate cost, constructability and
schedule to determine how to proceed.
If the Town then moves on to full design, once design is complete, bidding documents
will be provided by CES and a complete construction schedule and cost estimate will be
delivered. The schedule delivered in the RFP is to have construction underway in
spring of 2019.
Action Recommended by Staff:
To advance this Project and meet goals for construction, Staff recommends award of a
design services contract to Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. in the amount of
$50,000.
Budget:
This project will be funded from the Community Reinvestment Fund. The $50,000
design budget included in the 2017 Budget and has been rolled over to the 2018
budget.
122
Level of Public Interest:
Public Interest on this project is expected to be high. This project will impact one of the
main entrances to Estes Park and provide motorist relief especially in peak season.
Sample Motion:
I move for approval/denial of award of a professional services contract for design of US
36 and Community Drive Turn Lane to Cornerstone Engineering & Surveying, Inc. and
approval/denial of authorization for the Mayor to sign a professional services contract
for a project cost not to exceed $50,000.
Attachments:
None
123
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT
This Contract is entered into this _ ___ day of _February, 2018, by and between the
_Town of Estes Park, Colorado___ (“Town”) and _Cornerstone Engineering and
Surveying, Inc. (“Consultant”).
Whereas, the parties desire to contract with one another to complete the following
project: US 36 & Community Drive Turn Lane.
Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained
herein, the parties agree as follows:
1.Services.
a.The Consultant shall perform the services set forth in Exhibit A (the Proposal
submitted by the consultant), attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference (“Services”). The Town reserves the right to remove any of the
Services from Exhibit A upon written notice to Contractor. In the event of any
conflict between this Contract and Exhibit A, the provisions of this Contract
shall prevail.
b.No material change to the Services, including any additional compensation,
shall be effective or paid unless authorized by written amendment to this
Contract executed by the Town. If Consultant proceeds without such written
authorization, then Consultant shall be deemed to have waived any claim for
additional compensation, including a claim based on the theory of unjust
enrichment, quantum merit or implied contract. Except as expressly
provided herein, no agent, employee, or representative of the Town is
authorized to modify any term of this Agreement, either directly or implied by
a course of action.
2.Price. The Town shall pay the Consultant a sum not to exceed $50,000_. The Town
shall make payment within thirty days of receipt and approval of monthly invoices,
which shall identify the specific Services performed for which payment is requested.
3.Term. This Contract shall be effective from _March 5, 2018, _ through
December 31, 2018 . This Contract may be extended or renewed by written agreement
of the parties.
4.Appropriation. To the extent this Contract constitutes a multiple fiscal year debt
or financial obligation of the Town, it shall be subject to annual appropriation pursuant to the
Town’s annual budgeting process and Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution. The
Town shall have no obligation to continue this Contract in any fiscal year in which no such
appropriation is made.
5.Independent Contractor. The parties agree that the Consultant is an independent
Contractor and is not an employee of the Town. The Consultant is not entitled to workers’
compensation benefits from the Town and is obligated to pay federal and state income
tax on any money earned pursuant to this Contract.
124
6.Insurance Requirements.
a.Policies. The Consultant and its subconsultants, if any, shall procure and
keep in force during the duration of this Contract the following insurance
policies and shall provide the Town with a certificate of insurance evidencing
upon execution of this Contract:
i.Comprehensive general liability insurance insuring the Consultant
and naming the Town as an additional insured with minimum
combined single limits of $1,000,000 each occurrence and
$1,000,000 aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all premises
and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury,
broad form property damage (including completed operations),
personal injury (including coverage for contractual and employee
acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and
completed operations. The policy shall contain a severability of
interests provision.
ii.Comprehensive automobile liability insurance insuring the
Consultant and naming the Town as an additional insured against
any liability for personal injury, bodily injury, or death arising out of
the use of motor vehicles and covering operations on or off the site of
all motor vehicles controlled by the Consultant which are used in
connection with this Contract, whether the motor vehicles are owned,
non-owned, or hired, with a combined single limit of at least
$1,000,000.
iii.Professional liability insurance insuring the Consultant against any
professional liability with a limit of at least $1,000,000 per claim and
annual aggregate. (Note: this policy shall only be required if the
Consultant is an architect, engineer, surveyor, appraiser, physician,
attorney, accountant, or other licensed professional.)
