Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2017-04-25The 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, April 25, 2017 AGENDA 6:00 p.m. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: For discussion of a personnel matter – Section 24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. and not involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees – Town Administrator Annual Review. REGULAR BUSINESS 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.  Policy Governance Monitoring Report Policies 3.3 and 3.7.  Update on Noise Ordinance. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated April 11, 2017 and Town Board Study Session dated April 11, 2017. 2. Bills. 3. Estes Valley Board of Appeals Minutes dated March 2, 2017 (acknowledgement only). 4. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated March 21, 2017 (acknowledgement only). 5. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated March 15, 2017 (acknowledgement only). 6. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated March 17, 2017 (acknowledgement only). Prepared 04/17/17 * Revised 04/21/17 **Revised 04/25/17 NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 7. Acceptance of Town Administrator Policy Governance Monitoring Report. 8. 2017 Street Overlay Program Contract, The Perfect Patch Asphalt Company, Inc. for $358,133.59 – Budgeted. 2. LIQUOR ITEMS: 1. NEW BEER & WINE LIQUOR LICENSE FILED BY ELK MEADOWS RV ESSENTIAL GROUP LLC DBA ELK MEADOWS LODGE & RV RESORT, 1665 HIGHWAY 66, ESTES PARK, CO 80517. Town Clerk Williamson. 2. TRANSFER OF A 3.2% ON/OFF BEER LIQUOR LICENSE FILED BY HSE3 LLC DBA TINY TOWN EAGLE STOP, 860 MORAINE AVENUE, ESTES PARK, CO 80517. Town Clerk Williamson. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for Town Board Final Action. 1. ACTION ITEMS: A. PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, VIEW @ 242; METES & BOUNDS PARCEL, 242 VIRGINIA DRIVE. Item continued at the request of the applicant to May 23, 2017 meeting. 4. ACTION ITEMS: 1. FUNDING REQUEST FOR CHILDCARE STUDY. EDC Childcare Committee. 2. MACGREGOR AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS CONTRACT. Engineer Stallworth. 3. RESOLUTION #12-17 2017 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS. Director Hudson. 4. LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT BOARD APPOINTMENT. Town Clerk Williamson. 5. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. AMENDMENTS TO THE 2015 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE RELATING TO DWELLINGS, VACATION HOMES AND SMALL HOTELS. Chief Building Official Birchfield. 2. RESULTS OF THE 2016 BUILDING CODE EFFECTIVENESS GRADING SCHEDULE SURVEY CONDUCTED BY THE INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE (ISO). Chief Building Official Birchfield. 3. PENDING STATE BROADBAND LEGISLATION. 6. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: For discussion of a personnel matter – Section 24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. and not involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees – Town Attorney and Municipal Judge Annual Review. 7. ADJOURN. * * * ** 1 TOWN OF ESTES PARK EXECUTIVE SESSION PROCEDURE April 21, 2017 Executive Sessions may only occur during a regular or special meeting of the Town Board. Limited Purposes. Adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, or formal action shall not occur at any executive session. Procedure. Prior to the time the Board convenes in executive session, the Mayor shall announce the topic of discussion in the executive session and identify the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the executive session is authorized, including the specific statutory citation as enumerated below. Prior to entering into an executive session, the Mayor shall state whether or not any formal action and/or discussion shall be taken by the Town Board following the executive session. 1.To discuss purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest - Section 24-6-402(4}(a}, C.RS. 2.For a conference with an attorney for the Board for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions - Section 24-6-402(4}(b}, C.RS. 3.For discussion of a matter required to be kept confidential by federal or state law, rule, or regulation - Section 24-6-402(4}(c}, C.RS. 4. For discussion of specialized details of security arrangements or investigations Section 24-6-402(4}(d}, C.RS. 5.For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators - Section 24-6-402(4}(e}, C.RS. 6.For discussion of a personnel matter - Section 24-6-402(4}(f}, C.RS. and not involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the Town Board; the appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board; or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees. 7.For consideration of any documents protected by the mandatory non-disclosure provision of the Colorado Open Records Act - Section 24-6-402(4}(g}, C.RS. 3 2 Electronic Recording. A record of the actual contents of the discussion during an executive session shall be made by electronic recording. If electronic recording equipment is not available or malfunctions, written minutes of the executive session shall be taken and kept by the Town Clerk, if present, or if not present, by the Mayor. The electronic recording or minutes, if any, of the executive session must state the specific statutory provision authorizing the executive session. The electronic recording or minutes, if any, of the executive session shall be kept by the Town Clerk unless the Town Clerk was the subject of the executive session or did not participate in the executive session, in which event, the record of the executive session shall be maintained by the Mayor. If written minutes of the executive session are kept, the Mayor shall attest in writing that the written minutes substantially reflect the substance of the discussion during the executive session and such minutes shall be approved by the Board at a subsequent executive session. If, in the opinion of the attorney who is representing the Board, and who is present at the executive session, "all or a portion" of the discussion constitutes attorney- client privileged communications: 1.No record shall be kept of this part of the discussion. 2.If written minutes are taken, the minutes shall contain a signed statement from the attorney attesting that the unrecorded portion of the executive session constituted, in the attorney's opinion, privileged attorney-client communications. The minutes must also include a signed statement from the Mayor attesting that the discussion in the unrecorded portion of the session was confined to the topic or topics for which the executive session is authorized pursuant to the Open Meetings Law. Executive Session Motion Format. Section 24-6-402(4) of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires the specific citation of the statutory provision authorizing the executive session. THEREFORE, I MOVE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION: For a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions under C.RS. Section 24-6-402(4)(b). For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators under C.RS. Section 24-6-402(4)(e) – Town’s health insurance plan. To discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of real, personal, or other property interest under C.RS. Section 24-6-402(4)(a). 4 3 X For discussion of a personnel matter - Section 24-6-402(4)(f), C.RS. and not involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees. For discussion of a matter required to be kept confidential by the following federal or state law, rule or regulation: under C.RS. Section 246-402(4)(c). For discussion of specialized details of security arrangements or investigations under C.RS. Section 24-6-402(4)(d). For consideration of documents protected by the mandatory nondisclosure provisions of the Open Records Act under C.RS. Section 24-6-402(4)(g). AND THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES (The Mayor may ask the Town Attorney to provide the details): . The Motion must be adopted by the affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the quorum present. Retention of Electronic Recording or Minutes. Pursuant to Section 24-6-402(2)(d.5)(II)(E) C.RS., the Town Clerk shall retain the electronic recording or minutes for ninety (90) days. Following the ninety (90) day period, the recording or the minutes shall be destroyed unless during the ninety (90) day period a request for inspection of the record has been made pursuant to Section 24-72204(5.5) C.RS. If written minutes are taken for an executive session, the minutes shall be approved and/or amended at the next executive session of the Town Board. In the event that the next executive session occurs more than ninety (90) days after the executive session, the minutes shall be maintained until they are approved and/or amended at the next executive session and then immediately destroyed. 5 4 ANNOUNCEMENT ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE MADE BY THE MAYOR AT THE BEGINNING OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. MAKE SURE THE ELECTRONIC RECORDER IS TURNED ON; DO NOT TURN IT OFF DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION UNLESS SO ADVISED BY THE TOWN ATTORNEY. It is Tuesday, April 25, 2017 , and the time is (state the time) p.m. For the Record, I am Todd Jirsa , the Mayor (or Mayor ProTem) of the Board of Trustees. As required by the Open Meetings Law, this executive session is not being electronically recorded. Also present at this executive session are the following person(s): Mayor Pro Tem Koenig. Trustees Bob Holcomb, Patrick Martchink, Ward Nelson, Ron Norris, and Cody Rex Walker; and HR Consultant Richard DelaCastro. This is an executive session for the following purpose of: For discussion of a personnel matter - Section 24-6-402(4)(f), C.RS. and not involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees. Town Administrator Annual Review. I caution each participant to confine all discussion to the stated purpose of the executive session, and that no formal action may occur in the executive session. If at any point in the executive session any participant believes that the discussion is outside of the proper scope of the executive session, please interrupt the discussion and make an objection. The close of the executive session is in the Mayor's discretion and does not require a motion for adjournment of the executive session. The Mayor shall close the executive session by stating the time and return to the open meeting. After the return to the open session, the Mayor shall state that the Town Board is in open session and whether or not any formal action and/or discussion shall be taken by the Town Board. 6 TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Frank Lancaster Town Administrator 970.577.3705 flancaster@estes.org MEMORANDUM DATE: April 25th, 2017 TO: Board of Trustees FROM: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator SUBJECT: INTERNAL MONITORING REPORT - EXECUTIVE LIMITATIONS (ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT POLICIES 3.3 AND 3.7) Board Policy 2.3 designates specific reporting requirements for me to provide information to the Board. In April of each year the Town Administrator is to report on Policies 3.3 and 3.7. Policy 3.3 states: “With respect for strategic planning for projects, services and activities with a fiscal impact, the Town Administrator may not jeopardize either the operational or fiscal integrity of Town government.“ Policy 3.7 states: “The Town Administrator shall have an Emergency Preparedness Process in place for coordination of all emergency management partners – Federal, State, and local governments, voluntary disaster relief organizations, and the private sector to meet basic human needs and restore essential government services following a disaster. “ This report constitutes my assurance that, as reasonably interpreted, these conditions have not occurred and further, that the data submitted below are accurate as of this date. ________________________ Frank Lancaster Town Administrator 7 3.3.1. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which deviates from statutory requirements. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that our budgeting practices and policies comply with all State statutory requirements that are applicable to statutory Colorado towns. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: There are no deviations in our practices and policies in violation of State Statutes. The 2017 Town budget was submitted to the State of Colorado on time as required by statute in December of 2016 following Town Board approval. Evidence: 1.The annual independent audit 2.The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 3.All policies are reviewed for compliance with State Statutes by the Town Attorney. 4.State Department of Local Government has not issued any non-compliance notifications to the Town of Estes Park regarding our budgetary obligations under statute. Report: I report compliance 3.3.2. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which deviates materially from Board-stated priorities in its allocation among competing budgetary needs. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that the annual budget, as adopted by the Board of Trustees, is the officially adopted priorities of the Board. This includes any budget amendments approved by the Town Board throughout the year and any specific spending authorizations approved by the Town Board. I interpret “materially deviate” to mean any change in spending priority that results in diverting resources away from any Board objective, goal or outcome substantial enough to contribute to not achieving the objective, goal or outcome. I do not interpret minor deviations resulting from changing circumstances, community demands and unforeseen circumstances outside of the Town’s control, as material deviations. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: Budget spending does not materially deviate from the levels approved in the adopted budget. Evidence: 1.The adopted budget was prepared based on the Board stated priorities. 2.There have been no substantial budget changes presented to the Board for review and approval as of this date. 3.HTE Budget reports for each department are available on a regular basis or as requested. 8 Report: I report compliance 3.3.3. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which contains inadequate information to enable credible projection of revenues and expenses, separation of capital and operational items, cash flow and subsequent audit trails, and disclosure of planning assumptions. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean the budget, as recommended by the Town Administrator, must be based on credible data and the best available information concerning the local economy and other factors that may impact our revenues and expenses. In addition, the budget is to be structured to separate capital expenditures from operational costs. All revenue projects will be conservative and it is more critical not to overestimate revenues vs underestimating revenues. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: 1.Revenue projections are clear and deviations between projected and actual revenues are within a 5-10%, barring any catastrophic events. 2.Actual revenue received and reported to date is not less than projected. 3.The Budget presented to the Board for adoption is in a format the separates revenues, expenses and capital expenditures. 4.Any assumptions used in preparing the budget are clearly articulated to the Board during budget review sessions. Evidence: 1.Currently our sales tax revenue collections to date (Jan and Feb 2017 collections as reported, collections run about 45 days in arrears due to State collection and reporting) is 3.37 % higher than in 2016 and 1.2% lower than projected. 2.Current revenue is not less than projected. 3.The current budget and proposed budget are both presented in the format that separates revenues, expenses and capital. 4.Assumptions leading to the projects were discussed with the Board during budget review sessions. Report: I report compliance with the exception of #2 with sales taxes 1.2% less than original projected for the first two months of the year. 3.3.4. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which plans the expenditure in any fiscal year of more funds than are conservatively projected to be received in that period, or which are otherwise available. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that the proposed budget must be balanced. This includes expenditures for the year not exceeding the revenues received from all sources. Exceptions are Board approved use of fund balances, and use of funds that have 9 been accumulated over a period of time, with the approval of the Board, with the intent of saving funds to pay for a specific project or capital expense. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: The proposed budget meets the above criteria and year end expenses do not exceed year end revenues, inclusive of any board approve spending of fund balance or specific reserve funds. Evidence: 1.The adopted budget and the CAFR document provide independent evidence that I have not allowed budgeting which plans the expenditure in any fiscal year of more funds than are conservatively projected to be received in that period, or which are otherwise available. Report: I report compliance 3.3.5. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which reduces fund balances or reserves in any fund to a level below that established by the Board of Trustees. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I the audited year end unrestricted fund balance in the General Fund does not drop below 20% unless otherwise authorized by the Board. If the Board approves and adopts a budget that plans for reducing the fund balance below the 20% level, I interpret this as being authorized by the Board. (This interpretation will be modified if the Board adopts a cash reserve minimum policy in the future. Staff will be bringing options for such a policy forward in the near future for Board consideration, as directed in the September study session.) Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: 1.The final CAFR indicates that a General Fund fund balance of 20% or greater, or as otherwise approved by the Town Board. 2.The proposed budget anticipates end of year fund balance in the General Fund of 20% or greater unless otherwise approved by the Town Board. Evidence: 1.The 2015 CAFR shows a 21.5% fund balance at the end of 2015 2.The 2016 unaudited budget indicates a 31.4% fund balance at the end of 2016 3.The 2017 budget as amended anticipates a 20.4% fund balance at the end of 2017 Report: I report compliance 3.3.6. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which Fails to maintain a Budget Contingency Plan capable of responding to significant 10 shortfalls within the Town’s budget. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I must prepare the budget, maintain a fund balance of 20% or more in the general fund, and adequate fund balances in all enterprise funds, including the required TABOR reserve. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: 1. The final CAFR indicates that a general fund balance of 20% or greater. 2. The proposed budget anticipates an end of year fund balance in the General Fund of 20% or greater. 3. The Town Board has adopted and approved a Formal Budget Contingency plan Evidence: 1. The 2015 CAFR shows a 21.5% fund balance at the end of 2015 2. The 2016 unaudited budget shows a 31.4% fund balance at the end of 2016 3. The 2017 budget as amended anticipates a 20.4% fund balance at the end of 2017 4. Development of a formal contingency plan, as requested by the Board, is currently under development. This is on track to be presented to the Board on May 9th, therefore I cannot report compliance at this time with this requirement. Report: I report partial compliance 3.3.7. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which fails to provide for an annual audit. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I must ensure that the Town completes an independent audit annually. Further, that audit report should result in an unqualified and unmodified opinion from the Board’s auditors. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: The audit is complete and presented to the Town Board. Evidence: 1. The 2015 Audit has been completed and the CAFR prepared and submitted to the State of Colorado. 2. The 2015 included an unqualified and unmodified opinion from the auditors 3. Work will begin shortly on the 2016 audit Report: I report compliance 3.3.8. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which fails to protect, within his or her ability to do so, the integrity of the current or future bond ratings of the Town. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I cannot take any action that will result any negative impact on the Town’s bond rating. This includes, maintaining adequate fund 11 balances as required in 3.3.5 and maintaining adequate bond coverage ratios for all revenue bonds associated with the Town’s enterprise funds. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: 1. I am in compliance with 3.3.5 2. Required bond coverage ratios are met. Evidence: 1. The general fund year end fund balance is greater than 20% 2. The required Bond coverage ratio for L&P is 125% and for Water is 110%. Our current coverage for the L&P Bonds is 336% and for Water is 301%. Report: I report compliance 3.3.9. The Town Administrator shall not allow budgeting which results in new positions to staffing levels without specific approval of the Board of Town Trustees. The Town Administrator may approve positions funded by grants, which would not impose additional costs to the Town in addition to the grant funds and any temporary positions for which existing budgeted funds are allocated. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that I cannot allow any new positions or expansion of any part-time positions to be advertised or filled without prior Board approval. I may allow the reduction in staffing without Board approval and any positions or partial positions funded by grants or any temporary positions for which existing budgeted funds are allocated may be filled without prior approval of the Board. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: No new positions or expansion of positions are approved and hired without approval of the board, with the exceptions noted above. Evidence: 1. All positions are indicated in the adopted and proposed budgets and no unapproved positions are shown. Report: I report compliance The Town Administrator shall have an Emergency Preparedness Process in place for coordination of all emergency management partners – Federal, State, and local governments, voluntary disaster relief organizations, and the private sector to meet basic human needs and restore essential government services following a disaster. 3.7.1 The Town Administrator shall be responsible for the assigned responsibilities identified in the Town of Estes Park Emergency Operations Plan 12 Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that the Town has adopted and kept current an Emergency Operations Plan that covers multiple possible emergency situations and outlines the roles and responsibilities of Town staff during an emergency. This roles are congruent with the standards of the National Incident Management System process or NIMS. Key staff has all had basic NIMS training. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: 1.The Town has a current up to date Emergency Operations Plan 2.Key staff are NIMS 100 trained. Evidence: 1.The Town has a current Emergency Operations Plan 2.All key staff have either completed or are scheduled to complete NIMS 100 training. Report: I report compliance . 3.7.2 The Town Administrator shall not fail to have a business continuity plan for the Town. Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that the Town has adopted a business continuity plan for the Town operations Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: 1.The Town has a business continuity plan. Evidence: 1.The existence of the Town Business Continuity Plan Report: I report compliance . 3.7.3 In the event of an emergency, the Town Administrator shall not fail to take appropriate action immediately to ensure the safety of the public and public and private assets, including authorizing specific actions by Town staff and declaring an emergency on behalf of the Board of Town Trustees Interpretation – I interpret this to mean that in the event of an emergency, I have taken appropriate steps to respond to the emergency, as outlined in, but limited to, those responsibilities in the Town Emergency Operations Plan. 13 Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: 1. During an emergency, I ensure that we follow the Emergency Operations Plan and standard NIMS procedures in implementing our response. 2. Recovery efforts are in compliance with all state and federal requirements for aid and reimbursements. Evidence: 1. Thankfully, we have had no emergency situations at a level requiring implementation of the NIMS or the EOC, therefore there is no evidence for this reporting period. Report: I report compliance . 14 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, April 11, 2017 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 11th day of April, 2017. Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem Trustees Bob Holcomb Patrick Martchink Ward Nelson Ron Norris Cody Rex Walker Also Present: Travis Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator Greg White, Town Attorney Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator Mayor Jirsa called 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/Martchink) to approve the Agenda as presented, and it passed unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS. Rita Kurelja/EPHA Director recognized Jack Dinsmoor and Matthew Heiser for their years of service and dedication as Estes Park Housing Authority Board members. Mr. Dinsmoor has been a board member since 2002 and Mr. Heiser since 2008. She thanked them both for their service to the community. TRUSTEE COMMENTS. Trustee Norris informed the community of the upcoming League of Women Voters Community Recycle Committee meeting on April 26, 2017 where discussions would focus on recycling, future landfill needs and plans and implications for the Estes Valley. The Estes Valley Planning Commission would continue to discuss changes to the height regulations. The Commission would hold two special meetings on April 21, 2017 and May 16, 2017 to make recommendations on vacation homes for 9 or more occupancy. Trustee Martchink stated the next Parks Advisory Board meeting would be held on April 21, 2017. He thanked all the applicants who applied for the Family Advisory Board. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Assistant Town Administrator Machalek recognized the week of April 9 – 15, 2017 as National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Town Board Minutes dated March 28, 2017 and Town Board Workshop dated March 21, 2017. 2.Bills. 3.Committee Minutes. A. Community Development/Community Services Committee Minutes dated March 23, 2017. DRAFT15 Board of Trustees – April 11, 2017 – Page 2 1. State Historical Fund Grant for Birch Ruins Construction Documents, $2,995 with $1000 Town Match - Budgeted. 2. Arena Footing Contract with Kiser Arena Specialists, Inc., $125,000 - Budgeted. 4. Mountain Meadow Annexation Agreement Amendment. 5. Estes Park Housing Authority Board Appointment:  Julie Abel – a term beginning April 12, 2017 and expiring on April 12, 2022.  Pete Smith – a term beginning April 12, 2017 and expiring on April 12, 2022. 6. 2017 Chip/Crack Seal Contract with A-1 Chipseal, $424,535 Budgeted. 7. Utility Box Vinyl Wrap Artist Application Approval. 8. Letter of Support for GOCO Connect Initiative Grant Application for the Fall River Trail Extension. It was moved and seconded (Nelson/Holcomb) to approve the Consent Agenda Items, and it passed unanimously. 2. LIQUOR ITEMS: 1. NEW TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE FILED BY CLIFF, INC, DBA HOLLYWOODS, 110 ½ W. ELKHORN AVENUE, ESTES PARK, CO 80517. Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing. Town Clerk Williamson reviewed the application for the new Tavern liquor license, stating all paperwork and fees have been submitted. The location was previously licensed as Kelli’s Bar which closed in February 2017. Cory Clifton/owner has completed TIPS training and would continue to operate the location as a Tavern. The Mayor closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to approve the Tavern Liquor License Application for Cliff Inc., dba Hollywoods, 110 ½ E. Elkhorn Avenue, and it passed unanimously. 3. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ORDINANCE #11-17 CONTRACT APPROVING SALE OF FORMER CRYSTAL WATER COMPANY PROPERTIES: SANBORN DAM PARCEL AND VACANT LOT. Mayor Jirsa opened the public hearing. Attorney White stated the Town acquired two parcels with the purchase of the Crystal Water Company and leased a portion of the Sanborn Lake parcel to Cheley Colorado Camps shortly after the purchase. The Town has negotiated the purchase of the parcels and water rights to Cheley for $215,000 because the Town has not used the parcels or water rights and does not have a future use for the parcels. The Sanborn Lake parcel has limited access through the Cheley property for repair, maintenance and operation. The two parcels were appraised at $169,000 for Sanborn Lake parcel and $145,000 for the Sanborn Spring parcel. The fair market value was decreased by $99,000 to cover the State required dam repairs to be completed by Cheley. Mayor Jirsa closed the public hearing. Attorney White read Ordinance #11-17. It was moved and seconded (Norris/Koenig) to approve Ordinance #11-17, and it passed with Walker voting “No”. 2. FAMILY ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTMENTS. The Town received 17 applications and interviewed 16 candidates for the newly formed Family Advisory Board. Trustee Norris stated the recommended group of 12 individuals includes a mix of men and women, parents with infants, young children, teenagers, and adult children. A number of the applicants have experience with early education, special needs children and elder care issues. A number of the appointees speak Spanish and are knowledgeable and networked at the local, state, and national levels on issues related to housing, childcare, educational needs and economic issues faced by working families. The following appointment recommendations were made: DRAFT16 Board of Trustees – April 11, 2017 – Page 3 One Year Term – April 15, 2017 – April 15, 2018 Nancy Almond Rachel Balduzzi Jodi Roman Marion Stallworth Two Year Term – April 15, 2017 – April 15 - 2019 Shannon Faith Jessica McGee Courtney Hill Bin Greer Three Year Term – April 15, 2017 – April 15 - 2020 Floyd Collins Laurie Dale Marshall Karen Randinitis John Bryant It was moved and seconded (Holcomb/Norris) to approve the appointments as outlined above, and it passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Martchink/Holcomb) to approve Trustee Norris as the liaison to the Family Advisory Board, and it passed unanimously. Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 7:26 p.m. Todd Jirsa, Mayor Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk DRAFT17 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado April 11, 2017 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 11th day of April, 2017. Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Holcomb, Martchink, Nelson, Norris and Walker Attending: All Also Attending: Town Clerk Williamson Absent: None Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 5:09 p.m. KEY OUTCOME DISCUSSION – ROBUST ECONOMY. Town Administrator Lancaster stated the Economic Development Council with a grant received from the Federal Economic Development Agency, contracted with Avalanche Consulting to develop an economic development strategy plan for the community. The plan identifies a number of strategies associated with community economic development. Twelve strategic objectives in the plan were identified as the Town having a leading role, and fourteen were identified as the Town having a supportive role. The Board reviewed the current Town strategic outcome area goals and objectives and reviewed the recommendations from the ECD Avalanche study to identify how the roles identified fit with the Town Board’s strategic plan. Items discussed included the second fiber optic line to Estes Park, the formation and creation of a Creative Arts District, the consideration of adding childcare and family issues as a goal, Downtown Plan status, Sign Code revision status, and a list of items to address the development of user friendly codes. The Board reviewed the Avalanche Town Leading Roles: replace current strategic plan wording with construction and maintain a high-speed broadband network for businesses and residents; Review and revise development policies and processes to reflect best practices and encourage redevelopment; discuss further the Creative Arts District to determine if the organization would be an economic driver; the Town would serve a role and not as the convener to clearly define roles and responsibilities of partner organizations; the Town would address Avalanches item on flood mitigation by adding the need to pursue funding for mitigation efforts to reduce the risk to lives and properties to the 2018 goals; Parking has been addressed in the current strategic plan; the 2018 goals would pursue funding for additional parking; and upgrading the Estes Park Conference Center has been placed on hold due to the recent sale of the Rocky Mountain Park Inn. The Avalanche report also addressed areas the Town should support including the recruitment of events for the Event Center and Conference Center; the Stanley Film Center; the activities in the Roosevelt National Forest activities; provide more bilingual resources; supportive of infant and childcare services; supportive role in workforce housing; and transportation maintenance and improvements. The Town Board consensus was not to support outside entities through funding, rather the Town would provide support for major economic drivers. The Town would clarify its role during the 2018 strategic plan for childcare services. The Town has a goal related to housing and further discussion would need to occur on issues such as increasing the height variance and the Fish Hatchery property. 18 Town Board Study Session – April 11, 2017 – Page 2 TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS Trustee Holcomb stated he would meet with Mark Holdt/consultant to discuss the Carver model of policy governance and the possibility the model is too restrictive. He would report back to the Board on potential alternatives. Mayor Jirsa requested a future discussion or an update be provided to the Board on the outsourcing of utility billing. FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS The Fish Hatchery RFP was placed on hold until the floodplain numbers had been established. The RFP would be distributed to the Board for review prior to issuance. The unscheduled discussion and review of the Fish Hatchery RFP would be removed from the list of upcoming Study Session items. There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 6:20 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk 19 RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 1 March 2, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Brad Klein, John Spooner, Joe Calvin, Don Darling, Tony Schiaffo Attending: Chair Darling, Members Spooner & Calvin Also Attending: Chief Building Official (CBO) Will Birchfield, Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Building Inspector Claude Traufield, Plans Examiner Charlie Phillips, Building Permit Technician Jacki Wiedow, Larimer County Building Official Eric Fried Absent: Members Klein & Schiaffo The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Darling called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Each Board member introduced himself and provided their area of expertise. CONSENT AGENDA Minutes from December 8, 2016 Board of Appeals meeting. It was moved and seconded (Calvin/Spooner) to approve the minutes as presented and the motion passed 3-0 with two absent. Minutes from February 9, 2017 Board of Appeals meeting. It was moved and seconded (Spooner/Calvin) to approve the minutes as presented and the motion passed 3-0 with two absent. PURPOSE OF MEETING Chair Darling explained the purpose of the meeting was to review information received at the February meeting and clarify descriptions of properties where vacation homes and small hotels are concerned. Chief Building Official Will Birchfield thanked John Spooner for chairing the Board of Appeals during the adoption process of the 2015 International Building Codes. He stated this was the first time a Board of Appeals, consisting of professionals in their respective fields, had been involved throughout the adoption process for the Town of Estes Park. CBO Birchfield stated if the proposed amendments to the International Residential Code (IRC) are approved and adopted, other amendments will be required in the International Building Code, International Existing Building Code, and the International Property Maintenance Code, to align with the amendments to the IRC. The proposed amendments apply to dwellings, vacation homes, and hotels. He presented and reviewed two flow charts that showed the implications of the code amendments. The first flow chart dealt with buildings that are existing prior to the approval and adoption of the proposed amendments. The information provided in the chart is based on the direction from the elected officials, and outlines the retroactive requirements for existing buildings. REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS CBO Birchfield stated the proposed amendments have been drafted for existing Dwellings (house with residents living there more than 30 days), to not retroactively require (1) sprinkler systems, (2) handicap accessibility, or (3) life safety surveys. Using the new definition for Vacation Homes, the occupant load will be calculated as two people per bedroom plus two additional people, and life safety surveys will be required. CBO Birchfield stated Large Vacation Homes (nine or more occupants) will have a few additional requirements (refer to flow chart) in addition to the life safety survey. Large Vacation Homes will be treated the same across all Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) zone districts. If these homes do not comply with the criteria determined in the EVDC, those existing buildings will be regulated by the IBC, occupant load will be one person for every 200 square feet, retroactive sprinklers and accessibility will be required, along with life safety surveys. 20 RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 2 March 2, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall CBO Birchfield stated the significance of the definition for Small Hotel is the property can be rented to several individual parties, whereas a Large Vacation Home must be rented to one associated group. If a building permit for new construction has been issued prior to the proposed amendments becoming effective, those structures will be considered existing per the flow chart, as long as the construction is following the approved development/building plans without changes. Public Comment Dick Spielman/town resident asked for clarification between a vacation home and a small hotel. John Phipps/town resident asked about whether there was a definition in the IRC for “single-family dwelling.” CBO Birchfield explained the difference, and Director Hunt stated there may be a small alignment issue between the EVDC and the IRC. Mr. Phipps was concerned about a duplex having a definition as a single-family dwelling. Chair Darling stated the Board of Appeals is not a decision- making body, but rather reviews and makes recommendations to the elected officials. Public comment closed. REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION CBO Birchfield explained the proposed amendments for new construction would apply for new permits properly applied for, meaning the submittals have to be submitted properly within the timeline required. Last minute, incomplete submittals will not be accepted. It excludes development plans/building permits that were approved prior to the effective date of the proposed provisions, if approved and adopted. If there are more than two units in the building, it will have to be sprinkled and will also have to address handicap accessibility, which is not a change for current requirements. There are no changes for Dwellings. Vacation Homes and will not be required to sprinkle or provide accessibility, but will be required to have the life safety survey. The only change with the proposed amendment is the life safety survey. If a Vacation Home is designed under the IBC, it would be required to have sprinklers, accessibility compliance, and the life safety survey. This is a change from the current requirements. CBO Birchfield stated the codes are used to try to find ways to help property owners do what they want to do, exhausting all options. If you can interpret the code with more flexibility, that is preferred. The code states the occupant load in the IBC is 200 square feet per person. For Large Vacation Homes with nine or more occupants, 1800 square feet is the number determined to be classified as a Large Vacation Home and still stay within the code requirements. CBO Birchfield presented the proposed amendments regarding new construction of Large Vacation Homes (less than 30 days, nine or more occupants, groups only), to be regulated by the International Building Code (IBC). Sprinklers and the life safety survey will be required, and handicap accessibility will need to be addressed. Small hotels, where individuals may rent separate rooms, will be regulated by the IBC. In some cases, small hotels may not have to be sprinkled, but would still need to be compliant with handicap accessibility requirements. CBO Birchfield stated some vacation homes and some small hotels will have the same requirements, depending on the design. Hotels with more than eight occupants will be regulated by the IBC, as is the current practice. CBO Birchfield clarified the life safety surveys will occur following the required building inspections that take place during routine construction. He also clarified Note 4 on the flow chart, stating vacation homes in residential zone districts, with occupant loads of greater than eight, had to be registered for eight and under as of December 16, 2016 (per Town Board and County Commission decision). New construction of large vacation homes with occupancies of greater than eight will not be allowed in residential zone districts. CBO Birchfield explained the details of proposed life safety survey. This is not a comprehensive inspection. The Chief Building Official does not currently have the authority to request a vacation home inspection. If the Town Board decides to require life safety surveys, a provision has to be added to the code to give the authority, state what will be inspected, and the standards required for the inspections. Life safety inspections will be required with each new license or transfer of license. Director Hunt would hope a cooperative type of inspection could occur between the property owner, the Division of Building Safety, and the Code Compliance Department. 21 RRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Park Board of Appeals 3 March 2, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall CBO Birchfield stated a new section (R327) would be added to the IRC for the life safety surveys. The effective date will be January 1, 2019, so if the amendment is approved, property owners would have about two years to come into compliance with the requirements of the life safety survey. It will take time for some property owners to come into compliance to be allowed to use their home as a vacation home. The property owner will have to have their Certificate of Occupancy by January 1, 2019 to be a legal vacation home. In summary, there are proposed amendments for the following: x Definitions x Exceptions in the scoping provisions in the IRC x Excluding sprinkler requirements from all one- and two-family dwellings x Life safety surveys CBO Birchfield reviewed the draft version of the form being created for the survey. There was an extended discussion regarding emergency escape and rescue openings in all spaces used for sleeping purposes. There was extended discussion regarding gas-fired appliances and whether or not to require old ones to be brought up to current code requirements. Exterior fire pits were added to the list at the request of the Fire District, as they have concerns with some of them being too close to structures. CBO Birchfield reiterated the proposed life safety surveys are specific to vacation homes. Director Hunt stated the mapped Wildfire Hazard Maps are being updated and new information will be coming as soon as possible. Exit signs and lighting on exterior stairs are also being considered for the survey. CBO Birchfield stated the items on the life safety survey were staff recommendations, and he would be presenting the information at the Town Board Study Session on March 14th to get final direction from the Trustees. Unless the building officials receive direction otherwise, the “plus 2” sleeping areas will need to be in areas approved for sleeping. Director Hunt stated there may be some instances where more than two people need to sleep in one bedroom. The “plus 2” is optional by homeowners, not required. It was moved and seconded (Spooner/Calvin) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the Estes Park Town Board and the motion passed 3-0 with two absent. CBO Birchfield stated that after he receives final direction, if any, from the elected officials, he will bring the final draft back to the Board of Appeals for the final update. The April Board of Appeals meeting will be held the 2nd Thursday, April 13, 2017 from 4-6 p.m. There being no additional business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:03 p.m. ___________________________________ Don Darling, Chair ___________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary 22 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 21, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission:  Chair Michael Moon, Vice‐Chair Russ Schneider, Commissioners Betty Hull, Doug  Klink, Steve Murphree, Sharry White, Bob Leavitt  Attending:  Chair Moon, Commissioners Schneider, Hull, Klink, Murphree, White, and  Leavitt   Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Planner Carrie McCool, Town  Board Liaison Ron Norris, Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, and  Recording Secretary Karen Thompson   Absent:Planner Audem Gonzales  Chair Moon called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.  He explained the purposed of the Planning  Commission. There were approximately ten people in attendance.    1.PUBLIC COMMENT Pat Newsom/town resident would appreciate a working sound system in the study session meeting rooms. She commented on the cap of vacation home registrations and the discussion that occurred during the study session. She did not agree with extending the deadline of March 31, 2017. She was concerned about increasing the height limit in the RM‐Multi‐Family Residential zone district. She was concerned about establishing corridor plans as part of the Comprehensive Plan. 2.CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes, February 21, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (White/Schneider) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed 7‐0. 3.DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2016‐08, DOLLAR GENERAL, LOT 31, AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 32‐35, AND PORTIONS OF LOTS 1, 31 & 37, WHITE MEADOW VIEW PLACE, LESS 2000032927; 455 STANLEY AVENUE Planner McCool reviewed the staff report, as Planner Gonzales was ill. The applicant, Vaquero Estes Park Partners, LLC desires to construct a retail store at the corner of Highway 7 (S. St. Vrain Avenue) and Stanley Avenue. Dollar General would occupy the building. The building is proposed to be approximately 9,100 square feet with a 30‐space parking lot. The access point for the building will be on Stanley Avenue. Building materials will comply with the Estes Valley Development Code. Planner McCool reviewed the criteria for the development plan and minor modification. This information can be read in detail in the staff report. The application was routed to all affected 23 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 21, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall agencies, including the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), and notices were mailed  to adjacent property owners. A legal notice was published in the local newspaper. CDOT preferred  access from Stanley Avenue. One public comment was received in regards to building materials.  Planner McCool stated there was a request for a minor modification regarding grading and the  loading area. The Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) provides staff with the authority to  approve certain minor modifications, this being one of them, which was approved by staff.  Staff Findings  1.The development plan complies with the goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan (e.g. Community Design policies).  2.The Planning Commission is the Decision‐Making Body for the Development Plan. 3.Adequate public facilities are currently available to serve the proposed project. 4.This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment. No significant issues or concerns were received.  5.The Development Plan complies with applicable standards set forth in the EVDC. Public Comment  Devan Pharis/applicant was available for questions. The composition of the proposed retaining  wall would be a natural‐colored, decorative, split‐faced look. The building materials for the  building will be similar in design, but a slightly darker color.  There will be landscaping in front of  the retaining wall to camouflage the view of the wall. A revised photometric plan was submitted,  and it complies with the EVDC.   Rex Poggenpohl/county resident and Estes Valley Board of Adjustment member urged the  Commission to consider amending the EVDC to allow a larger driveway opening for commercial  properties, and to encourage the governing bodies to keep child‐safety in mind.  Staff and Commission Discussion  There was brief discussion about a pedestrian‐activated signal.    Condition of Approval  1.Provide cost estimates and full design details for the sidewalk.  Financial security shall be provided for the sidewalk before any building/grading permit is issued for the property.  It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hull) to approve the Dollar General Development Plan  according to findings of fact and conclusions of law, with findings and conditions recommended  by staff and the motion passed 7‐0.    Commissioner White requested staff pursue the pedestrian‐activated signal with CDOT.  Commissioner Murphree recused himself for the next application review.  24 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 21, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 4.VIEW @ 242 PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP Planner McCool reviewed the staff report for Planner Gonzales. The proposed project is for ten condominium units on the property located on Virginia Drive. A Development Plan and Amended Plat are also part of this project, and will be reviewed at staff‐level. The application was routed to all affected agencies, and notices were mailed to adjacent property owners. One public comment was received regarding building height. Staff and Commission Commissioner Leavitt asked for an explanation between market rate and attainable units. Director Hunt provided the explanation. Staff Findings 1.This proposal complies with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as well as the Development Plan.  2.This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration and comment.  3.This is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Town Board. Public Comment  Chuck Bailey/applicant spoke about how the proposed development came about. The ability to  build ten units on the site is a direct result of the recent EVDC amendment regarding density. The  project proposes two four‐plexes and one duplex.  Four units will be designated “attainable” and  will be deed restricted for twenty years. The lot is long and narrow, and presents design  challenges. Adequate parking was important to the developers.  Dan Timbrell/town resident was opposed to the height of the proposed project. His views of the  Divide will be obstructed if the project is built as proposed.  He was concerned about the loss of  property value.   Bonnie Hautamaki/town resident asked several questions about the development regarding  parking, traffic, and the number of units allowed if no attainable housing was proposed.     Conditions of Approval  1.View@242 Development Plan approval shall occur within 60 days of the preliminary condo map Planning Commission public hearing date.  2.Amended Plat approval shall occur within 60 days of preliminary condo map Planning Commission public hearing date.  It was moved and seconded (Schneider/White) to recommend approval of the Preliminary  Condominium Map to the Estes Park Town Board according to findings of fact and conclusions  25 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission March 21, 2017 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall of law, with findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed 6‐0 with  Commissioner Murphree abstaining.   5.REPORTS A. Director Hunt reported there is a Comprehensive Plan Update in process, thanks to a  committee that has been working on it. A Resolution between the Town Board and County  Commission provides for a 12‐18 month review period including extensive public  involvement.    B. Director Hunt reported an amendment to the EVDC regarding vacation homes was  continued to the March 28th Town Board meeting. The March 31st deadline date is  proposed to be removed, allowing individuals to continue to register their home as a  vacation home as long as the cap has not been reached. The Larimer County Board of  County Commissioners approved the code amendment on March 20th.  C. Director Hunt reported an amendment to the EVDC regarding accessory kitchens was  continued by the Town Board to the March 28th meeting. If the Town Board does not vote  to approve the removal of accessory kitchens, Director Hunt would at least like to see the  removal of the affidavit requirement, and removal of the section regarding the interior  entrance, as it would be unenforceable.  He would like to add a statement regarding  outdoor kitchens, whereas they would not be considered an accessory kitchen as long as it  was exposed to the outside on at least two sides. There was brief discussion about the  procedure of taking code amendments to the decision‐making boards. The general  consensus from the Planning Commission was to have the revised draft amendment go  back to the Planning Commission for a final recommendation before moving on to the  Town Board and County Commission.   D. Director Hunt reported the Community Development Annual Report will be completed  prior to the April meeting.  E. Planner I Robin Becker will begin work with the Town on March 27, 2017. There is still one  vacancy on the Planning side of the department.   There being no further business, Chair Moon adjourned the meeting at 2:36 p.m.  _________________________________  Michael Moon, Chair  ___________________________________  Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary  26 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 15, 2017 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, in said Town of Estes Park on the 15th day of March, 2017. Present: Kimberly Campbell Tom Street Gordon Slack Belle Morris Stan Black Ann Finley Ken Zornes Amy Hamrick Also Present: Bob Holcomb, Town Board Liaison Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Admin. Assistant Larry Gamble, Rocky Mountain National Park Chief of Planning & Compliance Absent: Kevin Ash, Engineering Manager Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 12:03 p.m. It was moved and seconded (Slack/Black) to approve the January and February meeting minutes with minor corrections and the motion passed unanimously. Traffic Control Devices Study Update - Review: Director Muhonen received a draft Traffic Control Devices Study back from the consultant. This study reflects only the Town’s Maintenance of the CDOT traffic control devices (signs, signals, markings). In order to address pavement pothole repairs/maintenance, a second contract would be needed. Positives and negatives have been found with pursuing the pavement portion, however analysis still needs to take place for determination. The current agreement is only for traffic control devices in existing inventory and is not for expansion of the program. Town Board Liaison Holcomb asked about the Town expense. Director Muhonen stated there should be no cost to the Town with negotiations. The funds received from CDOT would purchase the necessary equipment and appropriate personnel. Consultant, William Transportation Advisory Board – March 15, 2017 – Page 2 Hange, Jr., is very familiar with this negotiation process. It’s been determined that there will be 1.5 people needed: 2 people full-time a portion of the year and 1 person full-time year round. Director Muhonen indicated that the Town may look at working the signal timing only to start. Striping is currently done by a contractor which would continue if striping is taken over. In order to perform CDOT road repair and maintenance, the Town would also require a maintenance truck with boom. Performing this service will provide a higher level of service to the residents and visitors by bringing existing signs into compliance (reflectivity) while also maintaining a better level of service on CDOT roads without having to wait. The majority of TAB recommends Director Muhonen take this proposal to the Town Board to find out if they’re interested in further negotiations (dollars, contract terms, etc.). Member Slack wants negotiations for maintenance of the traffic signals only. Non-Permanent Pavement Marking Policy Review: The topic of sidewalk chalk usage came up at Town Board meetings and branched out to other markings for non-permanent use. Assistant Town Administrator Travis Machalek spearheaded the new policy. Within the policy, one of the conditions set out in the procedures states, “The proposed non-permanent art must not be commercial in content. . .” Chair Campbell mentioned that when there are bike races through town, the race coordinators generally want a large race logo with the logos of the sponsors visible from helicopter. This may need addressed with ATA Machalek. Director Muhonen stated that there may be a few tweaks for the non-permanent art removal for races, etc. to change from the existing ‘same day removal’ requirements. Addressing the medium to expand from non-soluble to other potential options may also be needed. The TAB is in favor of moving forward with adjustments in these areas. Transportation Advisory Board – March 15, 2017 – Page 3 PROJECT UPDATES, Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works Downtown Parking Strategy Plan: Kimley Horn is the consultant working on this plan. Director Muhonen met with Eric Rose, Brian Wells, Randy Hunt and Kimberly Campbell to review this plan. It was also suggested to expand the group monthly meetings to include Sue Dolan to help guide this effort. As updates are available, these will be provided to the TAB. Next steps involve engaging the public and gathering input from citizens. A request will be made of the consultant to provide training on conducting small group meetings to allow future input from downtown citizens. 2017 Street Improvement Program: MacGregor Avenue Improvements: Utilities work is currently under way. Public Works is on schedule to start their portion of the project at the beginning of July, 2017. Digital Message Signs (DMS): The TAB discussed moving one sign (two-in-one) to the island located outside the parking garage to allow better visibility of available messages. All signs will be connected to allow consistent information. Strategic messaging and placement of signs is in process. Questions posed regarding sign height and the allowance of proper visibility have been addressed. Transit Facility Parking Structure: Director Muhonen stated that the cranes are here to start placing the precast items. There is continual video footage of the work taking place. Public Works is gathering snapshots regularly to provide a time lapse to show the build. A few days here and there are lost due to minor hiccups but all obstacles are getting resolved and construction is on track for July completion. With regard to left turns out of parking garage, there’s no real change from the way it’s always functioned. Ongoing frustration will cause a correction to be put in place at a later date. Several options have been suggested – potential bridge connecting north and south lot for automobiles or shuttle only. There are still bridge supports from the US-34 changes that could be utilized. Another option mentioned was the use of a roundabout. Any corrective action will take place at a later date. For the meantime, the same struggles entering/leaving the parking lot will continue. Transportation Advisory Board – March 15, 2017 – Page 4 OTHER BUSINESS Member Morris updated the TAB on the progress of CDOT’s work on Hwy 7 NB / SB. Completion of this project should be by the end of May with an additional phase due to be performed from November, 2017 through Spring of 2018. CDOT will be expanding lanes to allow for bikes without all the bike lane striping due to liability of a bike lane that is not wide enough. There will, however be painted bike markings in the wide shoulder of the vehicle lane. CDOT will come up with 90% drawings to share with the group. Larry Gamble of Rocky Mountain National Park reported about the research on vehicle restrictions for Bear Lake Rd. to determine where cars are going when the lot is full. A research prospectus has been developed. RMNP is working with university on this study, looking at different ways to gather the data. The information gathered will help determine the process moving forward with visitors. With no other business to discuss, Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 2:00 p.m. Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 17, 2017 Minutes of a regular meeting of the Parks Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Executive Board Room of the Estes Park Events Center, in said Town of Estes Park on the 17th day of March, 2017. Present: Dewain Lockwood Carlie Bangs Vicki Papineau Ronna Boles Merle Moore Terry Rustin (via phone) Celine Lebeau (via phone) Scott Miller, Student Advisor Also Present: Patrick Martchink, Trustee Liaison Greg Muhonen, Director of Public Works Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Administrative Assistant Brian Berg, Parks Division Supervisor Kevin McEachern, Operations Manager Cydney Springer, Estes Arts District Joe Lockhart, Light & Power Line Superintendent Tyler Boles, Light & Power Crew Chief Sarah Clark, Light & Power Administrative Assistant Absent: Co-Chair Moore called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT No public comment. GENERAL BUSINESS It was moved and seconded (Papineau/Lockwood) to approve the February meeting minutes and the motion passed unanimously. MOUNTAIN FESTIVAL UPDATE Member Bangs stated sponsors have provided over $9,000 for the event. Mayor Jirsa will be covering the cost of two live band(s). The Parks Advisory Board will have a table Parks Advisory Board – March 17, 2017 – Page 2 set up at the Festival. Member Bangs will bring a volunteer sign-up list to the April meeting. ARBOR DAY BOOK DONATION PAB members reviewed the list of books provided by the elementary school library as those they would like donated in celebration of the 2017 Mountain Festival. It was unanimously decided that all books on the list would be donated. ARBOR DAY ARTWORK SELECTION PAB members reviewed the Arbor Day artwork submissions received from the Elementary School and each member cast their vote for the top three favorite artwork submissions to be applied to shirts, water bottles, etc. The winning artwork selections were: Cayden Peterson – 5th Grade; Abigail Watry – 2nd Grade; Gunni Berg – 1st Grade REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS SELECTION: DECORATING UTILITY BOXES [DUB] PAB members reviewed the DUB painting submissions and finalized the top four of the group – Ben Brown, Dawn Normali, Nicole Rische, Michael Young. Working in conjunction with Estes Park Light & Power, the winners will be notified and the DUB project will proceed. Kent Smith of Smith Signs may provide a quote for preparing the utility boxes for art application. PARKS DIVISION UPDATE Parks Division Supervisor, Brian Berg has ordered the dismount thermoplastic stencils presented at the February PAB meeting. These will be applied along the Riverwalk by the end of May. The Parks Division is planning to purchase a large stencil of the Centennial logo for application on the Bond Park turf. The stencil will cost approximately $3,000 and measures 35’x40’. Prior to applying the paint, MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheets) information will need to be provided to confirm environmental safety. Veterans have come forward expressing interest in a memorial near the picnic area on the north side of the Big Thompson River. Parks Advisory Board – March 17, 2017 – Page 3 The bronze pikas created for the Pikas In The Park hunt will be installed this spring. OTHER BUSINESS Co-Chair Moore requested, when plowing snow, that the Town avoid piling it on the north side of the pedestrian tunnel that travels under US-36. The melt generated from this pile ices over throughout the winter creating hazardous conditions for those walking on the sidewalks. With no other business to discuss, Co-Chair Moore adjourned the meeting at 12:04 p.m.       34 ENGINEERING Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Kelly Stallworth, EI, Public Works Pavement Manager Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director Date: April 25, 2017 RE: 2017 Street Overlay Program Objective: Public Works seeks approval from the Town Board to award the 2017 Street Overlay Program contract to The Perfect Patch Asphalt Company, Inc. to advance the goals of the 2024 Street Improvement Program. Present Situation: On February 23, 2016, Public Works presented a plan to improve the condition of Town streets to an overall system-wide PCI of 70 by the year 2024. To continue implementation of this plan, we propose to hire a contractor to begin this portion of the 2017 program. Proposal: On April 22, 2017, Public Works advertised a Request for Bid that would overlay and patch multiple streets in Estes Park. Three companies attended the mandatory pre-bid on April 28th. All three companies present at the mandatory pre-bid meeting submitted a bid for construction. After three weeks of advertising, the bids were opened on May 12th. The following table contains the bids for each company: COMPANY CITY TOTAL FEE The Perfect Patch Asphalt Company Commerce City, CO $358,133.59 Coulson Excavating Loveland, CO $441,849.00 Connell Resources Fort Collins, CO $459,530.85 The low bidder was The Perfect Patch Asphalt Company. This contractor has a good reputation and extensive experience paving roads. Schedule: The contractor has flexibility on starting the construction work. All work must be continuous and complete by August 31, 2017. 35 Advantages: •Rehabilitation of multiple streets in Estes Park •Advancement of the 2024 STIP plan •Utilization of 1A sales tax funds to improve Estes Park streets Disadvantages: •Temporary disruption of traffic in the proposed work areas Action Recommended: To advance 2024 STIP Plan, Staff recommends awarding the 2017 Street Overlay Program contract to The Perfect Patch Asphalt Company, Inc. in the amount of $358,133.59. As the low bid came in below the budget of $400,000, Public Works is requesting authority to spend up to the budgeted amount of $400,000.00 as a contingency measure. Budget: This project will be funded from the Street Improvement Fund. Currently there is $400,000 allocated to this project from the Street Improvement Fund. Level of Public Interest Public interest on this project is expected to be moderate. Sample Motion: I move for approval/denial to authorize the Mayor to sign a construction contract with The Perfect Patch Asphalt Company, Inc. for the 2017 Street Overlay Program in the amount of $358,133.59. Public Works staff is authorized to spend up to $400,000.00 for any additional work on Town streets. Attachments: Contract Document available upon request 36 TOWN CLERK Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: April 20, 2017 RE: Liquor Licensing: New Beer & Wine Liquor License Application for Elk Meadow RV Essential Group, LLC dba Elk Meadow Lodge & RV Resort, 1665 Highway 66, Estes Park, Colorado Objective: Approval of a new Beer & Wine liquor license located at 1665 CO Highway 66, Estes Park, Colorado. Application filed by Elk Meadow RV Essential Group, LLC dba Elk Meadow Lodge & RV Resort. Present Situation: An application for a new Beer & Wine liquor license was received by the Town Clerk’s office on March 23, 2017. All necessary paperwork and fees were submitted; please see the attached Procedure for Hearing on Application – New Liquor License for additional information. The applicant is aware of the Town Board’s Training for Intervention Procedures (TIPS) requirement and has not yet confirmed completion of the training. The liquor license application has been sent to the Colorado Department of Revenue Liquor Enforcement Division (LED) for a concurrent review as requested by the applicant. This allows the LED to review the application simultaneously with the Town and expedites the issuance of the new liquor license. The location was previously licensed by the applicant in 2013 – 2015 with a Beer & Wine license. In 2016, the license was relinquished to allow Lazy B to apply for a Tavern liquor license at the location. Lazy B has subsequently moved their operations to the Elkhorn Lodge property and surrendered the Tavern license on the property. The property has applied for and has received a Temporary Use permit for a restaurant and bar use on the property during May 1, 2017 – October 31, 2017. This use temporarily allows for indoor and outdoor seating. Proposal: Town Board review and consideration of the application for a new Beer & Wine liquor license. 37 Advantages: Approval of the license provides the business owner with the opportunity to operate a liquor-licensed establishment in the Town of Estes Park. Disadvantages: The owner is denied a business opportunity to serve alcohol to patrons. Action Recommended: Approval of the application for a new Beer & Wine liquor license. Budget: The fee paid to the Town of Estes Park for a new Beer & Wine Liquor license is $1,112. The fee covers the administrative costs related to processing the application, background checks, and business licensing. In addition, the annual renewal fee payable to the Town of Estes Park for a Beer & Wine Liquor license is $662. Level of Public Interest Low Sample Motion: The Board of Trustees finds that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood are/are not met by the present liquor outlets in the neighborhood and that the desires of the adult inhabitants are/are not for the granting of this liquor license. Based upon these findings, I move that the application for a new Beer & Wine Liquor license filed by Elk Meadow RV Essential Group, LLC dba Elk Meadow Lodge & RV Resort be approved/denied. Attachments: 1. 2. Application Police Report 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45       46 To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Jackie Williamson Date: March 23, 2017 RE: Liquor Licensing: Transfer of Ownership from Tiny Town Texaco, Inc. dba TINY TOWN 1 STOP, to HSE3 LLC dba TINY TOWN EAGLE STOP, 860 Moraine Avenue, 3.2% On/Off Premise Beer Liquor License Objective: Transfer an existing liquor license located at 860 Moraine to the applicant. Present Situation: A 3.2% On/Off Premise Beer Liquor License is currently held at the location referenced above. The license is currently held by the Tiny Town Texaco Inc. A temporary permit was issued on March 30, 2017, which authorizes the continued sale of alcohol beverages as permitted under the permanent license while the application to transfer ownership of the license is pending. The application was delivered to the Town Clerk’s office on March 10, 2017, along with all required fees. The applicant is aware of the TIPS training requirement. Proposal: To present the application for the Town Board’s review and consideration to transfer the existing license. Advantages: The transfer of the license provides the business owner with the opportunity to continue operating an existing, liquor-licensed establishment without an interruption of service to its clientele. Disadvantages: The business owner is denied the opportunity to continue operating an existing liquor- licensed business during the licensing process. Action Recommended: Approval to transfer the existing 3.2% On/Off Premise Beer Liquor License to HSE3 LLC dba TINY TOWN EAGLE STOP. Budget: Town Clerk’s Office Memo 47 The fee paid to the Town of Estes Park for a 3.2% On/Off Premise Beer Liquor License transfer is $953.00. The fee covers the administrative costs related to processing the application, background checks, and business licensing. In addition, the renewal fee payable to the Town for a 3.2% On/Off Premise Beer Liquor License is $503 per year. Level of Public Interest: Low Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny the Transfer Application for a 3.2% On/Off Premise Beer Liquor License filed by HSE3 LLC dba TINY TOWN EAGLE STOP. Attachments: Application Individual History Police Report 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Estes Valley Board of Trustees, April 25, 2017 View@242 Preliminary Condominium Map COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Audem Gonzales, Planner II Date: April 25, 2017 RE: View@242 Preliminary Condominium Map ______________________________________________________________________ Objective: Conduct a public hearing to consider a Preliminary Condominium Map application for compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). Present Situation: The property is approximately 0.7 acres in size and is zoned RM-Multifamily Residential. Planning Commission voted and recommended conditional approval of the application on March 21, 2017. Proposal: This application is running concurrently with a Development Plan and Amended Plat for the property. However, only this Preliminary Condominium Map requires Town Board review. Both the DP and AP applications are staff level and are in the process of being approved. The project consists of ten (10) units, six market rate and four proposed as attainable units. The Amended Plat proposes combining three lots into one legal lot. The preliminary condo map provides information on where each unit is located on the site. It also provides information on what areas are to be LCE (Limited Common Elements) and GCE (General Common Elements). The condominium map is consistent with the Development Plan. Advantages: 1. Application complies with EVDC standards. Disadvantages: None. Action Recommended: Planning Staff is recommending Conditional Approval of the View@242 Preliminary Condominium Map application with conditions listed in the Sample Motions. Planning 59 Estes Park Town Board of Trustees, April 25, 2017 View@242 Preliminary Condominium Map Commission voted and recommended conditional approval of the application on March 21, 2017. Budget: None. Level of Public Interest: Low: There has been no written public comment received as of April 20, 2017. Any comments received after this date shall be placed on the applications page of the Town website at www.estes.org/currentapplications Staff has received public comment on the Development Plan for this application. Questions and comments were received in regards to building height, view sheds, parking, and other general development elements. Sample Motions: Below are the Town Board’s options related to the Preliminary Condominium Map application: 1. I find that the application meets the review criteria, and move to APPROVE the View@242 Preliminary Condominium Map with no conditions: 2.[Recommended Motion] I find that the application meets the review criteria, and move to APPROVE the View@242 Preliminary Condominium Map with the following conditions; a. View@242 Development Plan approval shall occur within 60 days of the preliminary condo map Planning Commission public hearing date. b. Amended Plat approval shall occur within 60 days of preliminary condo map Planning Commission public hearing date. 3. I find that the application does not meet the review criteria, and move to DENY the View@242 Preliminary Condominium Map application; 4. I find that the applicant has not provided sufficient information to review the application and move to CONTINUE THE HEARING to provide adequate time to review additional materials. Attachments: Vicinity Map Site Plan Full Application www.estes.org/currentapplications 60 652131UNIT 1UNIT 9UNIT15UNIT 21UNIT 2UNIT 13UNIT 16UNIT 6VIRGINIA DRM A C G R E G O R A V E W WONDERVIEW AVEWILLOWSTONE DRVIRGINIA LNWILLOWSTONE CTE WONDERVIEW AVEVIRGINIA DR0 60 120Feet1 in = 125 ft±Town of Estes ParkCommunity DevelopmentVicinity MapPrinted: 3/20/2017Created By: karen thompsonProject Name:Project Description:Petitioner(s):View@242Prelminary Condo Map (242 Virginia Dr.)CD Investments, LLCHIGH DRFALL R IV E R R D MORAINE AVEDEVILS GULCH RDE HIGHWAY 36BIG THOMPSON AVEW ELKHORN AVEW WONDERVIEW AVELAKE ESTESSiteVicinity MapM a c G re g o r A v e .Wonderview Ave.61 62 Thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective about the proposed development. I am a retired school teacher who moved here in 2009. My home is just on the other side of the fence from this project. For some people mountain views from their homes are not important. For me it is the highest priority, the reason I invested all of my life’s savings, the sale of my truck as well as my whole life insurance policy into the careful and thorough selection of my present and only home. I have views of Meeker, multiple routes on Longs, Washington, Storm, Chiefs Head, McHenrys, Powell, Otis, Taylor, Hallet and Flattop peaks from 11 windows and 2 decks. These views are a daily blessing and reminder of why I chose to live here. Since moving here, I worked as a part time music teacher in the Estes schools and now teach privately. I’m also a mountain guide so having a literal bird’s eye view of real weather issues helps me in my profession rather than relying on the media. The proposed buildings will completely obstruct all my high mountain views forever… building C will block any such views from my lower deck and 7 windows in my living room. Building B, will obstruct all such views from my dining room, kitchen and second bedroom windows. And building A will take away the incredible views from my master bedroom and upper deck. The former one story structures didn’t affect my views at all. If the current proposal had single story or even 20’ structures, I would retain enough views to not even speak up about this. But the proposed buildings of about 30’ are devastating to what I hold dear. If the 30’ buildings were moved closer to Virginia drive, the natural slope of the land would save me some mountain views. I realize these ideas may not possible due to lot size constraints or very profitable for the developers. Everyone, including the developers, with whom I’ve communicated regarding this issue has been somewhat forthcoming and courteous. I understand that the developer and engineers have spent considerable money and time laboring over these plans for more than a year. I understand the need for affordable housing. Having developers with vision and means to help the town grow in this way is a noble pursuit. I’ve had only a short time to catch up on trying to understand all sides. I’ve learned about zoning, codes, regulations, utility lines, slope, drainage, impervious coverage and density. My question is: with all things considered, wherein lies the balance between the gain of some and the loss of another? In the pursuit of progress, how important are the ethical considerations for current residents? Even if I was only losing these views from a deeply loved aesthetic value as well as work related standpoint, there is also the consideration of loss of property value on my part. If I lose all my mountain views, I am considering selling my home and finding another with great views. But every realtor I’ve talked with about this issue agrees that, as is, the proposal has a negative effect on the overall value of my property. Even the marketing of a house with great mountain views is different than one with no such views. With all the experienced and knowledgeable people involved, is there any possible solution, some outside the box idea or some real consideration or compensation, in which growth can be accomplished in more of a win/win scenario for all concerned rather than what I face as a lose/lose scenario? 63 63 Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> view  2 mes s ages Dan Timbrell <dwtrunner@yahoo.com>Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 5:29 AM Reply ­To: Dan Timbrell <dwt runner@y ahoo.c om> To: "townc lerk @est es.org" <townc lerk @es t es.org> Dear Mayor and Trust ees,    I hope and pray my  words  in lett er and s peech have s truc k a chord in y our heart and inspired ideas as  to how to help s av e t he incredible views  of the mountains  from my  home here in Estes .  Wit h y our ex pert is e and experienc e in leadership, there is reas on to believ e s omet hing can be ac c omplished for t he good of all conc erned.  Many  are t he dec ades when I  t aught mus ic  and c oached cros s  c ountry  and track... motivating young people how to think  outs ide the box  while finding eac h s tudent  and at hletes pers onal potential.  Though retired from public  schools, I still teac h music priv ately, perform, mount ain guide and c oac h people one on one.  Res pec tf ully,  Dan Town Clerk <townclerk @es tes .org>Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 9:26 AM To: Trus tees  <trustees @es t es.org> Hello All, Please s ee the below email receiv e regading the public  comment  last night.  Thank s, Town Cl e rk's Off ice 170 MacGregor Av e nue PO Box 1200 Este s Park, CO 80517 970­577­4777 (p) 970­577­4770 (f) townclerk@est es.org [Quoted  text h id den] 66 April 10, 2017 Dear Frank Lancaster, The Estes Valley has a significant childcare problem. There are currently no licensed early childcare education centers in the Estes Valley that provide care to children under two-and- a-half years old. Beyond this clear deficiency, there is an anecdotally-identified lack of childcare options in our community that creates significant problems for working parents. The Estes Park Economic Development Corporation (Estes Park EDC) has established a Childcare Services Committee (Childcare Committee) to work on solutions to this problem. Despite the longstanding conversations surrounding the childcare issues facing the Estes Valley, our community lacks a clear understanding of its size and scope. There has never been a comprehensive and statistically-valid assessment of our childcare needs. In order to address this problem, we must first know its size and dimension. In short, we first must possess a detailed understanding of what the problem is. The Childcare Committee has recognized this need and has prepared a request for proposals to solicit a qualified firm to conduct a Childcare Needs Assessment. Much like the Housing Needs Assessment completed in 2016 by the Estes Park Housing Authority, the Childcare Needs Assessment would give our community a clear picture of the size and the scope of our childcare problem. This will greatly assist us in implementing solutions. Based on the cost of similar needs assessments, the Childcare Committee estimates that it will take approximately $40,000 to adequately fund the project. The Childcare Committee is pursuing local sponsorships in order to accelerate the process since potential grant funding would not be available for 9-12 months. The project has already received funding commitments from the Estes Park EDC and the Estes Valley Investment in Childhood Success (EVICS) of $5,000.00 apiece. The two organizations plan to work in partnership to ensure the success of this study. Additionally Estes Valley Partners for Commerce has committed $2,500, the YMCA $5,000, Estes Area Lodging Association - $1,000.00 and School District - $5,000.00. We are well on our way to funding this long-needed project. To do so, we need support from some of our major employers and organizations in the Estes Valley. We are asking that you consider contributing $5,000.00 to this effort. At the conclusion of the project, any excess funds (cost savings) will be refunded in proportion to the contributions made. We view this as a community wide problem that will take a community to solve. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration, Michael Moon, Chair Childcare Services Committee Estes Park EDC mgmoon@aol.com (281) 309-8226 Cc: James H. Pickering, Chair, Estes Park EDC Jane Stuart, Chair, EVICS 67 68 ENGINEERING Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Kelly Stallworth, EI Public Works Pavement Manager Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director Date: April 25, 2017 RE: MacGregor Avenue Improvements Objective: Public Works seeks approval of a construction contract with Mountain Constructors for the MacGregor Avenue Improvements. To meet the requested 2 month construction schedule that runs from May 1st to June 30st, Public Works needs contract approval at this April 25th Town Board Meeting. Present Situation: As a part of the 2017 Street Improvement Program, Public Works has designed improvements to MacGregor Avenue starting at the intersection with Wonderview Avenue and continuing north for approximately ½ mile. These improvements include: •Two-lane roadway reconstruction; •An 8’ pedestrian walk/trail on the east side of MacGregor Avenue; •No on-street bike lanes are included due to limited right-of-way width, topography, and cost; •Improvements to the intersection with Wonderview Avenue for increased pedestrian safety including pedestrian activated rapid flash beacons, raised concrete islands, trimming of trees; •Drainage improvements. Proposal: On March 24, 2017 Public Works began bid solicitation for a construction contractor. A mandatory Pre-Bid meeting was held on March 30th. On April 13, 2017, Public Works held a bid opening for the project and received two bids. One from SEMA Construction for $1,282,074.00 and one from Mountain Constructors for $1,259,317.00. The bids were within 2% of each other. Town Staff and its consultant have reviewed the bid evaluation, checked references and recommend this work be awarded to Mountain Constructors. This bid is approximately 26% above the proposed $1 million project amount proposed to the Board in the 2017 Street Improvement Program presentation. Public Works and our design consultant met with Mountain Constructors to brainstorm ways to subtract 69 various improvement items out of the scope to meet a $1 million dollar budget. We learned that approximately $25,000 could be saved if the contractor is permitted to close MacGregor Avenue to all thru traffic for 40 days instead of 10 days. Public Works does not believe the associated cost savings are sufficient to offset the adverse guest and resident impact created by this alternative. There is strong public support for the full scope of the project to be constructed. Advantages: •This project is identified in the Town of Estes Park 2017 Street Improvement Program presented to the Board. This is a recommended 2017 road reconstruction project. •By implementation of this project, the Town is completing a needed trail extension identified in the Estes Valley Master Trails Plan. •An enhanced recreation trail connection across Wonderview Avenue is created for users. •Drainage facilities will be improved along the MacGregor Avenue public right-of- way. •No new General Fund dollars or diminishment in planned preventative maintenance work is required to complete the project. Disadvantages: •The proposed contract amount is 32% above the engineer’s estimate and 26% above the PW staff expected budget. •While sufficient funding for this full project cost is forecast from the 2017 1A sales tax revenue, the full contract amount was not included in the adopted 2017 budget. •Closure of the MacGregor Avenue roadway during construction will cause residents and businesses to modify their travel patterns for two months. Although this is an impact, public comments support a quicker schedule and a reduced project cost that results from closing the road fully versus the congestion and confusion of accommodating traffic traveling thru the work zone during a longer construction period. Action Recommended: Staff seeks authorization to spend up to $1,350,000 on this project. This consists of awarding a construction contract to Mountain Constructors in the full bid amount of $1,259,074.00 and approval for staff to spend an additional construction contingency amount not to exceed $90,926 (7%) if needed for unforeseen conditions. Budget: The adopted 2017 budget authorized $250,000 from 1A Trail Expansion funds and $300,000 from Open Lands funds to pay for the trail work in this project. An additional budget appropriation of $800,000 from the 1A Street Improvement Fund is needed for this project (consisting of $64,000 unspent funds from the Dry Gulch Road 2016 project, $705,670 unreserved fund balance, and $30,330 from the Black Canyon Inn for deferred development costs). Most of this money was initially kept in the 2017 unreserved 1A Street fund balance as a precaution in the event a 2017 TABOR refund was needed. The 2016 TABOR refund in the amount $251,370 eliminated the need for 70 the potential 2017 TABOR refund, therefore the funds are available for the intended street improvement purposes. The proposed total project budget is $1,350,000. Level of Public Interest Level of public interest is high. This is a major project provided by the voter-approved 1A sales tax money. The Town has received a petition with nearly 200 signatures advocating for the implementation of a safer pedestrian crossing at the MacGregor Avenue and Wonderview Avenue intersection. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial to authorize the Mayor to sign a construction contract with Mountain Constructors for the MacGregor Avenue Improvements project in the amount of $1,259,317. Public Works staff is authorized to spend an additional 7% contingency of $90,683 if needed for unanticipated changes encountered during construction. Attachments: 1.Construction Contract available upon request 2.Citizen Petition for intersection improvements 3.Map of project location 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 FINANCE DEPTMemo To:Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From:Duane Hudson, Finance Director Date:April 25, 2017 RE:Resolution # 12-17, 2017 Supplemental Budget Appropriations Background: This resolution amends the 2017 budget to include appropriations for three projects not included in the original budget. These projects are the MacGregor Ave improvements, the Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company (PEMPWCo) system design and construction project, and acquisition of second source raw water rights in the Big Thompson River. Summary of Anticipated Revenue Adjustments: There are a few changes in anticipated revenues associated with these projects. A private donation is being made towards the MacGregor Ave improvements in the amount of $30,330. The rest of the additional funding needed for MacGregor Ave is coming out of the Street fund balance and some savings from the Dry Gulch Road project. The funding for the PEMPWCo project is being provided by a US Department of Agriculture (USDA) loan in the amount of $658,000 and an accompanying grant of $529,000 formally approved by USDA in August 2016. The proposed changes are as follows: a. Street Fund: x 260-0000-380.20-00 Misc. Revenue – Donations - $30,330 Increase b. Water Fund: x 503-0000-333.00-00 Federal Grant Revenue – $529,000 Increase x 503-0000-388.40-00 Revenue Bond Proceeds – $658,000 Increase 93 Summary of Supplemental Appropriations: The following summarizes the additional appropriations needed for these projects: a. Street Fund: x 260-2000-420.35-51 - $736,000 Increase ¾MacGregor Ave Improvements - $800,000 Increase ¾Dry Gulch Road - $64,000 Decrease b. Water Fund: x 503-7000-580.35-54 - $1,287,000 Increase ¾PEMPWCo Design & Construction - $1,187,000 ¾Water Rights, BOR NEPA work - $ 100,000 Increase Proposal: Staff is seeking approval of the amendments to the 2017 budget and its accompanying resolution with the modifications proposed above. Advantages: The Town will be able to enter into the contracts to complete this work before the contractors become scheduled on other jobs. Disadvantages: The disadvantage to not approving the supplemental budget for 2017 is that the Town would not have budget authority to complete the projects as proposed. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the 2017 supplemental budget appropriation resolution. Budget: The Street Fund and the Water Fund will be impacted as a result of this amendment. Level of Public Interest The level of public interest in the MacGregor Ave project. The customers of PEMPWCo are highly interested in this water system project. Water customers of the Town would have low to moderate interest in the water rights effort. Sample Motion: I move for the approval of Resolution 12-17 appropriating additional sums of money for the Town of Estes Park for the budget year ended December 31, 2017. 94 Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution No 12-17 for 2017 Supplemental Budget Appropriations Attachment B: Recap of Proposed Budget Adjustments Attachment C: Summary of Anticipated Revenue Adjustments Attachment D: Summary of Supplemental Appropriations Attachment E: Summary of Budgeted Projects 95 RESOLUTION FOR 2017 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS NO. 12-17 A RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING ADDITIONAL SUMS OF MONEY FOR THE VARIOUS FUNDS AND SPENDING AGENCIES IN THE AMOUNTS AND FOR THE PURPOSES AS SET FORTH BELOW FOR THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO FOR THE BUDGET YEAR BEGINNING ON THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY 2017 AND ENDING ON THE LAST DAY OF DECEMBER 2017. WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has adopted the annual budget in accordance with the Local Government Budget Law on December 13th, 2016; and WHEREAS, over the course of the fiscal year ending December 31, 2017, the projects and estimates included in the adopted budget have been revised to include some additional 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 Street Fund appropriations be increased by $736,000 for the MacGregor Ave improvement project and that the Water Fund appropriations be increased by $1,287,000 for the Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company project and to pursue water rights, these amounts hereby appropriated from the additional revenue or available fund balance of each fund. ADOPTED this 25th day of April, 2017. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk 96 Town of Estes ParkRecap of Proposed Budget AdjustmentsFor Year Ended 12-31-2017Resolution 12-17101204211220236238244260GENERAL FUNDCOMMUNITY REINVESTMENTCONSERVATIONTRUSTLARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACEEMERGENCY RESPONSECOMMUNITY CENTER TRAILS STREETRevenues, As Amended20,177,555$ 10,546,973$ 32,371$ 1,765,047$ 68,861$ 694,632$ 414,477$ 1,705,858$ Expenses, As Amended21,027,695 11,781,75532,716 2,404,99758,913694,632341,371 2,788,372Net(850,141) (1,234,782)(345) (639,950)9,948073,106(1,082,514)Estimated Beginning Fund Balance, 1/1/175,184,550 1,250,80433,527761,18236,0120728,085 3,670,477Estimated Ending Fund Balance, 12/31/174,334,409$ 16,022$ 33,182$ 121,232$ 45,960$ -$ 801,191$ 2,587,963$ Budget Restrictions - Nonspendable Prepaid Fund Balance50,00020.4%502503606612625635LIGHT & POWER WATERMEDICAL INSURANCE FLEETINFORMATIONSYSTEMSVEHICLE REPLACEMENT TOTALRevenues, As Amended17,509,711$ 6,707,450$ 2,398,946$ 397,797$ 612,682$ 703,476$ 63,735,836$ Expenses, As Amended19,895,987 6,791,575 2,340,020407,680 1,038,656407,483 70,011,853Net(2,386,276)(84,125)58,926(9,883) (425,974)295,993(6,276,017)Estimated Beginning Fund Balance, 1/1/1719,557,754 22,965,880413,570375,864778,830 3,084,638 58,841,173Estimated Ending Fund Balance, 12/31/1717,171,478$ 22,881,755$ 472,496$ 365,981$ 352,856$ 3,380,631$ 52,565,156$ 97 Town of Estes ParkSummary of Anticipated Revenue AdjustmentsFor Year Ended 12-31-2017Resolution 12-17Fund/DeptOriginal BudgetBudget Amendment #2Current Budget As Amended101 GENERAL FUND20,177,555-20,177,555204 COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT 10,546,973-10,546,973211 CONSERVATION TRUST32,371-32,371220 LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE1,765,047-1,765,047236 EMERGENCY RESPONSE68,861-68,861238 COMMUNITY CENTER694,632-694,632244 TRAILS414,477-414,477260 STREET1,675,52830,3301,705,858502 LIGHT & POWER17,509,711-17,509,711503 WATER5,520,4501,187,0006,707,450606 MEDICAL INSURANCE2,398,946-2,398,946612 FLEET397,797-397,797625 INFORMATION SYSTEMS612,682-612,682635 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT703,476-703,476716 THEATER---TOTAL62,518,5061,217,33063,735,83698 Town of Estes ParkSummary of Supplemental AppropriationsFor Year Ended 12-31-2017Resolution 12-17Fund/DeptOriginal BudgetBudget Amendment #2Current Budget As Amended101GENERAL FUND101-1100 Legislative214,619-214,619 101-1200 Judicial53,889-53,889 101-1300 Executive415,339-415,339 101-1400 Admin Svcs564,325-564,325 101-1500 Finance539,068-539,068 101-1600 Com Dev ( Planning)1,494,730-1,494,730 101-1700 Facilities1,189,774-1,189,774 101-1800 Employee Benefits181,990-181,990 101-1900 CS grants993,822-993,822 101-2100 Police2,998,351-2,998,351 101-2155 Police - Communications979,756-979,756 101-2175 Police - Comm Svcs324,442-324,442 101-2300 Building Safety Divison765,916-765,916 101-2400 Engineering898,356-898,356 101-2600 Visitor Center410,828-410,828 101-3100 Streets3,891,433-3,891,433 101-5200 Parks1,102,438-1,102,438 101-5304 Senior Center351,150-351,150 101-5500 Events1,912,081-1,912,081 101-5600 Transportation442,476-442,476 101-5700 Museum334,993-334,993 101-9000 Transfers967,921-967,921 101GENERAL FUND21,027,695-21,027,69599 Town of Estes ParkSummary of Supplemental AppropriationsFor Year Ended 12-31-2017Resolution 12-17Fund/DeptOriginal BudgetBudget Amendment #2Current Budget As Amended204COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT 11,781,755-11,781,755 211CONSERVATION TRUST32,716-32,716 220LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPA 2,404,997-2,404,997 236EMERGENCY RESPONSE58,913-58,913 238COMMUNITY CENTER694,632-694,632 244TRAILS341,371-341,371 260STREET2,052,372736,0002,788,372 502LIGHT & POWER19,895,987-19,895,987 503WATER5,504,575 1,287,0006,791,575 606MEDICAL INSURANCE2,340,020-2,340,020 612FLEET407,680-407,680 625INFORMATION SYSTEMS1,038,656-1,038,656 635VEHICLE REPLACEMENT407,483-407,483 716THEATER---TOTAL ALL FUNDS67,988,853 2,023,000 70,011,853100 Town of Estes ParkSummary of Budgeted ProjectsFor Year Ended 12-31-2017Resolution 12-17Project Name/Description Project Code ACCOUNT NUMBER 2017 Project Budget (After BA#1) 2017 Additional Request Total Project Budget After Amendment DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE & EQUIP 101-1400-414.37-01165,554 -165,554 DOWNTOWN ESTES PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN101-1600-416.22-13193,627 -193,627 FLEET/STREETS ROOF 101-1700-417.32-22150,000 -150,000 PAINT EXTERIOR OF FISH HATCHERY RENTALS101-1700-417.32-2238,800-38,800TOWN HALL ROOFS ( ENGINEERING & PD WINGS)101-1700-417.32-2290,000-90,000TOWN HALL WINDOWS (CD & BS SIDE)101-1700-417.32-2270,000-70,000MPEC SERVER ROOM AC 101-1700-417.33-3210,000 -10,000SECURITY CAMERAS PHASE 2 101-1700-417.33-3226,000 -26,000MORAINE AVE BRIDGEMORBRG 101-2400-424.22-02207,130 -207,130 STORMWATER MASTER PLANSTORM 101-2400-424.22-02278,547 -278,547 SANDER REPLACEMENTS - 2101-3100-431.34-9816,000-16,000FISH CREEK ROAD REPAIRSFHWAFC 101-3100-431.36-552,833,125 -2,833,125 JD CART 4X4101-5200-452.34-9810,000 -10,000SANDER REPLACEMENT - 1101-5200-452.34-9810,000-10,000REBUILD CENTER ARENA FOOTING AT EVENT CENTER 101-5500-455.32-22125,000 -125,000 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 4,223,783 -4,223,783 MUSEUM COLLECTIONS AND RESEARCH FACILITYMUSCOL 204-5400-544.22-0281,100-81,100MUSEUM REMODELMUSREM 204-5400-544.22-027,380-7,380MUSEUM REMODELMUSREM 204-5400-544.25-02192,000 -192,000 MUSEUM REMODELMUSREM 204-5400-544.32-227,380-7,380COMMUNITY DR ENGINEERING DESIGN204-5400-544.35-5150,000-50,000MORAINE AVE BRIDGEMORBRG 204-5400-544.35-511,985,067 -1,985,067 DOWNTOWN PARKING PLAN 204-5400-544.35-5245,000 -45,000PARKING GARAGECVBPRK 204-5400-544.35-528,315,942 -8,315,942 DMS ELECTRONIC SIGNS US36/US34 DYNMSG 204-5400-544.36-52181,960 -181,960 TOTAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND 10,865,829 -10,865,829 FISH CREEK TRAIL11CATG 220-4600-462.22-021,463,707 -1,463,707 MORAINE AVE BRIDGEMORBRG 220-4600-462.22-02225,067 -225,067 101 Town of Estes ParkSummary of Budgeted ProjectsFor Year Ended 12-31-2017Resolution 12-17Project Name/Description Project Code ACCOUNT NUMBER 2017 Project Budget (After BA#1) 2017 Additional Request Total Project Budget After Amendment SCOTT PONDS (CARRIAGE HILLS) DAM CDBGCH 220-4600-462.22-02 30,663-30,663FALL RIVER TRAIL EXT220-4600-462.35-60200,000 -200,000 MACGREGOR AVE TRAIL 220-4600-462.35-60300,000 -300,000 IRRIG IMPR RIVERWALK US36 TO CHILDRENS PARK220-4600-462.35-6165,000-65,000IRRIG IMPROV LIBRARY, RIVERSIDE PARK & TREGENT PARK220-4600-462.35-6166,500-66,500VISITOR CENTER BIG T RIVERBANK STABILIZATION 220-4600-462.35-6113,585-13,585TOTAL LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUND 2,364,522 -2,364,522 MACGREGOR AVE NORTH OF WONDERVIEW IMPROVEMENTS 244-3400-434.36-60250,000 -250,000 FALL RIVER TRAIL FRTRL 244-3400-434.36-6091,371-91,371TOTAL TRAILS FUND 341,371 -250,000 FLAP/RAMP ESTIMATED COSTSFLAP 260-2000-420.22-02567,271 -567,271 GENERAL ENGINEERING AND DRAINAGE DESIGN WORK260-2000-420.22-0270,000-70,000MACGREGOR AVE IMPROVEMENTS260-2000-420.35-51- 800,000 800,000 DRY GULCH ROAD REBUILDDRYGUL 260-2000-420.35-51293,748 (64,000) 229,748 TOTAL STREET FUND 931,019 736,000 1,667,019 PARKING GARAGECVBPRK 502-6301-540.25-3320,000-20,000OFFICE EQUIPMENT502-7001-580.33-327,000-7,000SERVER FOR METERING - AMI502-7001-580.33-3325,000 -25,000TRANSFORMER PURCHASES502-7001-580.33-35112,052 -112,052 SMART METER PURCHASES502-7001-580.33-3625,000-25,000NONSPECIFIC TOOLS502-7001-580.33-4110,000-10,000UTILITY TRUCK-1 TON - New Addition to Fleet 502-7001-580.33-9850,000 -50,000STREET LIGHTING, POLES & FIXTURES 502-7001-580.35-55135,497 -135,497 2017 ELECTRIC LINE REBUILDS 502-7001-580.35-57200,000 -200,000 ALLENSPARK CIRCUIT UNDERGROUND WORKAP2016 502-7001-580.35-58323,206 -323,206 2017 UNDERGROUND LINES WORK502-7001-580.35-58543,450 -543,450 FISH CREEK PHASE II UNDERGROUND LINES FISHC2 502-7001-580.35-58264,217 -264,217 102 Town of Estes ParkSummary of Budgeted ProjectsFor Year Ended 12-31-2017Resolution 12-17Project Name/Description Project Code ACCOUNT NUMBER 2017 Project Budget (After BA#1) 2017 Additional Request Total Project Budget After Amendment BROADBAND PROJECT BB0001 502-7001-580.35-66 1,092,206 -1,092,206 MIDDLE MILE FIBER TO ALENSPARK/LITTLE VALLEYAP2016 502-7001-580.35-66532,483 -532,483 AR & CLICK-TO-GOV UTILITY BILLING MODULES502-7001-580.37-0176,027-76,027TOTAL LIGHT & POWER FUND 3,416,138 -3,416,138 BUILDING WORK AT GLACIER PLANT 503-7000-580.32-22215,000 -215,000 SCADA UPGRADES AT GLACIER WTP503-7000-580.33-36117,990 -117,990 VARIOUS LAB EQUIPMENT503-7000-580.33-375,500-5,500FEEDER REPLACEMENT503-7000-580.33-4017,000 -17,000STORAGE TANK MIXER 503-7000-580.33-4012,000 -12,000VARIOUS EQUIPMENT503-7000-580.34-42129,000 -129,000 NCWCD SUBDISTRICT WATER RIGHTS (INCLUSIONS) 503-7000-580.35-5441,400-41,400PRV VAULT METERING 503-7000-580.35-5416,000 -16,000WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT - 2017503-7000-580.35-54401,370 -401,370 PEMPWCo SYSTEM DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION503-7000-580.35-54- 1,187,000 1,187,000 REDUNDANT WATER SOURCE - BIG THOMPSON WATER RIGHTS503-7000-580.35-54- 100,000 100,000 TOTAL WATER FUND 955,260 1,287,000 2,242,260 ALLENSPARK NETWORK GEAR 625-2500-425.33-988,000-8,000FIBER SWITCH GEAR TO LONGMONT 625-2500-425.33-9815,000 -15,000FIREWALL VLAN ENHANCEMENT 625-2500-425.33-985,000-5,000NEW NETWORK SERVER625-2500-425.33-9820,000 -20,000NEW NETWORK SWITCHES625-2500-425.33-985,000-5,000PRPA RING SWITCHES/GEAR FOR NEW CIRCUIT 625-2500-425.33-9815,000 -15,000TOTAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS FUND 68,000-68,000 EVENTS G-123 06 BOBCAT 2200 4X4 635-7000-435.34-4219,000 -19,000L&P 93323A 06 FORD F-550 4X4 635-7000-435.34-4259,666 -59,666PARKS G-60A FORD F-550 4X4 635-7000-435.34-4285,603 -85,603POLICE G-78B 09 DODGE CHARGER635-7000-435.34-4232,000 -32,000103 Town of Estes ParkSummary of Budgeted ProjectsFor Year Ended 12-31-2017Resolution 12-17Project Name/Description Project Code ACCOUNT NUMBER 2017 Project Budget (After BA#1) 2017 Additional Request Total Project Budget After Amendment STREETS G-63A 08 FORD F-550 4X4 635-7000-435.34-4275,000 -75,000STREETS G-75B 06 GMC K3500 4X4635-7000-435.34-4233,885 -33,885WATER TRUCK BEDS FOR 2 TRUCKS - 9032C & 9033B635-7000-435.34-4240,000-40,000L&P FORK LIFT REPLACEMENTS - 2 - 93387A & 93388A635-7000-435.34-4262,329-62,329TOTAL VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND 407,483 -407,483 TOTAL PROJECT RECAP 23,573,405 2,023,000 25,596,405 104 Local Marketing District Appointment Town Clerk Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: April 20, 2017 RE: Local Marketing District Board Appointment Objective: To appoint a new Board member to the Local Marketing District Board to complete the term of Karen Ericson expiring December 31, 2018. Present Situation: Karen Ericson resigned on March 13, 2017 because she would be moving outside the boundary of the district. Mrs. Ericson’s term was due to expire on December 31, 2018. Residency is required as stated in the 2008 IGA forming the district: A. Residency. All appointees shall be residents of the Service Area of the District for at least one year prior to the appointment and shall continue to be residents of the Service Area during their entire term. The Board position was posted in the local paper and the Town’s website. Five applications were received and four met the requirements for appointment. The interview team consisting of Mayor Jirsa and Trustee Walker conducted interviews. Also in attendance were LMD Board Member Steve Krueger. Proposal: The interview team recommends the appointment of Sean Jurgens to complete the term of Karen Ericson beginning May 1, 2017 and expiring on December 31, 2018. Sean Jurgens is an Estes Park resident that was raised in the hospitality industry in Estes Park. His family has owned and operated the Comfort Inn for the past 45 years. He is an active member of the Estes Valley Lodging Association as a Board member. Advantages: The position would be filled by Mr. Jurgens who represents the accommodations segment of the community. The vacated position was filled by a downtown shop owner. Disadvantages: 105 Local Marketing District Appointment If the appointment is not made, the position would remain vacant until the position can be re-advertised and interviews conducted. Action Recommended: Appoint Sean Jurgens to the Local Marketing District beginning May 1, 2017 completing Karen Ericson’s term expiring on December 31, 2018. Budget: None. Level of Public Interest Low. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny the appointment of Sean Jurgens to the Local Marketing District beginning May 1, 2018 completing Karen Ericson’s term expiring December 31, 2018. 106 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report To: Honorable Todd Jirsa Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official Date: April 25, 2017 RE: Amendments to the 2015 International Residential Code relating to Dwellings, Vacation Homes, and Small Hotels Objective: Schedule a public hearing to consider adoption of local amendments to the 2015 International Residential Code relating to single family dwellings, vacation homes and hotels. Present Situation: The Chief Building Official met twice with the Town Trustees to receive direction regarding amending the International Building Codes to address local concerns relating to vacation homes. Subsequently, the Estes Park Board of Appeals facilitated two public meetings to review proposed amendments to the 2015 International Residential Code, based on direction received from the Trustees. Staff facilitated additional discussion with multiple stakeholders and worked to create informed consent among all the stakeholders. The Chief Building Official believes there is informed consent from all effected regulatory agencies to adopt the amendments as presented in Exhibit A (attached). At the March 02, 2017 Town Board of Appeals meeting, that Board recommended adoption of the proposed amendments in Exhibit A. Proposal: Town staff and the Town Board of Appeals recommend adoption of the proposed amendments to the 2015 International Residential Code as presented in Exhibit A, with the effective date of June 1, 2017. These proposed amendments address public concerns relating to vacation homes and the direction staff received from the Trustees to address those concerns. Staff is requesting the Trustees schedule a public hearing during the May 09, 2017 Town Board meeting. Advantages: Adoption of the amendments to the International Residential Code will: •Address local concerns relating to vacation homes, sprinkler requirements, accessibility requirements and life safety surveys for vacation homes. •Provide safeguards, establishing minimum safety standards for all vacation homes.107 Disadvantages: Most vacation homes will be exempt from sprinkler requirements, making them less safe. Exempting one-and two-family dwellings negatively impacts the Town’s ISO BCEGCs. Action Recommended: Schedule a public hearing to discuss adoption of proposed amendments to the 2015 International Residential Code. Budget: Life safety surveys will increase building division staff workload by an estimated 20% for at least the next two years. Enforcement of the vacation home provisions in the EVDC has already resulted in an approximate 15% increase in workload for Building Division staff. Staff will be requesting one temporary (12-18 months) contract person to assist with records management. This person would be dedicated to digitizing records to increase productivity and reduce the need for storage space. Level of Public Interest Extremely High Sample Motion: I move to schedule a public hearing to consider adoption of local amendments to the 2015 International Residential Code relating to single family dwellings, vacation homes and hotels. Attachments: •Spread sheets for existing and new single-family dwellings, etc. •Staff presentation for the public hearing •Exhibit A for the public hearing •Resolution by the Fire District 108 1 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 2015 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE RELATING TO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, VACATION HOMES AND HOTELS Most jurisdictions in the United States adopt building codes which provide minimum requirements for the safety of buildings and structures within their jurisdictions. Since 1948, the Town of Estes Park has adopted building codes to regulate the safety of buildings and structures within Town limits. Since 2005, the Town of Estes Park has adopted the International Building Codes. Currently, the Town has adopted the 2015 Edition of the International Building Codes, which among others; include the International Residential Code (IRC), the International Building Code (IBC), the International Existing Building Code (IEBC) and the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC). The International Residential Code (IRC) regulates most but not all dwellings. Since the 2009 edition, the IRC has required all newly constructed dwellings to be protected with automatic sprinkler systems. The elected officials of the Town of Estes Park have chosen to exempt, by local amendment, all detached one-and two-family dwellings from automatic sprinkler requirements. Within the Town limits, for buildings regulated by the IRC, only buildings with more than two dwellings are currently required to be protected with automatic sprinkler systems. Since 2000, land use (zoning) requirements in the Estes Valley have been regulated by adoption of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC), within both the Town boundaries and within the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley. Since 2000, the EVDC has allowed dwellings in the Estes Valley to be used for nightly accommodations (vacation homes). Until recently, the EVDC limited the number of occupants allowed in a vacation home to a maximum of eight people. A recent revision to the EVDC now allows some vacation homes to have more than eight occupants. Allowing nightly accommodations in dwellings typically regulated by the IRC in combination with exempting these same dwellings from automatic sprinkler requirements has created conflicts within the International Building Codes. The IBC requires all newly constructed buildings containing dwelling units and/or sleeping units (apartments, dormitories, group homes, hotels, motels, employee housing, etc.) to be protected with automatic sprinkler systems. The IEBC requires automatic sprinkler systems in portions of existing buildings, when that portion of the building undergoes a change of use from a non-residential use to a residential use. As the codes are currently amended and adopted, exempting IRC regulated detached dwellings from automatic sprinkler requirements and allowing the same dwellings to be used as vacation homes has resulted in unequal regulations for buildings of similar designs, comparable uses and comparable hazards. Additionally, allowing vacation homes to have increased occupant loads of more than eight persons further complicates the issues, including reducing some requirements currently in effect. 109 2 In the opinion of the Chief Building Official, in order to fairly and consistently administer the provisions of the International Building Codes, it is necessary to amend these codes to address local concerns relating to vacation homes. One means to address these local concerns is to provide definitions for uses based on established criteria. When definitions have been developed which clearly and accurately describe specific criteria, then regulations can be established specific to use(s) which comply with the definitions. The philosophy of regulating different uses/hazards by different requirements is a fundamental philosophy of the International Building Codes. The following proposed amendments to the International Residential Code have been developed to specifically address direction provided to the Chief Building Official by the Town Board of Trustees at the study sessions on 2017-01-24 and 2017-03-14. The Chief Building Official understood the general direction from the Town Board to include the following: 1. Do not regulate vacation homes as a change of use; regulate them by the IRC. 2.Maintain the current provision of exempting automatic sprinkler requirements for one- and two-family dwellings regulated by the IRC. 3.Do not retroactively require sprinkler systems in existing vacation homes which may legally have occupant loads of more than eight, where they comply with specific requirements of the EVDC as of the effective date of these amendments. 4.Determine maximum allowable occupant loads for vacation homes based on the number of bedrooms (2 per bedroom plus 2 additional persons). 5. Provide a definition for small hotel. 6. Provide provisions for life safety inspections of vacation homes. 7.Provide provisions to ensure required exits are readily identifiable and properly functioning. After receiving direction from the Trustees on 2017-01-24, the Chief Building Official presented the Trustees’ direction to the Board of Appeals during two public meetings. At the conclusion of the second Board of Appeals meeting, on 2017-03-02, the Board of Appeals recommended support for the proposed amendments as they are presented here. If the Board of Trustees agrees these proposed amendments to the IRC accomplish the Trustee’s goals, then the Chief Building Official will prepare proposed amendments to the IBC, IEBC and IPMC to make their provisions consistent with the following proposed amendments to the IRC. The following proposed amendments to the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC); relating to single family dwellings, vacation homes and hotels, are recommended to the Estes Park Board of Trustees for adoption. 110 3 LEGEND All amendments in this presentation are PROPOSED and are not applicable unless approved by the elected officials. All proposed amendments are written based on current requirements in the codes as adopted. Red strike through: Text which is deleted. Blue underscore: Text which is added. Yellow highlight: Staff commentary. 111 4 2015 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE (IRC) R101.1 Title. These provisions shall be known as the Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings of The Town of Estes Park, and shall be cited as such and will be referred to herein as “this code.” R101.2 Scope. The provisions of the International Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, removal and demolition of detached one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress and their accessory structures not more than three stories above grade plane in height. Exceptions: 1.Live/work units located in townhouses and complying with the requirements of Section 419 of the International Building Code shall be permitted to be constructed in accordance with the International Residential Code for One- and Two-Family Dwellings. Fire suppression required by Section 419.5 of the International Building Code where constructed under the International Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings shall conform to Section P2904. 2.Owner-occupied lodging houses with five or fewer guestrooms shall be permitted to be constructed in accordance with the International Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings where equipped with a fire sprinkler system in accordance with Section P2904. R101.3 Intent. The purpose of this code is to establish minimum requirements to safeguard the public safety, health and general welfare through affordability, structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, light and ventilation, energy conservation and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment and to provide safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. 