iv.Workers’ compensation insurance and all other insurance required
by any applicable law. (Note: if under Colorado law the Consultant is
not required to carry workers’ compensation insurance, the
Consultant shall execute a Certificate of Exemption and Waiver,
attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.)
b.Requirements. Required insurance policies shall be with companies
qualified to do business in Colorado with a general policyholder’s financial
rating acceptable to the Town. Said policies shall not be cancelable or
subject to reduction in coverage limits or other modification except after thirty
days prior written notice to the Town. The Consultant shall identify whether
the type of coverage is “occurrence” or “claims made.” If the type of
coverage is “claims made,” which at renewal the Consultant changes to
“occurrence,” the Consultant shall carry a six-month tail. Comprehensive
125
general and automobile policies shall be for the mutual and joint benefit and
protection of the Consultant and the Town. Such policies shall provide that
the Town, although named as an additional insured, shall nevertheless be
entitled to recover under said policies for any loss occasioned to it, its
officers, employees, and agents by reason of negligence of the Contractor,
its officers, employees, agents, subconsultants, or business invitees. Such
policies shall be written as primary policies not contributing to and not in
excess of coverage the Town may carry.
7.Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Town,
its officers, employees, and agents from and against all liability, claims, and
demands on account of any injury, loss, or damage, including court costs and
attorneys’ fees, arising out of or connected with the Services, if such injury, loss, or
damage, or any portion thereof, is caused by, or claimed to be caused by, the
negligent act, omission, or other fault of the Consultant or any subconsultant of the
Consultant, or any officer, employee, or agent of the Consultant or any
subconsultant, or any other person for whom the Consultant is responsible. The
Consultant’s indemnification obligation shall not be construed to extend to any
injury, loss, or damage to the extent caused by the act, omission, or other fault of
the Town. This paragraph shall survive the termination or expiration of this Contract.
8.Professional Responsibility.
a.Consultant hereby warrants that it is qualified to perform the Services, holds
all professional licenses required by law to perform the Services, and has all
requisite corporate authority to enter into this Contract.
b.The Services shall be performed by Consultant in accordance with generally
accepted professional practices and the level of competency presently
maintained by other practicing professional firms performing the same or
similar type of work in the Denver metro area. The Services shall be done in
compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules
and regulations.
c.Consultant shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical
accuracy, timely completion, and the coordination of all designs, drawings,
specifications, reports, and other services furnished by Consultant under this
Agreement. Consultant shall, without additional compensation, correct or
resolve any errors or deficiencies in its designs, drawings, specifications,
reports, and other services, which fall below the standard of professional
practice, and reimburse the Town for costs caused by errors and omissions
which fall below the standard of professional practice.
d.Approval by the Town of drawings, designs, specifications, reports, and
incidental work or materials furnished hereunder shall not in any way relieve
Consultant of responsibility for technical adequacy of its services. Neither
the Town's review, approval, or acceptance of, nor payment for, any of the
126
Consultant’s services shall be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights
under this Contract or of any cause of action arising out of the performance
of this Contract.
e.Consultant hereby agrees that Consultant, including but not limited to, any
employee, principal, shareholder, or affiliate of Consultant shall not have a
financial relationship with or an ownership interest in any person and/or
entity which entity and/or person shall be the recipient of any contract or
work for the services provided by Consultant pursuant to the terms and
conditions of this Contract. Consultant understands and agrees that the
purpose of this provision is to prevent any information created as a result of
Consultant’s services herein being used by any person and/or entity in the
preparation of any bid or performance of any work for the Town.
f.Because the Town has hired Consultant for its professional expertise,
Consultant agrees not to employ subcontractors to perform more than
twenty percent (20 %) of the work required under the Scope of Services.
Upon execution of this Contract, Consultant shall furnish to the Town a list of
proposed subcontractors, and Consultant shall not employ a subcontractor
to whose employment the Town reasonably objects. All contracts between
Consultant and subcontractors shall conform to this Contract including, but
not limited to, Section 10.
9.Governmental Immunity Act. No term or condition of this Contract shall be
construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any of the notices,
requirements, immunities, rights, benefits, protections, limitations of liability, and
other provisions of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. § 24-10-101 et
seq. and under any other applicable law.
10.Compliance with Applicable Laws.
a.Generally. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state,
and local laws, including the ordinances, resolutions, rules, and regulations
of the Town. The Consultant shall solely be responsible for payment of all
applicable taxes and for obtaining and keeping in force all applicable permits
and approvals.
b.C.R.S. Article 17.5, Title 8. The Consultant hereby certifies that, as of the
date of this Contract, it does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal
alien who will perform work under this Contract and that the Consultant will
participate in the e-verify program or Colorado Department of Labor and
Employment (“Department”) program as defined in C.R.S. § 8-17.5-101 in
order to confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly
hired for employment to perform work under this Contract. The Consultant
shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work
under this Contract or enter into a contract with a subconsultant that fails to
certify to the Consultant that the subconsultant shall not knowingly employ or
127
contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Contract. The
Consultant certifies that it has confirmed the employment eligibility of all
employees who are newly hired for employment to perform work under this
Contract through participation in either the e-verify program or the
Department program. The Consultant is prohibited from using either the e-
verify program or the Department program procedures to undertake pre-
employment screening of job applicants while this Contract is being
performed. If the Consultant obtains actual knowledge that a subconsultant
performing work under this Contract knowingly employs or contracts with an
illegal alien, the Consultant shall be required to: (i) notify the subconsultant
and Town within three days that Consultant has actual knowledge that the
subconsultant is employing or contracting with an illegal alien; and (ii)
terminate the subcontract with the subconsultant if within three days of
receiving the notice required pursuant to this subparagraph the
subconsultant does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien;
except that Consultant shall not terminate the contract with the
subconsultant if during such three days the subconsultant provides
information to establish that the subconsultant has not knowingly employed
or contracted with an illegal alien. The Consultant shall comply with any
reasonable request by the Department made in the course of an
investigation that it is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in
C.R.S. Article 17.5, Title 8. If the Consultant violates this paragraph, the
Town may terminate this Contract for default in accordance with
“Termination,” below. If this Contract is so terminated, the Consultant shall
be liable for actual and consequential damages to the Town. (Note: this
paragraph shall not apply to contracts: (i) for Services involving the delivery
of a specific end product (other than reports that are merely incidental to the
performance of said work); or (ii) for information technology services and/or
products.)
11.Termination.
a.a. Without Cause. Either party may terminate this Contract without cause
upon thirty days prior written notice to the other. The Town shall be liable to
pay the Consultant for Services performed as of the effective date of
termination, but shall not be liable to the Consultant for anticipated profits.
b.For Default. Each and every term and condition hereof shall be deemed to
be a material element of this Contract. In the event either party fails to
perform according to the terms of this Contract, such party may be declared
in default. If the defaulting party does not cure said breach within ten days of
written notice thereof, the non-defaulting party may terminate this Contract
immediately upon written notice of termination to the other. In the event of
termination of this Contract pursuant to this Section, the non-defaulting party
shall be entitled to recover all damages caused by said default. In the event
that Consultant is in default, the Town may withhold payment to the
Consultant for the purposes of setoff until such time as the amount of
damages is determined.
128
12.Notices. Written notices shall be directed as follows and shall be deemed received
when hand-delivered or emailed, or three days after being sent by certified mail,
return receipt requested:
To the Town: To the Consultant:
Kelly Stallworth, EI Contact:____________________________
Town of Estes Park Company:___________________________
170 MacGregor Avenue Address:____________________________
Estes Park, CO 80517 ___________________________________
Email: kstallworth@estes.org Email:______________________________
13.Special Provisions.
The Contract work shall be completed according to the schedule delivered in
Section 2.0 Schedule of Activities of the “Request for Proposal Consulting
Services Dry Gulch Roadway Improvements” unless otherwise modified in writing
with a subsequent Amendment to this Contract.
14.Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in performance of the Services and is
a significant and material term of this Contract.
15.Entire Agreement. This Contract contains the entire agreement of the parties
relating to the subject matter hereof and, except as provided herein, may not be
modified or amended except by written agreement of the parties. In the event a
court of competent jurisdiction holds any provision of this Contract invalid or
unenforceable, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other
provision of this Contract.
16.Assignment. The Consultant shall not assign this Contract without the Town’s prior
written consent.
17.Governing Law. This Contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Colorado, and venue shall be in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado.