112 5 DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DSFD) PRIMARY USE IS LIVING, NOT COMMERCE REGULATED BY THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE (IRC) DETACHED MEANS NOT PHYSICALLY ATTACHED TO OTHER DWELLINGS AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED BY CODE, NOT REQUIRED BY LOCAL AMENDMENT FIRE-RESISTANCE-RATED HOUSE-GARAGE SEPARATION REQUIRED 113 6 TWO-FAMILY DWELLING (OVER - UNDER) TWO ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS PRIMARY USE IS LIVING, NOT COMMERCE REGULATED BY THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE (IRC) ATTACHED MEANS PHYSICALLY ATTACHED TO OTHER DWELLING(S) AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED BY CODE, NOT REQUIRED BY LOCAL AMENDMENT TWO-HOUR FIRE-RESISTANCE-RATED UNIT SEPARATION REQUIRED NO SEPARATION REQUIRED FOR CARPORT 114 7 TWO-FAMILY DWELLING (SIDE BY SIDE) TWO ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS PRIMARY USE IS LIVING, NOT COMMERCE REGULATED BY THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE (IRC) AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED BY CODE, NOT REQUIRED BY LOCAL AMENDMENT TWO-HOUR FIRE-RESISTANCE-RATED UNIT SEPARATION REQUIRED FIRE-RESISTANCE-RATED HOUSE-GARAGE SEPARATION REQUIRED 115 8 TOWNHOUSE(S) (>2 UNITS SIDE BY SIDE) MORE THAN TWO ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS PRIMARY USE IS LIVING, NOT COMMERCE REGULATED BY THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE (IRC) AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED BY CODE ONE-HOUR FIRE-RESISTANCE-RATED UNIT SEPARATIONS REQUIRED FIRE-RESISTANCE-RATED HOUSE-GARAGE SEPARATION REQUIRED 116 9 MIXED-USE BUILDING WITH MULTIPLE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND COMMERCIAL USES PRIMARY USE IS LIVING AND/OR COMMERCE REGULATED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC) AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED (NFPA 13) ONE-HOUR FIRE-RESISTANCE-RATED UNIT SEPARATIONS REQUIRED FIRE-RESISTANCE-RATED SEPARATIONS REQUIRED FROM ALL OTHER USES 117 10 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE IRC: Add exception 3 to Section R101.2 Scope, as follows: 3. Vacation homes shall be permitted to be regulated in accordance with the International Residential Code for one-and two-family dwellings, where the dwellings legally existed prior to the effective date of this provision and where compliant with Section R327. The purpose of this proposed amendment is to include within the scoping provisions of the IRC, all legally existing dwellings currently regulated by the IRC, legally used as vacation homes, currently or at some future time. This exception applies to all legally existing single family dwellings in all zone districts. It also applies whether or not the dwelling has previously been used as a vacation home. However, this provision is limited to vacation homes with an occupant load of less than nine; it does not apply to large vacation homes (nine or more occupants). Other proposed amendments include definitions which define vacation homes and large vacation homes based on whether the occupant load is less than nine, or nine and more. Per the proposed amendments in this presentation, existing dwellings used as large vacation homes will be regulated by the IBC, with one exception, which is discussed with the next proposed exception to the scoping provisions of the IRC. See exception 4, regarding large vacation homes. A building permit is required for buildings or portions of buildings if/when the number of occupants (occupant load) is increased beyond the maximum approved occupant load. In other words, increasing the occupant load of a vacation home or changing a vacation home (less than nine occupants) to a large vacation home (nine or more occupants) requires a permit and approval from the Building Division. This is not a change in requirements; it is a fundamental philosophy of the IEBC and has been so since the 2000 edition. It is also consistent with the intent of the EVDC. 118 11 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE IRC: Add exception 4 to Section R101.2 Scope, as follows: 4.Large vacation homes shall be permitted to be regulated in accordance with the International Residential Code for one-and two-family dwellings, where a 2017 vacation home or large vacation home license was applied for prior to April 01, 2017 and where compliant with Section R327. The occupant load for large vacation homes regulated by the International Residential Code shall be determined based on the number of bedrooms approved in conjunction with the 2017 license application received prior to April 01, 2017. Per direction from the Town Board, the purpose of this exception is to include existing dwellings, which may be approved to have occupant loads of nine or more, in compliance with the requirements of the EVDC. The purpose of this proposed exception is to allow these large vacation homes to be regulated by the IRC and not the IBC. Being regulated by the IRC exempts these large vacation homes from requirements of the IBC, including, but not limited to, automatic sprinkler and accessibility requirements. It does not exempt the property owners and property managers from compliance with Federal and State accessibility requirements. In the EVDC, the provision for applications received prior to April 01, 2017 applies only to large vacation homes in residential zone districts; however, in the building codes, this exception applies regardless of the zone district. Under the current provisions of the EVDC, the number of large vacation homes in residential zone districts is limited and there will be no additional large vacation homes (allowable occupant loads of nine or more). Additionally, in residential zone districts, the occupant load for large vacation homes is limited by the EVDC, based on the number of bedrooms on the pre April 01, 2017 license application; and, the occupant load cannot be increased, regardless of alterations and/or additions. In the EVDC this occupant load limitation is restricted to large vacation homes in residential zone districts; however, in the building codes it is applicable to all large vacation homes, regardless of the zone district. In residential zone districts the occupant load for large vacation homes may not be increased; in other zone districts the occupant load may be increased, but will result in no longer being regulated by the IRC. The occupant load for large vacation homes regulated by the IRC is limited by the number of bedrooms listed on the pre April 01, 2017 vacation home license application, providing the bedrooms have been approved for sleeping purposes by the building division. The occupant load for large vacation homes regulated by the IBC may be increased by increasing the number of bedrooms through alterations and/or additions; and, is limited only by the number of bedrooms, regardless of the date of application. However, increasing the occupant load of large vacation homes beyond what is approved with the pre April 01, 2017 license application will result in regulation by the IBC, including, but not limited to, retroactive automatic sprinkler requirements. 119 12 Except for the large vacation homes included (“grandfathered”) in this exception, changing a vacation home to a large vacation home results in regulation under the IBC, regardless of the zone district. Increasing the occupant load of a large vacation home also results in regulating the large vacation home under the IBC. The significance of being regulated by the IBC instead of the IRC is dwellings regulated by the IBC are not exempt from requirements such as automatic sprinkler systems, accessibility, etc. The only large vacation homes which will be regulated by the IRC are those which had applied for a 2017 license prior to April 01, 2017 and which do not increase their occupant load beyond that which is approved in conjunction with the 2017 license application. This does not restrict alterations and/or additions to single family dwellings; it does regulate the approved occupant load. 120 13 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE IRC: Add exception 5 to Section R101.2 Scope, as follows: 5.Vacation homes constructed under permits applied for on or after the effective date of this provision shall be permitted to be regulated in accordance with the International Residential Code for one-and two-family dwellings, where new large vacation homes are prohibited by land use regulations and where compliant with Section R327. The purpose of this proposed amendment is to allow all dwellings in residential zone districts to be regulated by the IRC, regardless of their size or number of bedrooms. In residential zone districts, the EVDC has far more restrictions of uses, including vacation homes and large vacation homes. This exception recognizes those restrictions and maintains the current application of the codes to allow all newly constructed dwellings in residential zone districts to be regulated by the IRC, providing the design complies with the scoping provisions of the IRC. The purpose of the limitation “where new large vacation homes are prohibited by land use regulations” clarifies dwellings constructed under permits applied for after the effective date of this provision (new construction), will be regulated by the IRC, if they are located where new large vacation homes (nine or more) are not allowed. In other words, newly constructed vacation homes will be regulated by the IRC, if they comply with this exception. This exception includes all new construction in all residential zone districts, unless the EVDC is revised at a future date, to allow additional large vacation homes, beyond those which are included in the previous exception. Should the EVDC be revised to allow additional large vacation homes, then this provision would retroactively regulate them by the IBC and not the IRC. Being regulated by the IBC, includes, but is not limited to, automatic sprinkler requirements. 121 14 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE IRC: Add exception 6 to Section R101.2 Scope, as follows: 6.Vacation homes constructed under permits applied for on or after the effective date of this provision shall be permitted to be regulated in accordance with the International Residential Code for one-and two-family dwellings; where new large vacation homes are allowed; where they have less than 1800 square feet of enclosed floor area, excluding attached garages; and where compliant with Section R327. The purpose of this proposed amendment is to allow newly constructed vacation homes in non- residential zone districts to be regulated by the IRC, if they have limited size (less than 1800 square feet) and limited occupant loads (Less than 9). In residential zone districts, the EVDC has far more restrictions of uses, including limitations on vacation home occupant loads. This exception recognizes those restrictions and maintains the current application of the codes to allow all newly constructed vacation homes, regardless of zone districts, to be regulated by the IRC, providing the buildings comply with the scoping provisions of the IRC and have a maximum approved occupant load of less than nine. For purposes of determining the maximum allowable occupant load for all vacation homes and large vacation homes regulated by the IRC, the Town Board wants to use the number of bedrooms (2 persons per bedroom + 2 additional persons). However, the IBC determines the occupant load based on use and area. For residential uses regulated by the IBC, the occupant load is calculated by attributing one person for every 200 square feet of floor area. Per the IBC, a residential use area of 1800 square feet has a minimum design occupant load of nine. The minimum design occupant load in the IBC is a primary factor in determining many other code requirements. It is necessary, therefore, in non-residential zone districts, where occupant loads are not limited by the EVDC, to determine when a large vacation home is no longer regulated by the IRC but by the IBC. This provision will have no applicability to dwellings built in residential zone districts, unless the EVDC is revised at a future date, to allow additional large vacation homes (occupant loads of nine or more) or to allow existing large vacation homes to increase their occupant loads above what is approved in conjunction with a 2017 vacation home license application. Should the EVDC be revised to allow additional large vacation homes or increased occupant loads of “grandfathered” large vacation homes, then this provision would retroactively regulate them by the IBC and not the IRC. Being regulated by the IBC, includes, but is not limited to, automatic sprinkler requirements. 122 15 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE IRC: Add exception 7 to Section R101.2 Scope, as follows: 7.Vacation homes constructed under permits applied for on or after the effective date of this provision shall be permitted to be regulated in accordance with the International Residential Code for one-and two-family dwellings, where constructed under a Development Plan approved prior to the effective date of this provision and no floor area or additional rooms used for sleeping purposes are added beyond the approved Development plan and where compliant with Section R327. The purpose of this proposed exception is to allow dwellings which have been previously approved for construction under a Development Plan to be regulated by the IRC and not the IBC, provided they do not add additional bedrooms or floor area. This exempts these vacation homes or large vacation homes from complying with the automatic sprinkler and accessibility requirements in the IBC. It does not exempt the property owners and property managers from compliance with Federal and State accessibility requirements. This provision applies in all zone districts, to allow previously approved developments to be completed as previously approved. 123 16 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE IRC: Add the following definition to Section R202 Definitions: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU): A dwelling unit, either attached or detached, which is on the same lot and under the same ownership as the primary dwelling. When accessory dwelling units and primary dwelling units are attached, they shall be regulated as two attached single family dwellings. This amendment clarifies for purposes of the IRC, attached accessory dwelling units shall be regulated as two attached single family dwellings (a two-family dwelling), requiring two-hour fire-resistance-rated separations between the dwelling units, one-hour if the units are protected with automatic sprinkler systems. 124 17 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE IRC: Add the following definition to Section R202 Definitions: Hotel: A building or a portion of a building which contains dwelling units and/or sleeping units where accommodations are provided for nine or more occupants transient in nature and where units may be individually rented. For the purposes of this discussion, the primary difference between a dwelling unit and a sleeping unit is the presence of a permanent kitchen in a dwelling unit. Rooms used for sleeping purposes within individual dwellings are not considered sleeping units and do not require one- hour or two-hour fire-resistance-rated separations between them, as do sleeping units in hotels and other residential uses. Some hotels provide dwelling units, some provide sleeping units and some provide both. Sleeping units in hotels do not qualify as dwellings (no permanent kitchen) and are not included in the scoping provisions of the IRC and are therefore regulated by the IBC. All Hotels, including small hotels are regulated by the IBC, including requirements for automatic sprinkler systems, accessibility provisions, etc. The one exception is some small hotels will not require automatic sprinkler systems, if they comply with specific design criteria which represent uses and hazards comparable to vacation homes (not large vacation homes). 125 18 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE IRC: Add the following definition to Section R202 Definitions: Large Vacation Home: A one-family dwelling constructed in compliance with the scoping provisions of the International Residential Code, where accommodations are provided for a single group of nine or more occupants transient in nature and where rooms may not be individually rented to guests which are not part of the group. The IBC determines minimum design occupant loads based on the combination of the area and the use of the building or portion of the building. For residential uses, the IBC occupant load factor is one person per every 200 square feet of floor area. For example, a 1,800 square foot hotel unit or apartment unit has a minimum design occupant load of 9; and, the means of egress (exiting system) and some other code requirements must be designed for at least that occupant load. Buildings or portions of buildings are allowed to have occupant loads greater than minimum design occupant loads; but, only after it is documented the buildings are structurally designed for the increased floor loads, the means of egress systems (potentially including sprinkler systems) are designed for the increased occupant loads, the plumbing facilities are designed for the increased occupant loads, etc. According to the International Existing Building Code (IEBC) increasing occupant loads greater than minimum design occupant loads is a change in the character of how buildings are used and requires approval by the Building Official. The process for approval is a code analysis by an Architect, a change of use permit, inspections and a Certificate of Occupancy for the new use. The purpose of the code analysis is to determine what, if any, requirements are necessary for the new use/increased occupant load. The purpose of the inspection(s) is to determine if the building or portion of the building undergoing the change of use/increased occupant load is compliant with requirements of the codes for the new use(s)/increased occupant load(s). Compliance requirements and inspections are limited to the areas undergoing the change of use(s), with three exceptions. First, the change of use can have no adverse impact on code requirements for the existing portion of the building which is not undergoing a change of use. Second, based on requirements of the new use, alterations may be required to other portions of the building (automatic sprinkler system, means of egress, plumbing facilities, etc.). Any non-compliant conditions in portions of the building which are created by a change of use in other areas of the building must be mitigated. Third, in residential uses, smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms are retroactively required throughout the unit when a bedroom is added or when a dwelling unit or sleeping unit undergoes an interior alteration requiring a permit. All of these issues are required to be addressed with the code analysis of the building and the building’s uses. This is the purpose of the code analysis. 126 19 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE IRC: Add the following definition to Section R202 Definitions: Small Hotel: A building or a portion of a building which contains dwelling units and/or sleeping units where accommodations are provided for less than nine occupants, transient in nature and where units may be individually rented. The significance of the occupant load of less than nine is to keep requirements for small hotels consistent with requirements for vacation homes, if they have comparable uses and comparable hazards. Buildings of comparable uses and hazards should be regulated similarly as a matter of fairness. What always differentiates hotels from vacation homes is hotel units may be rented to multiple non-associated individuals while vacation homes may only be rented to an associated group. Small hotels may be designed under the scoping provisions of the IRC or they may be designed under the scoping provisions of the IBC. Therefore, not all small hotels will be regulated equally; requirements will depend on their design or whether or not they are located within a mixed use (commercial) building. 127 20 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE IRC: Add the following definition to Section R202 Definitions: Transient: Occupancy of a dwelling unit or sleeping unit for not more than 30 Days. This definition of transient is copied verbatim from the International Building Code (IBC). In the IBC, transient residential uses are what typically classify buildings or portions of buildings as hotels/motels; regardless of the number of occupants (occupant load). The IBC primarily regulates buildings based on how they are used. Specific uses in buildings or portions of buildings have inherent hazards; and, specific building code requirements are intended to mitigate the hazards associated with various use(s). With very few exceptions, in the IBC every building or portion of a building used for transient residential use is classified as a hotel or motel. In the building codes, “transient” does not imply a negative condition; it simply means residential occupancy for not more than 30 consecutive days. 128 21 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE IRC: Add the following definition to Section R202 Definitions: Vacation Home: A one-family dwelling constructed in compliance with the scoping provisions of the International Residential Code, where accommodations are provided for a single group of less than nine occupants transient in nature and where rooms may not be individually rented to guests which are not part of the group. There are no occupancy classifications (hotel, restaurant, etc.) in the IRC; because, it is assumed/intended all dwellings will be used for non-transient living purposes. If a dwelling undergoes a change of use, it is to be regulated by the IEBC. At the direction of the Town Board, vacation homes are not to be regulated as a change of use and are to be regulated by the IRC. It is therefore necessary to define what a vacation home is. The significance of the language “constructed in compliance with the scoping provisions of the International Residential Code” means it must be either a detached single-family dwelling, or a detached two family dwelling, or an attached townhouse; and does not exceed three stories All other buildings or portions of buildings where nightly accommodations are provided for occupants which are transient in nature have additional hazards, are regulated differently and are therefore defined differently, such as hotels/motels or small hotels. 129 22 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE IRC: Add the following definition to Section R202 Definitions: Vacation Home Occupant Load: For the purposes of using a dwelling as a vacation home, the approved maximum number of occupants shall be determined by allowing 2 occupants per approved bedroom plus 2 additional occupants. In vacation homes, all occupants shall sleep only in rooms designated and approved for sleeping purposes. There are no occupant load criteria or occupant load requirements in the IRC, as there are in the IBC. If the number of occupants for vacation homes is to be limited or otherwise regulated, then a means for determining maximum approved occupant loads must be established in the IRC. For the purpose of this discussion occupants refer to overnight/sleeping occupants, not persons who may be visiting the group. This method of calculating occupant loads based on the number of bedrooms is applicable only to vacation homes and large vacation homes regulated by the IRC. The IBC has a means for calculating occupant loads and many requirements are associated with that occupant load, which is the minimum design occupant load. If it is intended to allow the additional two persons (plus two) to sleep in rooms other than those designated as bedrooms, then such rooms shall be identified and shall comply with all the requirements for rooms used for sleeping purposes (emergency escape and rescue openings, smoke alarms, carbon monoxide alarms, types and locations of gas appliances, no direct access from a garage, etc.). The building codes do not use the term bedroom, they refer to “rooms used for sleeping purposes” and such rooms must comply with specific requirements which are not applicable to other rooms in dwellings. When plans are submitted to the Building Division, every room/space is required to have an identified use. Only those rooms identified on the plans as bedrooms are required to comply with the requirements for rooms used for sleeping purposes. When plans submitted for a building permit identify rooms as dens, offices, sewing rooms, hobby rooms, lofts, bonus rooms, etc., they are not required to comply with the requirements for “rooms used for sleeping purposes.” If/when rooms not previously approved for sleeping purposes are converted to rooms used for sleeping purposes; a change of use permit is required. The purpose of the change of use permit is to authorize the Building Official to inspect the area undergoing the change of use to ensure it complies with the requirements for the new use. After the Building Official inspects the building or portion of building undergoing the change of use and finds no violations, then the Building Official shall issue a Certificate of Occupancy for the new use. The official number and location of approved “rooms used for sleeping purposes” are those which are documented in the records of the Building Division. Rooms not previously approved as bedrooms according to Building Division records may undergo a change of use through the process provided for in the codes. NOTE: Inspections associated with change of use permits for specific portions of a vacation home are not the “vacation home life safety survey” which will encompass the entire building and is discussed later. 130 23 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE IRC: Revise Section R313 as follows: SECTION R313 AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS R313.1 Townhouse automatic fire sprinkler systems. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in townhouses. Exception: An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required where additions or alterations are made to existing townhouses that do not have an automatic residential fire sprinkler system installed. R313.1.1 Design and installation. Automatic residential fire sprinkler systems for townhouses shall be designed and installed in accordance with Section P2904 or NFPA13D standards. R313.2 One- and two-family dwellings automatic fire sprinkler systems. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required be installed in detached one- and two- family dwellings. Exception: An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required for additions or alterations to existing buildings that are not already provided with an automatic residential sprinkler system. R313.2.1 Design and installation. If installed, Aautomatic residential fire sprinkler systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with Section P2904 or NFPA 13D standards. This proposed amendment maintains provisions of the current amendment, exempting sprinkler requirements for most newly constructed detached one-and two-family dwellings. It also maintains the current requirement for automatic sprinkler systems in newly constructed townhouses (more than two dwelling units in a building) and dwellings with more than three stories. What is new is the deletion of allowing automatic sprinkler systems in compliance with Section P2904 of the IRC. The purpose for this deletion is to insure the installation and maintenance of all sprinkler systems are the jurisdiction of the Fire District. Because provisions for P2904 systems are in the Plumbing and Residential codes and are not in the Fire Code, the Fire District does not have jurisdiction to regulate them. Since the provision for P2904 systems was first introduced in the 2009 IRC, no such system has been installed within Town limits. If P2904 systems are allowed within Town limits, they will be regulated by the Building Division and not the Fire District. Deleting this provision is not necessary, but will avoid confusion as to which systems are regulated by which entity. Typically the Building Official determines the requirements for automatic sprinkler systems, including the type of system required, and the Fire Marshal permits, inspects and approves the appropriate systems. 131 24 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE IRC: Add Section R327 as follows: SECTION R327 VACATION HOME AND LARGE VACATION HOME LIFE SAFETY SURVEY R327.1 General. Vacation homes and large vacation homes shall comply with Section R327. Prior to occupancy as a vacation home or a large vacation home in 2019, the dwelling shall have been issued a Certificate of Occupancy in accordance with R327.3. R327.2 Life safety survey. After December 31, 2018, a vacation home or a large vacation home shall not be approved for occupancy until the Building Official performs and approves a life safety survey. At minimum, vacation home and large vacation home life safety surveys shall include the provisions of R327.2.1 through R327.2.18. R327.2.1 Address identification. Vacation homes and large vacation homes shall have approved address identification, in compliance with the requirements of the International Building Code in effect at the time of the survey. R327.2.2 Unapproved uses. Uses of all rooms/spaces shall comply with approved uses per Building Division records. Change of use permits, inspections and approvals shall be required for all rooms with uses different from Building Division records. R327.2.3 Unpermitted work. All unpermitted work shall be permitted, compliant and approved. R327.2.4 Unapproved work. All unapproved work authorized by permits which have expired shall be re-permitted, compliant and approved. R327.2.5 Structural concerns. Obvious structural concerns shall be mitigated. R327.2.6 Emergency escape and rescue openings. Compliant emergency escape and rescue openings shall be provided for all spaces used for sleeping purposes. R327.2.7 Window wells. When required, compliant window wells shall be properly installed at emergency escape and rescue openings. R327.2.8 Smoke alarms. Approved smoke alarms shall be properly installed at all locations required for new construction. R327.2.9 Carbon monoxide alarms. Approved carbon monoxide alarms shall be properly installed at all locations required for new construction. 132 25 R327.2.10 Fuel gas appliances. a.Fuel gas appliances shall be in approved locations. b.Fuel gas appliances shall be in dedicated spaces, where applicable. c.Fuel gas appliances shall comply with required clearances. d.Fuel gas appliances shall be provided with required combustion air. e.Fuel gas appliances shall be connected to approved venting systems. f.Fuel gas appliances shall have required temperature and pressure relief valves. g.Fuel gas appliances shall have proper condensate disposal. h. Rooms/spaces containing fuel gas appliances shall be properly fire-blocked. i. Other than existing cook tops, no ventless fuel gas appliances are allowed in Estes Park. R327.2.11 Dwelling/garage separation. Dwellings shall be separated from garages with materials on the garage side as required for new construction. R327.2.12 Environmental duct terminations. Dryer ducts and exhaust fans shall terminate at approved locations. R327.2.13 Handrails. Approved handrails shall be properly installed at locations as required for new construction. R327.2.14 Guards. Approved guards shall be properly installed at locations as required for new construction. R327.2.15 Cook stove. Anti-tip devices shall be installed for all cook stoves. R327.2.16 Wildfire hazard. Wildfire defensible spaces shall be maintained as required for new construction, as it relates to vegetation, not to building construction. R327.2.17 Fire pits. Exterior fire pits shall comply with Fire Department requirements. R327.2.18 Lighting at exterior stairs. Lighting at exterior stairs shall be properly installed as required for new construction. R327.3 Certificate of Occupancy. After a life safety survey has been performed and approved, the Building Official shall issue a Certificate of Occupancy for use as a vacation home or a large vacation home. In addition to other requirements for Certificates of Occupancy in this code, Certificates of Occupancy for vacation homes and large vacation homes shall specify the number of rooms approved for sleeping purposes and the maximum approved occupant load for use as a vacation home or large vacation home. 133 26 If the requirement for life safety surveys for vacation homes and large vacation homes is to be approved, there are multiple issues which must be addressed. First without regulating the vacation home as a change of use, the dwelling only has to comply with codes in effect at the time it was built or to what codes were in effect when permits were required for past repairs and alterations. The amount of research time to determine specific requirements will greatly exceed the amount of inspection time. Second, unless the Building Official has reason to believe there is an eminent threat to life or property; or unless work requiring a permit is performed; the Building Official has no authority to inspect the property. Third, apart from an eminent hazard, compliance requirements and inspections are limited to areas undergoing repairs or alterations, with two exceptions. First, a repair or alteration can have no adverse impact on code requirements for the existing portion of the building which is not part of the repair/alteration. This issue is typically addressed with a code analysis of the building. Any non-compliant conditions which are created by a repair/alteration in other areas of the building shall be mitigated. Second, in residential uses, smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms are retroactively required when a bedroom is added or when a dwelling unit or sleeping unit undergoes an interior alteration requiring a permit. Fourth, if vacation homes are not regulated as a change of use, for the Building Official to have authority to inspect them, provisions for the inspections must be included in the codes. Additionally specific criteria/standards for the inspection must also be included in the codes. It is also important and reasonable for the public to know and understand what is to be inspected and to what standards. Therefore the codes should specify what issues are to be inspected and the standards to which specific issues must comply. The Chief building Official recommends the items specified in the proposed amendments above be the life safety survey for vacation homes and large vacation homes. It is called a survey, because it is not a complete inspection of the dwelling. Prior to issuance of a certificate of Occupancy for a new dwelling, the final building inspection includes more than 250 specific items. The above proposed survey covers approximately 15% - 20% of those items. Once issues to be inspected and the standards to which they are to be inspected are approved, staff will prepare topic specific handouts. Handouts will clearly detail requirements for a specific issue. Some items are recommended to comply with current code requirements and others are not. For both conditions, the handouts will provide as much detailed information as necessary for property owners to understand their responsibilities to comply with the requirements for life safety surveys of vacation homes and large vacation homes. 