18.Instruments of Service. Drawings, models, specifications, research, reports,
studies, data, photographs and other documents, including those in electronic form,
prepared by Consultant and its subconsultants in the performance of obligations
under this Contract are Instruments of Service for use solely with respect to the
project identified in this Contract. Consultant and its subconsultants shall be
deemed the authors and owners of their respective Instruments of Service and shall
retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including copyrights;
except that, upon execution of this Contract, the Consultant grants to the Town a
non-exclusive, perpetual, fully-paid, non-revocable license to reproduce and use the
Consultant's Instruments of Service solely in connection with the above-referenced
129
project, including the project's further development by the Town and others retained
by the Town for such purposes. The Consultant shall obtain similar licenses from its
subconsultants consistent with this Contract. Consultant shall, during the term of
this Contract provide the Town with copies of all Instruments of Service prepared by
Consultant or its subconsultants contemporaneous with such preparation, and shall
provide them in electronic format or any other format requested by the Town.
19.Attorney’s Fees and Costs. In the event it becomes necessary for either party to
bring any action to enforce any provision of this Contract or to recover any damages
from the other party as a result of the breach of this Contract, including, but not
limited to, defective work, and the party that prevails in such litigation, the other
party shall pay the prevailing party its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as
determined by the court.
20.Electronic Signature. This Contract may be executed by electronic signature in
accordance with C.R.S. § 24-71.3-101 et seq.
Signed by the parties on the date written above.
Town of Estes Park, Colorado
By: ____________________________________
Title: ____________________________________
ATTEST:
________________________
Town Clerk
Consultant
By: ____________________________________
Title: ____________________________________
STATE OF ________________ )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ________________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________________,
20 by __________________________________________________.
(Insert name of individual signing on behalf of the Consultant)
___________________________
Notary’s official signature
S E A L
___________________________ 130
1
ENGINEERING Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From:David Hook, PE, Public Works Engineering Manager
Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Date:February 22, 2018
RE:Digital Message Sign Install
Objective:
Public Works (PW) seeks approval of a construction contract with DaVinci Sign
Systems, Inc. (DaVinci) for the installation of the digital message signs (DMS).
Present Situation:
In 2017, the Board of Trustees (Board) authorized PW to purchase four digital message
signs for the purpose of modifying visitor travel behavior. These were funded by a grant
from the Federal Highway Administration Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
improvement program.
A Request for Proposal (RFP) was published twice in 2017 for the installation of these
signs. In the first round, only one bid was received and its value was in excess of the
project installation budget. In the re-bid/2nd round, only two bids were received and both
values were in excess of the project construction budget.
Subsequent to the rebid/2nd round, PW has been negotiating with the low bidder to
reduce the scope and cost of the work involved to get the cost within budget. Most of
the cost savings has been achieved using in-house labor (PW/Streets and PW/Parks) to
accomplish a few select tasks (sign relocation, landscape restoration, conduit
installation; traffic control).
Because of the unique situation involving this post-bid negotiation, staff is
simultaneously presenting a contract for the as-bid value and a deductive change order
to reduce the contract value to within the available budget for an outside contractor.
The CMAQ grant funding creates another unique situation with this project – the need to
obtain CDOT concurrence on the bid award. Staff is moving both the CDOT and Town
award processes forward concurrently.
131
Proposal:
PW proposes installation of the DMS to occur prior to the onset of the 2018 visitor
season. The DMS will provide pertinent messages regarding parking, closures or any
other messages needing conveyed to the visitors. This is critical to overall traffic
congestion mitigation during our busy visitor season.
PW requests approval of the Contract and Change Order #1 with Davinci for the net
amount of $124,294 to perform installation of the DMS on US 34 and US 36.
Advantages:
•This project is identified in the Town Board’s Strategic Plan in several locations:
o Transportation: We will continue to reduce traffic congestion throughout the Town.
o Infrastructure: We will continue to address parking options throughout the Town.
o Public Safety, Health and Environment: We will improve and protect the quality of
the environment.
•Diverting visitors from cars to shuttles or walking decreases traffic congestion downtown
and/or at RMNP, decreases automobile/pedestrian conflicts, and reduces traffic related
noise and air pollution.
•Directing cars and oversize vehicles to park at the Estes Park Transit Hub (Transit Hub) at
the fairgrounds reduces demand on limited downtown and National Park parking spaces
and reduces circulation of motorists prowling for available parking.
•Placement of the proposed DMS east of 4th Street encourages left turns from US36 at a
location where the road width is sufficient to allow westbound vehicles to drive around a
stopped, left-turning vehicle destined to the Transit Hub.
•The DMS creates an opportunity to communicate scarcity of parking downtown and at
RMNP early so the guests can choose to drive directly to available parking at the Transit
Hub or the new parking garage located at the Visitor Center.