134 27 SUMMARY The above proposed amendments are specific to the Town of Estes Park and are not applicable unless they are approved by the Town Board of Trustees after a public hearing. If/once approved by the Town Trustees, they have no applicability in the unincorporated areas of the Estes Valley, unless/until they are approved by the County Commissioners. It is the goal of the Town of Estes Park Building official and the goal of the Larimer County Building Official to have building code regulations for dwellings, vacation homes and hotels which are consistent throughout the Estes Valley. Staff for both the Town and the County has worked diligently to include all stakeholders in the discussion of the issues associated with these proposed amendments. It is the opinion of the Chief Building Official for the Town of Estes Park that these proposed amendments represent either the informed consent or the reasonable compromise of all parties included in the process to develop them. 135 28 EXHIBIT A PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 2015 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE RELATING TO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, VACATION HOMES AND HOTELS Add the following exceptions to Section R101.2 Scope: 3.Vacation homes shall be permitted to be regulated in accordance with the International Residential Code for one-and two-family dwellings, where the dwellings legally existed prior to the effective date of this provision and where compliant with Section R327. 4.Large vacation homes shall be permitted to be regulated in accordance with the International Residential Code for one-and two-family dwellings, where a 2017 vacation home or large vacation home license was applied for prior to April 01, 2017 and where compliant with Section R327. The occupant load for large vacation homes regulated by the International Residential Code shall be determined based on the number of bedrooms approved in conjunction with the 2017 license application received prior to April 01, 2017. 5.Vacation homes constructed under permits applied for on or after the effective date of this provision shall be permitted to be regulated in accordance with the International Residential Code for one-and two-family dwellings, where new large vacation homes are prohibited by land use regulations and where compliant with Section R327. 6.Vacation homes constructed under permits applied for on or after the effective date of this provision shall be permitted to be regulated in accordance with the International Residential Code for one-and two-family dwellings; where new large vacation homes are allowed; where they have less than 1800 square feet of enclosed floor area, excluding attached garages; and where compliant with Section R327. 7.Vacation homes constructed under permits applied for on or after the effective date of this provision shall be permitted to be regulated in accordance with the International Residential Code for one-and two-family dwellings, where constructed under a Development Plan approved prior to the effective date of this provision and no floor area or additional rooms used for sleeping purposes are added beyond the approved Development plan and where compliant with Section R327. 136 29 Add the following definitions to Section R202 Definitions: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). A dwelling unit, either attached or detached, which is on the same lot and under the same ownership as the primary dwelling. When accessory dwelling units and primary dwelling units are attached, they shall be regulated as two attached single family dwellings. Hotel. A building or a portion of a building which contains dwelling units and/or sleeping units where accommodations are provided for nine or more occupants transient in nature and where units may be individually rented. Large Vacation Home. A one-family dwelling constructed in compliance with the scoping provisions of the International Residential Code, where accommodations are provided for a single group of nine or more occupants transient in nature and where rooms may not be individually rented to guests which are not part of the group. Small Hotel. A building or a portion of a building which contains dwelling units and/or sleeping units where accommodations are provided for less than nine occupants, transient in nature and where units may be individually rented. Transient. Occupancy of a dwelling unit or sleeping unit for not more than 30 Days. Vacation Home. A one-family dwelling constructed in compliance with the scoping provisions of the International Residential Code, where accommodations are provided for a single group of less than nine occupants transient in nature and where rooms may not be individually rented to guests which are not part of the group. Vacation Home Occupant Load. For the purposes of using a dwelling as a vacation home, the approved maximum number of occupants shall be determined by allowing 2 occupants per approved bedroom plus 2 additional occupants. In vacation homes, all occupants shall sleep only in rooms designated and approved for sleeping purposes. Revise Sections R313.1.1 through R31.2.1 as follows: R313.1.1 Design and installation. Automatic residential fire sprinkler systems for townhouses shall be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA standards. R313.2 One- and two-family dwellings automatic fire sprinkler systems. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required in detached one- and two- family dwellings. R313.2.1 Design and installation. If installed, automatic residential fire sprinkler systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA standards. 137 30 Add Section R327 as follows: SECTION R327 VACATION HOME AND LARGE VACATION HOME LIFE SAFETY SURVEY R327.1 General. Vacation homes and large vacation homes shall comply with Section R327. Prior to occupancy as a vacation home or a large vacation home in 2019, the dwelling shall have been issued a Certificate of Occupancy in accordance with R327.3. R327.2 Life safety survey. After December 31, 2018, a vacation home or a large vacation home shall not be approved for occupancy until the Building Official performs and approves a life safety survey. At minimum, vacation home and large vacation home life safety surveys shall include the provisions of R327.2.1 through R327.2.18. R327.2.1 Address identification. Vacation homes and large vacation homes shall have approved address identification, in compliance with the requirements of the International Building Code in effect at the time of the survey. R327.2.2 Unapproved uses. Uses of all rooms/spaces shall comply with approved uses per Building Division records. Change of use permits, inspections and approvals shall be required for all rooms with uses different from Building Division records. R327.2.3 Unpermitted work. All unpermitted work shall be permitted, compliant and approved. R327.2.4 Unapproved work. All unapproved work authorized by permits which have expired shall be re-permitted, compliant and approved. R327.2.5 Structural concerns. Obvious structural concerns shall be mitigated. R327.2.6 Emergency escape and rescue openings. Compliant emergency escape and rescue openings shall be provided for all spaces used for sleeping purposes. R327.2.7 Window wells. When required, compliant window wells shall be properly installed at emergency escape and rescue openings. R327.2.8 Smoke alarms. Approved smoke alarms shall be properly installed at all locations required for new construction. R327.2.9 Carbon monoxide alarms. Approved carbon monoxide alarms shall be properly installed at all locations required for new construction. 138 31 R327.2.10 Fuel gas appliances. a.Fuel gas appliances shall be in approved locations. b.Fuel gas appliances shall be in dedicated spaces, where applicable. c.Fuel gas appliances shall comply with required clearances. d. Fuel gas appliances shall be provided with required combustion air. e.Fuel gas appliances shall be connected to approved venting systems. f.Fuel gas appliances shall have required temperature and pressure relief valves. g.Fuel gas appliances shall have proper condensate disposal. h. Rooms/spaces containing fuel gas appliances shall be properly fire-blocked. i.Other than existing cook tops, no ventless fuel gas appliances are allowed in Estes Park. R327.2.11 Dwelling/garage separation. Dwellings shall be separated from garages with materials on the garage side as required for new construction. R327.2.12 Environmental duct terminations. Dryer ducts and exhaust fans shall terminate at approved locations. R327.2.13 Handrails. Approved handrails shall be properly installed at locations as required for new construction. R327.2.14 Guards. Approved guards shall be properly installed at locations as required for new construction. R327.2.15 Cook stove. Anti-tip devices shall be installed for all cook stoves. R327.2.16 Wildfire hazard. Wildfire defensible spaces shall be maintained as required for new construction, as it relates to vegetation, not to building construction. R327.2.17 Fire pits. Exterior fire pits shall comply with Fire Department requirements. R327.2.18 Lighting at exterior stairs. Lighting at exterior stairs shall be properly installed as required for new construction. R327.3 Certificate of Occupancy. After a life safety survey has been performed and approved, the Building Official shall issue a Certificate of Occupancy for use as a vacation home or a large vacation home. In addition to other requirements for Certificates of Occupancy in this code, Certificates of Occupancy for vacation homes and large vacation homes shall specify the number of rooms approved for sleeping purposes and the maximum approved occupant load for use as a vacation home or large vacation home. 139 140 1&2Family NotapplicableNoNoNoTownhouse NotapplicableNoNoNoDWELLING(house)>30daysMixedUse 1/200sfNoNoNo>2Stacked 1/200sfNoNoNo>3stories 1/200sfNoNoNoVACATIONHOME(house)1&2Family 2+2No NoYes<30days<8occupantsGrouponlyTownhouse 2+2No NoYesLARGEVACATIONHOMEIRC(house) Note12+2No:Note2NoYes<30days>9occupantsGrouponlyIBCNote31/200sfYes>1800sf Yes:Note4Yes1&2Family 1/200sfNoNoNoSMALLHOTELTownhouse 1/200sfNoNoNo<30days<8occupantsGrouporIndividualMixedUse 1/200sfNoNoNo>2Stacked 1/200sfNoNoNo>3stories 1/200sfNoNoNoHOTEL<30days>9occupantsIBCPerIBC1/200sfNoNoNoGrouporIndividualNote4:When>3dwellingunitsinabuildingor>6dwellingunitsonaproperty/developmentperFederal&StaterequirementsNote2:ThisisadecreasefromcurrentrequirementsNote3:LargevacationhomeswillberegulatedbytheIBCifANYofthefollowingapply:1.Noapplicationfor2017vacationhomelicensepriortoApril1,20172.IncreaseinoccupantloadformorethanwasapprovedonapplicationsubmittedpriortoApril1,2017IBCIRCIRCIBCPROPOSEDAMENDMENTSTOTHE2015INTERNATIONALBUILDINGCODESRELATINGTOEXISTINGSINGLEFAMILYDWELLINGS,VACATIONHOMESANDHOTELSAPPROVEDPRIORTOTHEEFFECTIVEDATEOFTHESEPROVISIONSINCLUDESFUTUREPERMITSASSOCIATEDWITHDEVELOPMENTPLANSAPPROVEDPRIORTOTHEEFFICTIVEDATEOFTHESEPROVISIONSLIFESAFETYSURVEYREQUIREDUSE/DESCRIPTIONCODE DESIGNOCCUPANTLOADFACTOR2.OccupantloaddeterminedbynumberofbedroomslistedontheapplicationsubmittedpriortoApril1,2017andapprovedbyCBO3.RequiresPlanningCommissionapprovalinresidentialzonedistrictsNote1:InordertoberegulatedbytheIRC,largevacationhomesmustcomplywithALLofthefollowing:DRAFT:2017Ͳ03Ͳ30IBC(house)NOTESYellowandpinkhighlightedboxesindicatechangesfromcurrentrequirementsRETROACTIVESPRINKLERREQUIREDRETROACTIVEACCESSIBILITYREQUIRED1.Applicationfor2017vacationhomelicensesubmittedpriortoApril1,2017141 USE/DESCRIPTIONCODE DESIGNOCCUPANTLOADFACTORSPRINKLERREQUIREDACCESSIBILITYREQUIREDLIFESAFETYSURVEYREQUIRED1&2Family notapplicableNoNoNoTownhouse notapplicableYesYes:Note4NoDWELLING(house)>30daysMixedUse 1/200sfYesYes:Note4No>2Stacked 1/200sfYesYes:Note4No>3stories 1/200sfYesYes:Note4NoVACATIONHOME(house)1&2Family 2+2No NoYes<30days<8occupantsTownhouse2+2YesYes:Note4YesGrouponlyIBCNote51/200sfYes:Note6Yes:Note4YesLARGEVACATIONHOME(house)<30days>9occupantsIBCPerIBC1/200sfYesYes:Note4YesGrouponlySMALLHOTELIRC<3units 1/200sfNoYes:PerIBC No<30days<8occupantsч1800sf/unitGrouporIndividualIRC>2units 1/200sfYesYes:PerIBC NoIBCPerIBC1/200sfYesYes:PerIBC NoHOTEL<30days>9occupantsIBCPerIBC1/200sfYesYes:PerIBC NoGrouporIndividualPROPOSEDAMENDMENTSTOTHE2015INTERNATIONALBUILDINGCODESRELATINGTONEWSINGLEFAMILYDWELLINGS,VACATIONHOMESANDHOTELSCONSTRUCTEDUNDERPERMITSYellowandpinkhighlightedboxesindicatechangesfromcurrentrequirementsIBCPROPERLYAPPLIEDFORONORAFTERTHEEFFECTIVEDATEOFTHESEPROVISIONSEXCLUDESAPPLICATIONSASSOCIATEDWITHDEVELOPMENTPLANSAPPROVEDPRIORTOTHEEFFECTIVEDATEOFTHESEPROVISIONSIRCNote4:When>3dwellingunitsinabuildingor>6dwellingunitsonaproperty/developmentIBCNote5:Wherevacationhomeoccupantloads>9areallowedandtheenclosedfloorareais>1800sfexcludinggaragesIRCDRAFT:2017Ͳ03Ͳ30NOTESNote6:Thisisanincreasefromcurrentrequirements142 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report To: Honorable Todd Jirsa Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official Date: April 25, 2017 RE: Results of the 2016 Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Survey conducted by the Insurance Services Office (ISO) Objective: Present the results of the 2016 Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO) survey of the Building Division and the resulting Building Code Effectiveness Grading Classifications (BCEGCs). Present Situation: Approximately every four to five years, ISO requests local Building Departments participate in a voluntary survey by ISO. The Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS) assesses the building codes in effect in a particular community and how the community enforces its building codes, with special emphasis on mitigation of losses from natural hazards. The ISO recently completed a survey and analysis of the building codes adopted by the Town and the administration/enforcement of those codes by staff. Building Code Effectiveness Grading Classifications (BCEGCs) assigned to building departments range from 1 to 10, with 10 being the worst and 1 being exemplary. For the Town, a BCEGC of 3 was assigned for residential properties (International Residential Code) and a BCEGC of 2 was assigned for commercial properties (International Building Code). The Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule is an insurance underwriting and information tool; it is not intended to analyze all aspects of a comprehensive building code enforcement program nor is it for purposes of determining compliance with any state or local law or for making property/casualty loss prevention and life safety recommendations. In the opinion of the Chief Building Official, BCEGCs are primarily a tool by which the community can assess the resources made available to staff by the elected officials and the Town Administration and how responsibly staff is managing those resources. The resources include, but are not limited to, staff qualifications, staffing levels, training budgets, adoption of best available data regarding geographic and climatic design criteria (wind loads, snow loads, etc.), regulations to mitigate natural hazards (wind, snow, wildfire, flood, etc.), political support for the codes and their administration/enforcement, etc. 143 The past BCEGCs for the Town of Estes Park are as follows: 1999: Residential 6 and Commercial 6 2001: Residential 4 and Commercial 4 2006: Residential 3 and Commercial 3 2011: Residential 3 and Commercial 3 2016: Residential 3 and Commercial 2 (Residential is not 2 due to exempting some sprinkler requirements in the IRC.) Attached is a copy of the ISO report, which provides specific information about the classification process and how various aspects of our community’s building codes and their enforcement were assessed. It is worth noting, ISO groups BCEGCs into ranges. ‘Buildings in communities with classifications of 9 and lower (down to 1) will receive a rating credit. A classification of 10 will receive no credit. Classifications of 1–3 will receive the highest credit. Classifications of 4–9 will receive intermediate credits.” Proposal: Municipalities with well-enforced, up-to-date codes should demonstrate better loss experience, and insurance rates can reflect that. The prospect of lessening catastrophe- related damage and ultimately lowering insurance costs provides an incentive for communities to enforce their building codes rigorously, especially as they relate to windstorm and earthquake damage. Advantages: Proper building codes enforcement results in safer buildings, less damage, and lower insured losses from catastrophes. Property insurers may use the BCEGCs to decrease premiums. Disadvantages: It takes staff approximately 100 hours to gather the data, organize it into ISO’s requested format and meet with an ISO representative to review the data. Action Recommended: Trustees’ direction to either continue or discontinue participation with ISO surveys. Budget: No impact. Level of Public Interest Low Sample Motion: I move Building Division staff continue/discontinue voluntary participation in the ISO BCEGS program. 144 November 8, 2016 Mr. Will Birchfield, Building Official Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave., PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Results Estes Park, Larimer County, CO Dear Mr. Birchfield: We wish to thank you for the cooperation given to our representative, Ivone Cruz, during our recent survey. We have completed our analysis of the building codes adopted by your community and the efforts put forth to properly enforce those codes. The resulting Building Code Effectiveness Grading Classification is 3 for 1 and 2 family residential property and 2 for commercial and industrial property. The Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO) is an insurer-supported organization with the primary mission of providing advisory insurance underwriting and rating information to insurers. There is no requirement that insurers use our advisory material. Insurers may have adopted, or may be in the process of adopting, an ISO insurance rating program that will provide rating credits to individual property insurance policies in recognition of community efforts to mitigate property damage due to natural disasters. These insurers may use the Building Code Effectiveness Grading Classification we have recently developed for your community as a basis for the credits used. While individual insurers may use different credits or different effective dates, the ISO program will apply credits to new construction within Estes Park that has been issued a Certificate of Occupancy in the year 2016 and forward. We will email our report which provides additional information about our classification process and how we have graded various aspects of your community’s building codes and their enforcement. We want to highlight the fact that the Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule is an insurance underwriting and information tool; it is not intended to analyze all aspects of a comprehensive building code enforcement program nor is it for purposes of determining compliance with any state or local law or for making property/casualty loss prevention and life safety recommendations. 1000 Bishops Gate Blvd., Suite 300 Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 tel. 1 800 444-4554 145 If you have any questions about the Classification that was developed, please let us know. Additionally, if you are planning on any future changes in your building codes or their enforcement, please advise us as these changes may affect our analysis and your community’s grading classification. Sincerely, Mary Lucidi Building Code Technical Analyst Enclosure cc: Mr. Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave., PO Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 146 In the State of Colorado In the County of Larimer Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS®) Selections from the reviews of the Building Code Enforcement Evaluation Report Estes Park Evaluation Building Code Enforcement Agency 10/3/2016 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 147 Table of Contents Tab Description Section 1 Executive Summary Section 2 Background Information Section 3 Code Adoption Section 4 Education, Training and Certification Section 5 Staffing Levels Section 6 BCEGS Point Analysis Section 7 Natural Hazards Appendix A Natural Hazard General Information ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 148 Estes Park Survey Date: Jurisdiction: 10/3/2016 State:COCounty:Larimer Section 1 Executive Summary The survey conducted has resulted in BCEGS class of 3 for 1 and 2 family dwellings and a class 2 for all other construction.More information regarding how this recent survey compares to previous surveys is provided below. The following management report was created specifically for Estes Park based on a BCEGS survey conducted on 10/3/2016.This report can help you evaluate your community’s building-code enforcement services utilizing benchmarking data collected throughout the country.The report is designed to give your management team an expanded prospective for dealing with the important issues surrounding effective building code enforcement.This is accomplished through comparisons of your code enforcement to that of others in your area and state.The analysis goes further to allow you to compare your jurisdiction to others across the country with similar permit,plan review and inspection activity.ISO thanks you for your participation and we encourage you to take advantage of the information contained in this report to assist in making decisions regarding the level of code enforcement best suited for Estes Park. Not all communities have rigorous building codes,nor do all communities enforce their codes with equal commitment.Yet the effectiveness of local building codes can have a profound effect on how the structures in your community will fare in a hurricane,earthquake,or other natural disaster. Studies conducted following recent natural disasters concluded that total losses might have been as much as 50%less if all structures in the area had met current building codes.Building-code enforcement can have a major influence on the economic well-being of a municipality and the safety of its citizens.Insurance Services Office (ISO)helps distinguish amongst communities with effective building-code adoption and enforcement through comprehensive program called the Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS®). ISO is an independent statistical,rating,and advisory organization that serves the property/casualty insurance industry.ISO collects information on a community's building-code adoption and enforcement services,analyzes the data,and then assigns a Building Code Effectiveness Classification from 1 to 10.Class 1 represents exemplary commitment to building-code enforcement. The concept behind BCEGS is simple.Municipalities with well-enforced,up-to-date codes demonstrate better loss experience,and their citizens’insurance rates can reflect that.The prospect of minimizing catastrophe-related damage and ultimately lowering insurance costs gives communities an incentive to enforce their building codes rigorously. ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 SECTION 1 149 Estes Park Survey Date: Jurisdiction: 10/3/2016 State:COCounty:Larimer 0.000.000.200.200.500.200.20Section 165 - Administrative Policies & Procedures 0.000.000.500.500.500.500.50Section 160 - Participation in Code Development Activities -0.52-0.522.502.502.501.981.98Section 155 - Public Awareness Programs 0.000.000.900.901.000.900.90Section 145 - Contractor / Builder Licensing & Bonding 0.000.001.001.001.001.001.00Section 140 - Zoning Provisions 0.000.000.000.002.000.000.00Section 135 - Design Professionals 0.000.000.250.250.500.250.25Section 130 - Selection Procedure for Building Official 0.000.003.003.004.003.003.00 Section 125 - Building Official's Qualification / Exp/ Education 1.87-0.258.348.3412.0010.218.09Section 120 - Certification -1.12-1.129.349.3413.008.228.22Section 115 - Training 1.001.000.000.001.001.001.00Section 112 Method of Adoption 0.000.003.804.004.003.804.00Section 110 - Modification to Adopted Codes 0.320.323.683.684.004.004.00Section 108 - Additional Code Adoptions 0.000.007.608.008.007.608.00Section 105 - Adopted Codes 1.55-0.5741.1141.7154.0042.6641.14Section I - Administration of Codes ResComResComResCom 2011Possible2016 DifferencePoint Previous Grading Yr:MaximumCurrent Grading Yr: Point Totals Building Code Effectiveness Grading Point Comparison Table 1 details the points your department earned during the most recent survey as well as the points earned in the previous survey including a comparison of the two.This information may be used to track local trends or pin-point improvement target areas. Table 1 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 SECTION 1 150 Estes Park Survey Date: Jurisdiction: 10/3/2016 State:COCounty:Larimer 4.484.7878.9680.53100.0083.4485.31Final Score: The final score is determined by a relationship between Item 105 and the balances of the scoring. 4.714.7882.7280.53100.0087.4385.31Subtotal: 0.000.001.001.001.001.001.00 Section 345 - Performance Evaluations for Quality Assurance 0.000.002.002.002.002.002.00Section 340 - Certificate of Occupancy 0.000.002.502.502.502.502.50Section 335 - Final Inspections 0.000.001.501.501.501.501.50Section 330 - Inspections for Natural Hazard Mitigation 0.000.000.900.901.000.900.90Section 325 - Special Inspections 0.370.371.131.132.001.501.50Section 320 - Inspection Checklist 0.000.001.001.001.001.001.00 Section 315 - Managing Inspection and Re-inspection activity 0.000.003.003.003.003.003.00Section 310 - Experience of Personnel 2.945.135.582.799.008.527.92Section 305 - Existing Staffing 3.315.5018.6115.8223.0021.9221.32Section III - Field Inspection 0.000.001.001.001.001.001.00 Section 220 - Performance Evaluation for Quality Assurance 0.000.0011.5011.5011.5011.5011.50Section 215 - Detail of Plan Review -0.15-0.151.501.501.501.351.35Section 210 - Experience of Personnel 0.000.009.009.009.009.009.00Section 205 - Existing Staffing -0.15-0.1523.0023.0023.0022.8522.85Section II - Plan Review ResComResComResCom 2011Possible2016 DifferencePoint Previous Grading Yr:MaximumCurrent Grading Yr: Point Totals Building Code Effectiveness Grading Point Comparison (continued) ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 SECTION 1 151 Estes Park Survey Date: Jurisdiction:COState: 10/3/2016 County:Larimer ISO collects information from communities in the United States on their adoption and enforcement of building codes.ISO analyzes the data using its Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS)and then assigns a BCEGS Classification number to the community.The classification number-which ranges from 1 to 10-measures a jurisdiction’s commitment to the adoption and enforcement of building codes affecting the construction of new buildings.Class 1 indicates the most favorable classification of commitment to the adoption and enforcement of building codes. ISO’s commitment to polling each building code enforcement agency on a regular basis is important to the program -periodic surveying helps determine if a community has made any significant changes since its last field evaluation.This ongoing effort is designed to re-evaluate each community at approximate 5-year intervals or sooner if changes indicate a potential revision to the classification number. Section 2 Background Information Introduction Data Collection and Analysis ISO has evaluated over 14,000 code enforcement departments across the United States.In each of these communities,three elements of building code adoption and enforcement are reviewed.These three elements are the administration of codes,plan review and field inspection. Administration of Codes: ISO evaluates the administrative support for code enforcement within the jurisdiction --the adopted building codes and the modifications of those codes through ordinance,code enforcer qualifications, experience and education,zoning provisions,contractor/builder licensing requirements,public awareness programs,the building department's participation in code development activities,and the administrative policies and procedures.This section represents 54%of the analysis in the BCEGS program. To summarize a community's scoring under the criterion contained in the BCEGS program. To identify opportunities for communities desiring to improve their BCEGS classification number. To assist a community in understanding how other jurisdictions with similar needs address building code adoption and enforcement. To provide hazard mapping information important in planning and developing a sustainable 1. 2. 3. 4. community. The purpose of this report is fourfold: SECTION 2 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 152 Estes Park Survey Date: Jurisdiction:COState: 10/3/2016 County:Larimer ISO has evaluated over 14,000 code enforcement departments across the United States.In each ofthesecommunities,three elements of building code adoption and enforcement are reviewed.Thesethreeelementsaretheadministrationofcodes,plan review and field inspection.Administration of Codes:ISO evaluates the administrative support for code enforcement within the jurisdiction --the adoptedbuildingcodesandthemodificationsofthosecodesthroughordinance,code enforcer qualifications, experience and education,zoning provisions,contractor/builder licensing requirements,public awareness programs,the building department's participation in code development activities,and the administrative policies and procedures.This section represents 54%of the analysis in the BCEGS program. Plan review division: Consideration is given to determine staffing levels,personnel experience,performance evaluation schedules,and the level of review of construction documents for compliance with the adopted building code of the jurisdiction being graded.This section represents 23%of the analysis. Field inspection: Consideration is given to determine staffing levels,personnel experience,performance evaluation schedules,and the level of the agency’s review of building construction.This section also represents 23%of the analysis. The information necessary to determine the BCEGS classification number was collected from the community building officials through a combination of on-site interviews and completed questionnaires. SECTION 2 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 153 Jurisdiction: Survey Date: Estes Park COState: 10/3/2016 County:Larimer Recognizing that building codes are continually being reviewed and updated to reflect emerging technology and best practices,the BCEGS program encourages communities to make every effort to adopt the latest edition of one of the building codes without amendments.The program is sensitive to the reality that building code adoption is not always a local issue,nor do the wheels of progress turn rapidly all the time.To receive maximum BCEGS credit for this very important section a community must adopt and implement the revised code within two years of the publication of the building code. As detailed in Figure 3-1 below,eight points are the maximum available for the adoption of a building code. The final calculation to determine a jurisdiction's BCEGS classification employs the ratio of the points possible and the points earned in the building code adoption section as a factor for all other points earned in the system.Therefore,a jurisdiction enforcing the latest building code will have a ratio of 1 and no adjustment will be made to the points earned.A department enforcing a building code that was published six years prior to the survey date would have a ratio of 6.88/8 or .86 so the jurisdiction would receive credit for 86%of the points earned throughout the evaluation process. Table 3-1 Criteria for Building Code Adoption Points Section 3 Code Adoption If the published date of the listed codes is within 5 years of the date of the grading: Building Code(s)addressing commercial and /or residential construction ..............................................................................8.00 points If the published date of the listed codes is within 6 years of the date of the grading: Building Code(s)addressing commercial and /or residential construction ..............................................................................6.88 points If the published date of the listed codes is within 10 years of the date of the grading: Building Code(s)addressing commercial and /or residential construction ..............................................................................2.21 points If an earlier edition of the listed codes is adopted: Building Code(s)addressing commercial and /or residential construction ..............................................................................0.85 point SECTION 3 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 154 Jurisdiction: Survey Date: Estes Park COState: 10/3/2016 County:Larimer Chart 3-4 BCEGS points awarded comparison 2015ICC Residential Building Code 2012/2015ICC/NFPA Commercial Building Code Publication YearPublisher Table 3-3 Building Codes Enforced in 20162015ICC Residential Building Code 20162015ICC Commercial Building Code Effective YearPublication YearPublisher The following is the first of many “Benchmarking Information”sections located in this report.The purpose of the benchmarking information is to provide data ISO has collected in the course of its evaluations of code enforcement departments throughout the country.The data should not be considered a standard but rather information which allows you to compare operations in your jurisdiction to those conducted by other jurisdictions with similar conditions.Benchmarking information will be distinguished from other information in this report by a green Benchmarking Information bar above the table or figure. Benchmarking Information Table 3-2 Latest Edition Available For departments surveyed in 2016 the BCEGS program uses the following as the latest edition of Building codes available. Estes Park Adopted Building Code SECTION 3 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 155 Jurisdiction: Survey Date: Estes Park COState: 10/3/2016 County:Larimer Item 108.Additional Code Adoptions: This section reviews the adoption and enforcement of electrical,mechanical,plumbing,energy,and wildland urban interface codes.Adopted codes are evaluated by year of publication including amendments and enforcement efforts.Table 3-5 details the criteria for earning points under this section. Table 3-5 Criteria for sub-code adoption points If the published date of the listed codes is within 5 years of the date of the grading: 0.67 point for each of the five subcodes If the published date of the listed codes is within 6 years of the date of the grading: 0.33 point for each of the five subcodes If the published date of the listed codes is within 10 years of the date of the grading: 0.18 point for each of the five subcodes If an earlier edition of the listed codes is adopted: 0.004 point for each of the five subcodes SECTION 3 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 156 Jurisdiction: Survey Date: Estes Park COState: 10/3/2016 County:Larimer For departments surveyed in 2016 the BCEGS program uses the following as the latest edition of sub -codes available. Table 3-6 Latest edition of Sub-Codes Available ICCWildland Urban Interface Code ICC / ASHRAEEnergy Code ICC / NFPAFuel Gas Code ICC / IAPMOMechanical Code ICC / IAPMOPlumbing Code NFPAElectrical Code Residential: ICCWildland Urban Interface Code ICC / ASHRAEEnergy Code ICC / NFPAFuel Gas Code ICC / IAPMOMechanical Code ICC / IAPMOPlumbing Code NFPAElectrical Code Commercial: Publication YearPublisherType of Code American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers International Code Council International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials National Fire Protection Association ASHRAE ICC IAPMO NFPA - - - - SECTION 3 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 157 Jurisdiction: Survey Date: Estes Park COState: 10/3/2016 County:Larimer 20162015ICC Wildland Urban Interface Code 20162015ICC Energy Code 20162015ICC Fuel Gas 20162015ICC Mechanical Code 20162015ICC Plumbing Code 20142014NFPA Electrical Code Residential: 20162015ICC Wildland Urban Interface Code 20162015ICC Energy Code 20162015ICC Fuel Gas 20162015ICC Mechanical Code 20162015ICC Plumbing Code 20142014NFPA Electrical Code Commercial: Effective YearPublication YearPublisherType of code Table 3-7 Sub Codes Enforced in Estes Park SECTION 3 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 158 Jurisdiction: Survey Date: Estes Park COState: 10/3/2016 County:Larimer Chart 3-8 additional code adoption Benchmarking Information Commercial Residential SECTION 3 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 159 Jurisdiction: Survey Date: Estes Park COState: 10/3/2016 County:Larimer Item 110. Modification to adopted codes: The BCEGS program encourages timely and unmodified adoption of the latest edition available of the building code.It is not uncommon for a jurisdiction to adopt a code and then modify it in some way.The most common modifications are administrative,which the BCEGS program is not overly concerned with.Some jurisdictions,however,modify the structural aspects of the code. Modifications are viewed as favorable when the intention is to strengthen the code.Due to the difficulty and expense of finitely determining the effect on a code of a specific action which weakens the code,no partial credit is available for this section.Note,however,that due to the formula:(Points credited in section 105 x 0.125 x 4.0)the points awarded for this item are reduced if the latest building code is not adopted and enforced.There is a direct correlation between the points earned for the adopted building code and the points available for this section.When modification serves to weaken the intent or effectiveness of the adopted building code relative to structural aspects or natural hazard mitigation features,no points will be awarded for this section. Benchmarking Information Chart 3-9 Comparison of Points Earned for Section 110 SECTION 3 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 160 Jurisdiction: Survey Date: Estes Park COState: 10/3/2016 County:Larimer Updating the adopted codes to the latest code published by a nationally recognized building code development and publication organization within 12 months of the publication of the code is beneficial for the jurisdiction.It provides the latest and most modern technology for natural hazard mitigation.This section allows the opportunity to recognize the timely un-amended adoption of a nationally promulgated building code Item 112. Method of Adoption: Benchmarking Information Chart 3-10 Points Earned for Timely (within one year of the publication date) Un-Amended Code Adoption SECTION 3 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 161 Survey Date: Estes ParkJurisdiction: 10/3/2016 State:COCounty:Larimer Section 4 Education, Training, and Certification The Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule reviews the tools available to a building code department to determine what level of protection the jurisdiction has decided to offer.In this section we review the qualifications of the code enforcement personnel.By maintaining highly qualified,well trained staff the building code enforcement department is better equipped to encourage the construction of code compliant buildings. The BCEGS program does not mandate any level of training certification or experience but it does recognize the technical and evolving nature of construction code enforcement.Therefore,39%of the available points in the analysis are dependent on education,training and experience.The evaluation is much diversified.For instance,credit can be earned for hours of training taken,dollars spent on training,incentives for outside training,and hiring requirements.After review of this information a building code department may determine that a higher caliber employee or more incentives to current employees could assist them in performing their duties more efficiently and professionally. The number of personnel is an important factor when comparing and correlating education and training.To standardize these numbers this report converts all employees to full time.Therefore a department with two full time code enforcers the number of employees will be two.If a department has five full time code enforcers and seven part time code enforcers each working twenty hours per week the department will show as eight and one half employees. Estes Park employs 3.25 code enforcement personnel.This staffing level is equal to one code enforcement personnel for each 1,802 citizen or one code enforcement personnel for each 306.15 permits issued.If the jurisdiction was divided equally,each code enforcer would be responsible for an area of 1.82 square miles. Table 4-1 displays the total and the average number of hours spent in training by code enforcement personnel in Estes Park.Training is broken down into four categories;a maximum of 1.25 points may be earned for the first 12 hours of training in administrative aspects of code enforcement,legal aspects of code enforcement,and being mentored in code enforcement.The first 60 hours of training in technical aspects of code enforcement may also earn maximum credit of 4.25 points.To receive the maximum available points in this area each employee must train a minimum of 96 hours per year and the subject must follow the details above. SECTION 4 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 162 Survey Date: Estes ParkJurisdiction: 10/3/2016 State:COCounty:Larimer Table 4-1 Training hours for Estes Park 41.97136.40 Technical 9.5431.00 Mentoring 6.5521.30 Legal 6.2520.30 Administrative Average hours of trainingTotal hours for department Chart 4-2 Comparison of average hours of training Benchmarking Information SECTION 4 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 163 Survey Date: Estes ParkJurisdiction: 10/3/2016 State:COCounty:Larimer 0.50Yes0.50YesPays for continuing education 0.50Yes0.50YesProvides incentive for outside training or certification 0.50Yes0.50YesDepartment pays for certifications and exam fee Points EarnedResidentialPoints EarnedCommercial Table 4-3 BCEGS points earned by Estes Park for training incentives Building code enforcement departments may choose to emphasize their commitment to training and education through incentives,such as funding certification,exam fees,and continuing education or providing incentives for outside training.The following table is broken down for residential and commercial construction and indicates the incentives provided by Estes Park. SECTION 4 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 164 Survey Date: Estes ParkJurisdiction: 10/3/2016 State:COCounty:Larimer Benchmarking Information Chart 4-4 Comparison of communities providing training incentive Commercial Residential SECTION 4 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 165 Survey Date: Estes ParkJurisdiction: 10/3/2016 State:COCounty:Larimer Chart 4-5 Comparison of Certified Personnel Performing Commercial Duties Hiring only certified code enforcement employees or allowing a short probationary period for new hires to earn their certification are valued practices which elevate the quality and consistency of the code enforcement process.The following two charts compare your jurisdiction's policies regarding certification with those of other departments within your county,state and across the country.The charts represent the percent of plan reviewers and inspectors that held appropriate certification for the duties they performed at the time of the latest BCEGS survey.Chart 4-5 represents commercial work and Chart 4-6 represents residential work. Chart 4-6 Comparison of Certified Personnel Performing Residential Duties SECTION 4 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 166 Survey Date: Estes ParkJurisdiction: 10/3/2016 State:COCounty:Larimer Chart 4-7 Building Certification Renewal Period Requiring certification as a condition of employment is an important factor.However,the evolving nature of the building technology and the wide variety of situations encountered by plan reviewers and inspectors dictate the need for continuing education.The following two charts are based on the period of time allowed to complete the required amount of continuing education requirements for building inspectors in order for them to renew their license /certification.Information in these charts represents data gathered across the country. Residential Chart 4-8 Building Certification Renewal Period Commercial SECTION 4 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 167 Survey Date: Estes ParkJurisdiction:COState: 10/3/2016 County:Larimer Section 5 Staffing Levels One of the most frequently asked questions from community administrators and building officials is: How many inspectors and plan reviewers do we need to supply the desired level of service to our community?This section will provide valuable information to assist in this vital decision.The BCEGS schedule uses the following benchmarks to calculate the staffing levels: • 10 inspections per day per full time inspector • 1 commercial plan review per day per full time plan reviewer • 2 residential plan review per day per full time plan reviewer These are average numbers of the entire department over the course of a year.Some inspectors because of the type of work they are assigned will exceed these benchmarks while others will not be able to reach them,the same is true of plan reviewers.The fact is that these benchmarks have proved to be realistic over the course of surveying 14,000 code enforcement departments. However,we realize that your community may have varying circumstances and may want to base staffing decision on other information.In the following set of charts we have scoured our database to find communities that are of similar size,and population to your community to provide data that may be helpful in your decision process.The next key element of staffing decision is the workload;again we queried our records to find communities with similar number of permits issued,inspections and plan reviews completed.This data can be useful in further defining your staffing levels.Realizing that some jurisdictions cover vast area while others are metropolitan we did some calculations and arrived at a unique category of permits per square mile.You may find that this category affords benchmarking opportunities that take into account workload and travel time for your inspecting staff. Table 5-1 >17 Permits per Square Mile 50-150 Building Plan reviews conducted 2,201-5,700 Number of inspections conducted 501-1,000 Permits Issued 3.1-7.0 Square Miles 5,001-10,000 Population Your community falls into the following ranges SECTION 5 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 168 Survey Date: Estes ParkJurisdiction:COState: 10/3/2016 County:Larimer Benchmarking Information The information in Charts 5-3 through 5-14 depicts the staffing levels of your jurisdiction along with the average staffing levels of all the communities that fall within the range for each category as defined in Table 5 -1.To standardize these numbers this report converts all employees to full time equivalents.Therefore,in a department with two full time employees the number of personnel will be two.If a department has five full time code enforcers and seven part time code enforcers each working twenty hours per week the department is considered to have eight and one half full time employees.The data is further broken down by the responsibilities of each code enforcer.For example a department may allocate time as follows: Table 5-2 Time Allocation Example No. of equivalent full time employees Time allocation (hrs) employee #3 20 hrs per week Time allocation (hrs) employee #2 30 hrs per week Time allocation (hrs) employee #1 40 hrs per week 2.25Total equivalent full time employees 0.581832 Residential Inspection 1.0022414 Commercial Inspection 0.2401.58 Residential Plan Review 0.4401.516 Commercial Plan Review The calculations used to make up the graphs for the example above would be the number of commercial plan reviews conducted in your jurisdiction divided by 0.44 (the number of commercial plan reviewers employed by your jurisdiction).Similarly assuming 732 residential inspections divided by the number of residential inspectors (0.58)returns a workload of 1,262 inspections per full time inspector per year.The calculation for the control group is the same except that the results are averaged. SECTION 5 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 169 Survey Date: Estes ParkJurisdiction:COState: 10/3/2016 County:Larimer Chart 5-4 Inspection Staffing Comparisons of Communities Serving Similar Populations Chart 5-3 Building Plan Review Staffing Comparisons of Communities Serving Similar Populations Annual Workload Per Residential Plan Reviewer Annual Workload Per Commercial Plan Reviewer Your JurisdictionSimilar Community Annual Workload Per Residential InspectorAnnual Workload Per Commercial Inspector Your JurisdictionSimilar Community SECTION 5 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 170 Survey Date: Estes ParkJurisdiction:COState: 10/3/2016 County:Larimer Your JurisdictionSimilar Community Chart 5-5 Building Plan Review Staffing Comparison of Communities Serving Similar Square Miles Chart 5-6 Inspection Staffing Comparison of Communities Serving Similar Square Miles Annual Workload Per Residential Plan Reviewer Annual Workload Per Commercial Plan Reviewer Annual Workload Per Residential Inspector Annual Workload Per Commercial Inspector Your JurisdictionSimilar Community SECTION 5 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 171 Survey Date: Estes ParkJurisdiction:COState: 10/3/2016 County:Larimer Your JurisdictionSimilar Community Chart 5-7 Building Plan Review Staffing Comparison of Communities Similar Number of Permits Chart 5-8 Inspection Staffing Comparison of Communities Issuing Similar Number of Permits Annual Workload Per Residential Plan Reviewer Annual Workload Per Commercial Plan Reviewer Annual Workload Per Residential Inspector Annual Workload Per Commercial Inspector Your JurisdictionSimilar Community SECTION 5 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 172 Survey Date: Estes ParkJurisdiction:COState: 10/3/2016 County:Larimer Chart 5-10 Inspection Staffing Comparison of Communities Conductiong Similar Number of Inspections Chart 5-9 Building Plan Review Staffing Comparison of Communities Conducting Similar Number of Inspections Annual Workload Per Residential Plan Reviewer Annual Workload Per Commercial Plan Reviewer Annual Workload Per Residential Inspector Annual Workload Per Commercial Inspector Your JurisdictionSimilar Community Your JurisdictionSimilar Community SECTION 5 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 173 Survey Date: Estes ParkJurisdiction:COState: 10/3/2016 County:Larimer Chart 5-12 Inspector Staffing Comparison of Communities Conducting Similar Number of Plan Reviews Chart 5-11 Building Plan Review Staffing Comparison of Communities Conducting Similar Number of Plan Reviews Annual Workload Per Residential Plan Reviewer Annual Workload Per Commercial Plan Reviewer Annual Workload Per Residential Inspector Annual Workload Per Commercial Inspector Your JurisdictionSimilar Community Your JurisdictionSimilar Community SECTION 5 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 174 Survey Date: Estes ParkJurisdiction:COState: 10/3/2016 County:Larimer Chart 5-13 Building Plan Review Staffing Comparison of Communities Issuing Similar Number of Permits Per Square Mile Chart 5-14 Inspector Staffing Comparison of Communities Issuing Similar Number of Permits Per Square Mile Annual Workload Per Residential Plan Reviewer Annual Workload Per Commercial Plan Reviewer Annual Workload Per Residential Inspector Annual Workload Per Commercial Inspector Your JurisdictionSimilar Community Your JurisdictionSimilar Community SECTION 5 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 175 Jurisdiction:Estes Park Survey Date:10/3/2016 State:COCounty:Larimer Charts 6-1 through 6-2 compare the points earned by your department in each Section to the points earned by other departments in your state,county,and across the country.The charts are broken down by commercial and residential.You may use Table 1 as a guide for how points are earned in each section. Benchmarking Information ISO has been surveying and evaluating building code adoption and enforcement in communities around the country since 1995.To maintain relevant information the BCEGS program is designed to conduct surveys on a 5 year cycle.The information in this section will give you some insight to trends in your jurisdiction,your state and across the country. Section 6 BCEGS Points Analysis Chart 6-1 Comparison of Commercial Points Scored SECTION 6 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 176 Jurisdiction:Estes Park Survey Date:10/3/2016 State:COCounty:Larimer Chart 6-2 Comparison of Residential Points Scored SECTION 6 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 177 Survey Date: Estes ParkJurisdiction:COState: 10/3/2016 County:Larimer Different parts of the country are subject to a variety of potential natural hazards.The map below is an overview of those potentials: Section 7 Natural Hazards In cooperation with AIR (an ISO company)we have prepared the following hazard report using the municipal building address you supplied during the survey meeting.A full explanation of how to read and interpret the following profiles can be found in Appendix A. SECTION 7 ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 178 CATStation http://catstation.air-worldwide.com/CATStation/members/defaultPopUp.aspx?cls=cHazardAnalysis&meth=GetProfilerInput_Submit()[11/8/2016 2:14:22 PM] Single Location Hazard Profile New Address Location Name: Entered Address:107 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517 Latitude:40.376853° North Longitude:-105.520652° East Catastrophe Hazard Information Matched Address:107 MACGREGOR AVE, ESTES PARK, LARIMER County, CO 80517 Geocode Match:Exact Address Latitude:40.376853° North Longitude:-105.520652° East More Maps: -- select a map --Disclaimer Google TM Earth Hurricane Profile A Hurricane Profile is not available. Severe Thunderstorm Profile Risk (Percentage Loss) 100-year loss level: 250-year loss level: Average Annual Loss:0.1 % 179 CATStation http://catstation.air-worldwide.com/CATStation/members/defaultPopUp.aspx?cls=cHazardAnalysis&meth=GetProfilerInput_Submit()[11/8/2016 2:14:22 PM] Relative Risk (Percentile) within county: within state: Hazard Information Tornado:Very High/High /Moderate /Low /Very Low Hail Storm:Very High/High /Moderate /Low /Very Low Straight-line Wind:Very High/High /Moderate /Low /Very Low Nearest Historical Tornadoes Date Distance (mi) Intensity (Enhanced Fujita Scale) May 22, 2008 30.40 3 April 23, 1960 47.79 3 May 30, 1957 32.20 2 July 10, 1955 43.85 2 June 8, 1958 48.20 2 Nearest Historical Hail Storms Date Distance (mi) Intensity by Average Hail Size (in) July 30, 1979 27.08 >=4.0 June 4, 1983 44.33 >=4.0 May 18, 1958 43.19 >=4.0 June 13, 1984 46.16 3.0-4.0 June 10, 1969 28.52 2.0-3.0 Nearest Historical Straight-Line Wind Storms Date Distance (mi) Intensity by Average Wind Speed (mph) September 19, 1981 26.38 80-90 August 13, 1983 39.21 80-90 May 28, 1989 34.86 70-80 May 22, 2008 35.29 70-80 June 4, 1978 43.91 70-80 Winter Storm Profile Risk (Percentage Loss) 100-year loss level: 250-year loss level: Average Annual Loss:<0.1 %180 CATStation http://catstation.air-worldwide.com/CATStation/members/defaultPopUp.aspx?cls=cHazardAnalysis&meth=GetProfilerInput_Submit()[11/8/2016 2:14:22 PM] Relative Risk (Percentile) within county: within state: Hazard Information Wind Frequency:Very High / High / Moderate / Low / Very Low Snow Frequency:Very High / High / Moderate / Low / Very Low Earthquake Profile Risk (Percentage Loss) 100-year loss level: 250-year loss level: Average Annual Loss:<0.1 % Relative Risk (Percentile) within county: within state: Earthquake Information CA DOI Zone:Not Applicable Liquefaction Potential:Data Not Available Landslide Zone: Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone:Not Applicable Soil Type:Hard Rock Intensity by Probability of Exceedance (PE): Modified Mercalli Intensity VI VII VIII IX X XI XII 30 Year PE 3.98%2.83% 1.57% 0.64% 0.16% 0.02% 0% Intensity by Return Period: Return Period 100 Year 200 Year 250 Year 475 Year Modified Mercalli Intensity 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 Fault Information Name Distance To Fault (mi) Fault Length (mi) Characteristic Event (magnitude) Return Period (years) Northern Sangre de Cristo fault 139.53 113.71 7.40 2793 Cheraw 182.11 27.34 7.00 16722 Southern Sawatch fault 106.46 27.96 7.00 9689 Cheraw 182.11 27.34 6.88 6954 Historical Earthquakes Name Date Magnitude Epicentral Distance (mi) Epicentral Depth (mi) Unnamed November 8, 1882 6.30 8.58 N/A Flood Profile Flood Information Source:DFIRM 181 CATStation http://catstation.air-worldwide.com/CATStation/members/defaultPopUp.aspx?cls=cHazardAnalysis&meth=GetProfilerInput_Submit()[11/8/2016 2:14:22 PM] Flood Zone:500-Year Flood Zone FEMA Flood Zone:X500 Flood Zone Elevation:Greater than 1000 feet above mean sea level Shortest Distance to: Water Body:More than 5 miles 100 Year Flood Plain:0.02 miles 500 Year Flood Plain:0.03 miles Print Close New Address 182 Jurisdiction:Estes Park Survey Date:10/3/2016 State:COCounty:Larimer hurricanes,as well as earthquake,severe thunderstorm and flood profiles for the forty-eight contiguous states. The Severe Thunderstorm Profile provides information about risk from tornado,hail,and straight-line windstorms for a given location,including distance to nearest historical storms and annual frequency. The Flood Profile provides the proximity of a location to one of five flood zone categories as well as the location's distance to various flood plain boundaries based on FEMA Digital Q3 flood data. The Earthquake Profile,in addition to showing risk level and ranking,shows susceptibility of the location to different hazards.Those hazards include liquefaction,landslide potential,and fault zone information. The Address Profile displays important information regarding the accuracy of the look-up for the entered address,the geocode of that address and a street map.The Hurricane Profile provides hurricane risk information for the location as well as other related hazards including storm surge potential and distance to nearest historical hurricane track. Appendix A - Natural Hazard General Information AIRProfiler is designed to provide users with vital,peril-specific characteristics of the property location,such as storm surge potential and distance to nearest active fault,as well as risk scores,which are quick measures of the risk and relative risk associated with the property. This release of AIRProfiler includes hurricane profiles for all states in the continental U.S.at risk from Based on the address information provided, AIRProfiler®displays the corrected and standardized address AIR's geocoding algorithm,based on the TIGER®geographical database,is used to convert the location address entered by the user into the corresponding latitude and longitude.Depending on the address match, either the exact geocode,or the geocode of the appropriate ZIP Code centroid,is used for assessing the risk. following USPS®rules and guidelines,as well as the geocode (latitude and longitude),county,and ZIP Code of the location. AIR based on an exact address or ZIP Code match. Profiler®performs a look-up in the LOCATION™database.The hazard is then assessed APPENDIX A ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 183 Jurisdiction:Estes Park Survey Date:10/3/2016 State:COCounty:Larimer year loss level,the 250-year loss level,and the average annual loss.These levels represent,respectively,the loss likely to occur in one year out of every 100 years,one in every 250 