•The DMS can remind drivers of oversize vehicles to park remotely instead of downtown.
•Visitors are made aware of the availability of the Town’s free parking garage, free shuttles,
and RMNP’s free hiker shuttles.
•Visitors are directed to available free parking either at the parking garage or the Transit Hub.
•The ability and willingness of the PW/Streets and PW/Parks crews to adjust their spring
work schedules and take on some in-house construction tasks allows the Town to partner
with the contractor so that the DMS can be put into service this year.
•Large electronic signs allow future real-time communication and are considered progressive
and attractive by some folks.
Disadvantages:
•A perpetual increase in electronic sign operation and maintenance costs will be incurred
by the Town.
•Directing Transit Hub traffic to use 4th Street will increase traffic adjacent to an existing
residential neighborhood.
•Encouraging left turns on US36 where no formal left turn lanes exist may lead to an
increase in rear-end collisions.
•Large electronic signs are considered unsightly by some folks.
•The spring workload of the PW/Streets and PW/Parks crews will be adversely affected.
132
Action Recommended:
Staff seeks authorization to spend up to $136,229 on this installation project. This
consists of: awarding a construction contract to Davinci and an approval of Change
Order #1, which together yield a net contract amount of $124,294; approximately $4,500
in direct costs associated with the in-house work by PW/Streets and PW/Parks crews; and
a construction contingency allowance not to exceed $7,435 (5.8%) if needed for
unforeseen conditions.
Budget:
No new budget impact is created through this award and change order contracting
sequence. The total project budget is $195,835. Funding resources include $135,835 in
consolidated grant awards, $50,000 in local matching funds, and $10,000 allocated from
surplus parking garage funds. Expenses are allocated to design ($11,200), DMS
($48,406), installation ($128,794), and contingency ($7,435).
Level of Public Interest
The level of public interest in this item is expected to be moderate.
Sample Motion:
I move to award/not award the Digital Message Sign Install project to Davinci Sign
Systems, Inc. and to approve/deny the authorization for the Mayor to sign a
construction contract in the amount of $219,117 and a deductive change order in the
amount of -$94,823, all subject to CDOT providing their award concurrence. PW staff is
authorized to spend: $4,500 for direct costs associated with the in-house work by
PW/Streets and PW/Parks crews; and an additional contingency allowance of $7,435 if
needed for unanticipated changes encountered during construction.
Attachments:
1.Construction Contract
2.Change Order #1
3.Aerial Sign Location Map
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
DMS#1
DMS#2
DMS#3
PTARMIGAN TRLRAVE
N
A
V
EOTIS LNFIR AVEGRAVES AVESUMMITEWO
N
D
ERVIEWAVE
DRIFTWOOD AVEBIGTHOMPSONAVE
4THSTHIGH PINE DR
N SAINT VRAIN AVE
NORTH LN
COLUMBINE AVEWHIGHWAY3 4
WILDFIRE RD
S W S T E AMERP K WY
STEAMERDRLONEPI
NEDRLAND E R S AVE
PROSPECT AVE DRY GULCH RDNORTH RIDGE LNMANF
O
R
D
A
V
EHILLSIDELN
P
E
C
K
LNFAWN LN3RDSTRAVEN CT
ELMAVEB E A C H L N
NORT
H
C
T1STSTVISTALN
5THSTSOUTH LN
GRAY HAWK CT
G R A N D E
S
T
ATESDR2NDSTH I G H L A N D L N OLYMPUSLNEDUNRAVEN S T
HOM E S T E A D E R L N
P R O S P E C T O R L N
COMANCHE S T
P I O N E E R L N
PINE LN
W OODSTOCK DRNORTHLAKEAVEELKTRAILCT
COMMUNITY DRM AC CRACKEN
L
N
STANLEYAVE
POND E ROSA DRBIRCH AVEBEL L E VUE DR
FISHCREEKRDFINDLE
Y
CTMALL R
DLAKEFRONTST
ASPEN AVEJO
E
LESTESDRBLACKCANYONDR
RAVEN
C
I
R
RED TAIL HAWK DR
RO
OFTOPWAY DEERP A T H CT
OLYMPIAN LN
OURAYD
RWESTLNEAST LNPANO RAMAC IR
S T A N L E Y CIRCLEDRFi
s
h
C
r
e
e
k
Big Thompson River
Big Thompson RiverLAKEESTES
£¤34
£¤36
146