years,and every year on average over a period of many years.The resulting risk scores are expressed in percentage terms,as below: The user can obtain indications of risk based on three measures of potential loss:the 100-Risk Scores. In addition to strong winds and tides,storm surge can pose significant danger to life and property during hurricanes.Storm surge is caused by winds pushing water toward the shore.When combined with high tide, storm surge can cause an increase in the mean water level and so result in severe flooding and substantial property loss.The densely populated Atlantic and Gulf coastlines that lie less than ten feet above mean sea level are particularly vulnerable to storm surge. Intensity and nearest distance to historical storm track for nearest historical hurricanes Terrain/Land use Elevation Distance to coast Storm surge potential >45%40-45%35-40%30-35%25-30%20-25%15-20%10-15%5-10%<5% Very High RiskHigh RiskModerate RiskLow Risk Given a location,the loss potential from specific perils is represented by various risk scores.Risk scores are determined by performing a loss analysis on a typical residential building at that location.The analysis is performed using AIR's state-of-the-art modeling technologies.Note that content and time element (loss of The Address Profile also provides a street map of the location. Hurricane Profile provides users with information about the hurricane risk potential for a use) calculations are excluded from the analysis. Based on this analysis of the location, AIR providesProfiler® two sets of scores: Relative Risk Scores. also displays the location's relative risk by county and state.Relative risk ranks the loss potential of a location with respect to the loss potential of other locations in the county or state.The format of the ranking is based on percentile values from 10%to 100%percent. In addition to the risk score of a given location, AIRProfiler® The AIRProfiler® specific location.Risk scores for 100-year,250-year and annual average losses,as well as relative risk ranking within county and state,are displayed.The profile also displays the following hurricane risk information: Hurricane Report indicates whether or not the property is at risk from storm surge.Profiler®The AIR APPENDIX A ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 184 Jurisdiction:Estes Park Survey Date:10/3/2016 State:COCounty:Larimer When seismic waves pass through water-saturated,loosely packed sandy soils,contact pressure between the individual grains is lost.The grains become more densely configured,causing pore pressure to increase.If drainage is inadequate,what was once solid ground now behaves as a dense fluid,incapable of supporting buildings.Structures that may have survived the effects of shaking can deform,tilt or sink.They may remain structurally intact,but have become unusable and unsalvageable. Historical earthquakes Fault information Seismicity Soil type Earthquake fault (Alquist-Priolo)zone Landslide zone Liquefaction potential The California Department of Insurance (DOI)zone The AIR Profiler® Earthquake Profile provides users with information about the earthquake risk potential for specific location.Risk scores for 100-year,250-year and average annual losses,as well as relative risk ranking within county and state,are displayed.The profile also displays the following risk information: Bay mud Water Stiff to soft soil Very dense to stiff soil Rock to very dense soil Soft soil Stiff soil Very dense soil Rock Hard rock Liquefaction risk at a given site is represented by that site's potential to experience damage resulting from liquefaction.Liquefaction potential is a measure of a soil's susceptibility to liquefaction combined with a location's level of earthquake risk.AIR applies standard methodologies used by the Division of Mines and Earthquake Profile describes a location's liquefaction potential by one of five levels:very high,high,moderate, low,or very low. The AIR Earthquake Profile for a particular location uses ten soil type classifications: The underlying soil type may have a determining effect on potential earthquake damage to structures.Certain types of soils,such as soft soils,are capable of amplifying seismic waves,hence causing more severe damage.Also,some types of soil,such as bay mud,sandy soil,and stiff to soft soil,are also more susceptible to liquefaction.Soil is classified according to its mechanical properties. Profiler® Profiler® Geology (DMG),United States Geological Survey (USGS),to calculate liquefaction potential.The AIR APPENDIX A ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 185 Jurisdiction:Estes Park Survey Date:10/3/2016 State:COCounty:Larimer Almost everything is destroyed.Objects are thrown into the air.The ground moves in waves or ripples. Large amounts of rock may move. XII. Most buildings collapse.Some bridges are destroyed.Large cracks appear in the ground.Underground pipelines are destroyed.Railroad tracks are badly bent. XI. Most buildings and their foundations are destroyed.Some bridges are destroyed.Dams are seriously damaged.Large landslides occur.Water is thrown on the banks of canals,rivers,lakes.The ground cracks in large areas.Railroad tracks are bent slightly. X. Well-built buildings suffer considerable damage.Houses that are not bolted down move off their foundations.Some underground pipes are broken.The ground cracks.Reservoirs suffer serious damage. IX. Drivers have trouble steering.Houses that are not bolted down might shift on their foundations.Tall structures such as towers and chimneys might twist and fall.Well-built buildings suffer slight damage. Poorly built structures suffer severe damage.Tree branches break.Hillsides might crack if the ground is wet.Water levels in wells might change. VIII. People have difficulty standing.Drivers feel their cars shaking.Some furniture breaks.Loose bricks fall from buildings.Damage is slight to moderate in well-built buildings;considerable in poorly built buildings. VII. Everyone feels movement.People have trouble walking.Objects fall from shelves.Pictures fall off walls.Furniture moves.Plaster in walls might crack.Trees and bushes shake.Damage is slight in poorly built buildings.No structural damage. VI. Almost everyone feels movement.Sleeping people are awakened.Doors swing open or close.Dishes are broken.Pictures on the wall move.Small objects move or are turned over.Trees might shake. Liquids might spill out of open containers. V. Most people indoors feel movement.Hanging objects swing.Dishes,windows and doors rattle.The earthquake feels like a heavy truck hitting the walls.A few people outdoors may feel movement. Parked cars rock. IV. Many people indoors feel movement.Hanging objects swing back and forth.People outdoors might not realize that an earthquake is occurring. III. A few people might notice movement if they are at rest and/or on the upper floors of tall buildings.II. People do not feel any movement.I. DefinitionMMI One measure of earthquake intensity is the level of ground shaking at any particular location.Over the years, several intensity scales have been proposed,but the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI)scale is the most commonly used,especially in the United States.The MMI scale describes the intensity of an earthquake based on human reaction and observed damage to natural and man-made structures.This is useful because it allows for an attribution of intensity to events that occurred prior to the advent of modern measuring devices,as well as in instances in modern times where those devices were not available.The drawback to this standard of measure is that the MMI scale is highly subjective.The following table lists the MMI scales and definitions. APPENDIX A ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 186 Jurisdiction:Estes Park Survey Date:10/3/2016 State:COCounty:Larimer The first representation,defined by probability of exceedance,is the probability that at least one event of that MMI will occur within 30 years.The second representation,based on return period,depicts the maximum intensity of an event that is likely to occur within the designated return period;that is,the intensity corresponds to the maximum event that is likely to occur within the return period displayed. Intensity by Return Period Intensity by PE (probability exceedance) The MMI values are represented in two ways in the Earthquake Profile: The data presented in AIR all potential seismic sources,the distance of those sources from the location of interest,and local site conditions.Because MMI is considered as a measure of what the ground is doing during an earthquake,rather than an index of damage to structures,damageability of building at the site is not included in the calculation. Those who are more interested in damage estimation should refer to 100-and 250-year loss levels. is developed by calculating MMI values for each location.It incorporates Profiler® Profiler® AIR Earthquake Profile displays the property's distance to the nearest known active faults. Proximity to an active fault is an important indication of seismicity for a specific location.The Important characteristics of these faults are displayed,including fault length,and the magnitude and frequency of the "characteristic"event associated with that fault.(Scientists believe that many faults tend to produce earthquakes of a particular size,or magnitude,that is "characteristic"of that particular fault,and that occur with a particular frequency,or recurrence rate). APPENDIX A ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 187 Jurisdiction:Estes Park Survey Date:10/3/2016 State:COCounty:Larimer An area where the 100-year flooding is contained within the channel banks and the channel is too narrow to show to scale.An arbitrary channel width of 3 meters is shown.BFEs are not shown in this area,although they may be reflected on the corresponding profile. 100IC An area that is determined to be outside the 100-and 500-year floodplains.X An area inundated by 500-year flooding;an area inundated by 100-year flooding with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile;or an area protected by levees from 100-year flooding. X500 An area inundated by flooding,for which BFEs or average depths have been determined.This is an area that was previously,and will again,be protected from the 100-year flood by a Federal flood protection system whose restoration is federally funded and underway. AR An area of undetermined but possible flood hazards.D An area inundated by 100-year flooding,for which no BFEs have been determined.This is an area to be protected from the 100-year flood by a Federal flood protection system under construction. A99 An area inundated by 100-year flooding (usually an area of ponding),for which BFEs have been determined;flood depths range from 1 to 3 feet. AH An alluvial fan inundated by 100-year flooding (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain),for which average flood depths and velocities have been determined;flood depths range from 1 to 3 feet. AOVEL An area inundated by 100-year flooding (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain),for which average depths have been determined;flood depths range from 1 to 3 feet. AO An area inundated by 100-year flooding,for which BFEs have been determined.AE An area inundated by 100-year flooding,for which no BFEs have been determined.A An area inundated by 100-year flooding with velocity hazard (wave action);BFEs have been determined. VE An area inundated by 100-year flooding with velocity hazard (wave action);no BFE*s have been determined. V DescriptionFEMA Zone The proximity of the location to FEMA defined flood zones is also provided: No data:Areas where there is no data available Outside flood plain:Areas outside of water body,100-and 500-year flood plains 500-year flood plain:Areas where there is 0.2%chance of being flooded 100-year flood plain:Areas where there is 1%chance of being flooded Water body:Includes large lakes and rivers Profiler®Flood Profile provides users with information about the flood risk potential for a specificTheAIR location.Each location is characterized by its proximity to one of five flood zone categories as follows: APPENDIX A ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 188 Jurisdiction:Estes Park Survey Date:10/3/2016 State:COCounty:Larimer Shortest distance to the boundary of 500-year flood plain Shortest distance to the boundary of 100-year flood plain Shortest distance to the boundary of water body The Flood Profile provides the shortest distance of the location to the various flood plain boundaries.Three types of distance measurement is provided: *BFE = Base Flood Elevation A body of open water,such as a pond,lake,ocean,etc.,located within a community's jurisdictional limits,that has no defined flood hazard. UNDES An area that is located within a community or county that is not mapped on any published FIRM.ANI An area designated as outside a "Special Flood Hazard Area"(or SFHA)on a FIRM.This is an area inundated by 500-year flooding;an area inundated by 100-year flooding with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile;an area protected by levees from 100-year flooding;or an area that is determined to be outside the 100-and 500-year floodplains.No distinctions are made between these different conditions.These may include both shaded and unshaded areas of Zone X. OUT An area designated as within a "Special Flood Hazard Area"(or SFHA)on a FIRM.This is an area inundated by 100-year flooding for which BFEs or velocity may have been determined.No distinctions are made between the different flood hazard zones that may be included within the SFHA.These may include Zones A,AE,AO,AH,A99,AR,V,or VE. IN An area designated as a "Flood Prone Area"on a map prepared by USGS and the Federal Insurance Administration.This area has been delineated based on available information on past floods.This is an area inundated by 100-year flooding for which no BFEs have been determined. FPQ An area where the floodway is contained within the channel banks and the channel is too narrow to show to scale.An arbitrary channel width of 3 meters is shown.BFEs are not shown in this area,although they may be reflected on the corresponding profile. FWIC An area where the 500-year flooding is contained within the channel banks and the channel is too narrow to show to scale.An arbitrary channel width of 3 meters is shown. 500IC APPENDIX A ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 189 Jurisdiction:Estes Park Survey Date:10/3/2016 State:COCounty:Larimer ©2005 AIR Worldwide Corporation. All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be reproduced in whole or in part on any medium without the express written permission of AIR Worldwide Corporation. Send questions or comments about this web site to airprofiler@air-worldwide.com Version 2.2.1.20040326 AIR Worldwide Corporation Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use (6) The following map illustrates the way distance from flood plain boundaries are calculated: Profiler®The AIR Severe Thunderstorm Profile provides users with information about the severe thunderstorm risk potential for a specific location.The Severe Thunderstorm Profile includes risks due to tornado,hail,and straight-line wind.Risk scores for 100-year,250-year and annual average losses,as well as relative risk ranking within county and state,are displayed.The profile also displays the following risk information: In this section of the Severe Thunderstorm Profile, AIR identifies information on the five most severe tornado,hail,and straight-line wind events within 50 miles of the given location.The following characteristics are displayed:year,date,distance from location,and intensity.The description of intensity varies by peril.For tornadoes,the Fujita scale is used.The intensity of hailstorms is measured by average hailstone size and the intensity of straight-line windstorms is derived from a measurement of maximum wind speed. Historical Severe Thunderstorms This field represents the annual frequency of occurrence for tornado,hail,and straight-line windstorms.A qualitative description of the frequency (very high,high,moderate,low,or very low)is displayed. Annual Frequency Profiler® APPENDIX A ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 190 Jurisdiction:Estes Park Survey Date:10/3/2016 State:COCounty:Larimer accompanied by rain,lightning,and sometimes tornadoes.These storms have the ability to travel inland for hundreds of miles,maintaining hurricane force winds. This is a tropical low pressure system with a circular wind rotation of 74 mph or greater usuallyHurricane:F. and temperature variances in the Earth’s atmosphere.High strait line winds are common in thunder storms, in the open plains were there are no obstructions to slow down the wind,in mountainous areas from upslope and downslope wind effects,on the East Coast from “Northeasters”,and on the Pacific Coast from Santa Anna winds.Model Code groups have formulated maps based on 50 year mean recurrence intervals.The model codes currently apply the concept of “fastest wind speed”which is determined by an anemometer 33 ft.above the ground in open terrain.The anemometer measures the time it takes for one mile of air to pass its location.Wind maps are not based on potential maximum wind gust,but on “fastest wind speed,”which has created confusion in media coverage of storms. High strait line winds can occur anywhere in the United States and are caused by pressureHigh Winds:E. activity.Large hail can cause substantial damage to roof surfaces.In a typical year the insurance industry pays out $1.5 billion in hail damage claims.In rare cases hail has caused structural damage and building collapses.Building codes usually do not address potential damage from hail. Consists of icy pellets of various sizes that are usually associated with thunderstorms or tornadicHail:D. thousands of structures annually.Floodplain construction is addressed in most building codes and many zoning regulations.Flood mitigation is addressed through the National Flood Insurance Program which provides insurance credit incentives for complying with FEMA regulations.Flood as a hazard falls outside the scope of the BCEGS program. Floods are one of the most common disasters in the United States,and cause damage toFloods:C. ground to shake or vibrate.Most casualties associated with earthquakes are caused by structural failures in buildings and fires caused from electrical shorts and gas leaks.All of the model codes have seismic zones where buildings should be constructed to withstand at least a moderate earthquake.The codes are currently geared towards avoiding a structural collapse.This is a life safety issue and a building can still sustain enough physical damage to render it unusable after the earthquake occurs.Since 1900 earthquakes have occurred in 39 states and caused damage in all 50. Earthquakes are caused by a tension release from the earth’s tectonic plates that causes theEarthquake:B. brush fires.Local building and zoning regulations address this hazard in some areas of the country.Buffer zones which are free from brush and other fuel sources,as well as the use of fire resistive exterior siding and roofing can be utilized to mitigate this hazard. Areas with heavy vegetation and a dry season can be subject to forest andBrush and Forest Fires:A. A description of the listed hazards follows: APPENDIX A ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 191 Jurisdiction:Estes Park Survey Date:10/3/2016 State:COCounty:Larimer for by foundation reinforcement.Footings or foundations placed on or within expansive soils need to be designed to resist differential volume changes to prevent structural damage to the supported structure.As an alternative to special design the soil can be removed and replaced or stabilized. This is common in clay based soils that do not drain well and needs to be compensatedSwelling Soils:M. or shrink excessively and this could cause foundation failure if not compensated for by foundation reinforcement.Some areas are subject to sink holes.These are typically caused by lime deposits being dissolved by underground water. This is the shrinking or settling of soil due to its composition.Some soils compact orSoil Subsidence:L. high enough water table,will take on the physical properties of a liquid when shaken by an earthquake. Buildings constructed in areas subject to liquefaction need to be designed to reduce or eliminate the possibility of uneven settling or tilting during an earthquake. This is a seismic concern.There are some soil types which,in the presence of aSoil Liquefaction:K. There are snow load maps created by the model code groups that address this situation.Some areas require a minimum roof pitch and higher design factors to compensate for the additional weight imposed on roofs by snow. This is a concern in snow belt areas in northern states and in mountainous areas.Snow Loads:J. structures in high probability areas,but most building codes do not address when lightning rods are required.In a typical year the insurance industry pays out over $1 billion in residential lightning damage claims. All states are subject to lightning in varying degrees.Lightning rods can be installed onLightning:I. Earthquakes and heavy rains cause landslides.Mudflows and debris flows can be caused by heavy rains as well as volcanic eruptions in areas with snow and ice present.This is usually a localized occurrence, and is more of a zoning than a building code issue. This hazard is more common in,but not limited to mountainous areas.Landslide/mudflow/debris flow:H. The Saffir-Simpson scale is used to rate the strength of a hurricane from 1 to 5 with 5 being the most severe.The Saffir-Simpson scale uses wind speed and storm surge to rate the hurricane’s strength and potential for devastation.Model codes have addressed the probability of hurricanes by creating wind zones that range from 110 mph on barrier islands to 70mph inland.Structures must be designed and built to compensate for the potential additional stress placed on structures by the wind in these zones.The structural designs must take into account both Positive and Negative Wind Loads.Roof systems must be anchored to the wall systems to resist the wind loads.The wall systems must also be strapped or bolted to the foundation and footing system to create a continuous resistive system.Building codes also address the potential storm surge for coastal construction,by requiring structures to be elevated on pilings. G. APPENDIX A ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 192 Jurisdiction:Estes Park Survey Date:10/3/2016 State:COCounty:Larimer potential danger is catastrophic near these volcanoes.Collateral damage could occur for hundreds of miles.Building codes can do little to address this danger,but some areas require additional roof structure design to compensate for volcanic ash load.Zoning restrictions are a more viable means of mitigation. There are numerous dormant and active volcanoes in the Western United States,and theVolcanoes:P. and are most common in the Pacific Ocean.The potential devastation of a Tsunami is enormous,but little is being done to mitigate this hazard.Several Pacific Coast States have enacted zoning regulations to prevent schools and hospitals from being built in low areas subject to tsunamis. (tidal wave)These are large sea waves usually caused by earthquakes or volcanic eruptions,Tsunamis:O. in many places in the United States,but the greatest probability of tornadic activity is in a corridor from Texas to Wisconsin known as tornado alley.They occur usually in the spring or fall of the year during the late afternoon when the atmosphere is least stable.Tornadoes are measured by the Fujita Scale (F- SCALE),which measures the wind speed and damage potential.The scale ranges from F0 to F5 with F5 being the most severe storm.Damages from a direct hit by the strongest tornadoes cannot be mitigated, but the collateral damages that occur in surrounding areas can be reduced.The wind provisions of the model codes can help to limit damages from the most common,weaker tornadoes. Tornadoes are formed from mesocyclones or supercell thunderstorms.Tornadoes can strikeTornado:N. APPENDIX A ©Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2013 193 194 1 TOWN OF ESTES PARK EXECUTIVE SESSION PROCEDURE April 21, 2017 Executive Sessions may only occur during a regular or special meeting of the Town Board. Limited Purposes. Adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, or formal action shall not occur at any executive session. Procedure. Prior to the time the Board convenes in executive session, the Mayor shall announce the topic of discussion in the executive session and identify the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the executive session is authorized, including the specific statutory citation as enumerated below. Prior to entering into an executive session, the Mayor shall state whether or not any formal action and/or discussion shall be taken by the Town Board following the executive session. 1.To discuss purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest - Section 24-6-402(4}(a}, C.RS. 2.For a conference with an attorney for the Board for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions - Section 24-6-402(4}(b}, C.RS. 3.For discussion of a matter required to be kept confidential by federal or state law, rule, or regulation - Section 24-6-402(4}(c}, C.RS. 4. For discussion of specialized details of security arrangements or investigations Section 24-6-402(4}(d}, C.RS. 5.For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators - Section 24-6-402(4}(e}, C.RS. 6.For discussion of a personnel matter - Section 24-6-402(4}(f}, C.RS. and not involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the Town Board; the appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board; or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees. 7.For consideration of any documents protected by the mandatory non-disclosure provision of the Colorado Open Records Act - Section 24-6-402(4}(g}, C.RS. 195 2 Electronic Recording. A record of the actual contents of the discussion during an executive session shall be made by electronic recording. If electronic recording equipment is not available or malfunctions, written minutes of the executive session shall be taken and kept by the Town Clerk, if present, or if not present, by the Mayor. The electronic recording or minutes, if any, of the executive session must state the specific statutory provision authorizing the executive session. The electronic recording or minutes, if any, of the executive session shall be kept by the Town Clerk unless the Town Clerk was the subject of the executive session or did not participate in the executive session, in which event, the record of the executive session shall be maintained by the Mayor. If written minutes of the executive session are kept, the Mayor shall attest in writing that the written minutes substantially reflect the substance of the discussion during the executive session and such minutes shall be approved by the Board at a subsequent executive session. If, in the opinion of the attorney who is representing the Board, and who is present at the executive session, "all or a portion" of the discussion constitutes attorney- client privileged communications: 1.No record shall be kept of this part of the discussion. 2.If written minutes are taken, the minutes shall contain a signed statement from the attorney attesting that the unrecorded portion of the executive session constituted, in the attorney's opinion, privileged attorney-client communications. The minutes must also include a signed statement from the Mayor attesting that the discussion in the unrecorded portion of the session was confined to the topic or topics for which the executive session is authorized pursuant to the Open Meetings Law. Executive Session Motion Format. Section 24-6-402(4) of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires the specific citation of the statutory provision authorizing the executive session. THEREFORE, I MOVE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION: For a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions under C.RS. Section 24-6-402(4)(b). For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators under C.RS. Section 24-6-402(4)(e) – Town’s health insurance plan. To discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of real, personal, or other property interest under C.RS. Section 24-6-402(4)(a). 196 3 X For discussion of a personnel matter - Section 24-6-402(4)(f), C.RS. and not involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees. For discussion of a matter required to be kept confidential by the following federal or state law, rule or regulation: under C.RS. Section 246-402(4)(c). For discussion of specialized details of security arrangements or investigations under C.RS. Section 24-6-402(4)(d). For consideration of documents protected by the mandatory nondisclosure provisions of the Open Records Act under C.RS. Section 24-6-402(4)(g). AND THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL DETAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES (The Mayor may ask the Town Attorney to provide the details): . The Motion must be adopted by the affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the quorum present. Retention of Electronic Recording or Minutes. Pursuant to Section 24-6-402(2)(d.5)(II)(E) C.RS., the Town Clerk shall retain the electronic recording or minutes for ninety (90) days. Following the ninety (90) day period, the recording or the minutes shall be destroyed unless during the ninety (90) day period a request for inspection of the record has been made pursuant to Section 24-72204(5.5) C.RS. If written minutes are taken for an executive session, the minutes shall be approved and/or amended at the next executive session of the Town Board. In the event that the next executive session occurs more than ninety (90) days after the executive session, the minutes shall be maintained until they are approved and/or amended at the next executive session and then immediately destroyed. 197 4 ANNOUNCEMENT ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE MADE BY THE MAYOR AT THE BEGINNING OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. MAKE SURE THE ELECTRONIC RECORDER IS TURNED ON; DO NOT TURN IT OFF DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION UNLESS SO ADVISED BY THE TOWN ATTORNEY. It is Tuesday, April 25, 2017 , and the time is (state the time) p.m. For the Record, I am Todd Jirsa , the Mayor (or Mayor ProTem) of the Board of Trustees. As required by the Open Meetings Law, this executive session is not being electronically recorded. Also present at this executive session are the following person(s): Mayor Pro Tem Koenig. Trustees Bob Holcomb, Patrick Martchink, Ward Nelson, Ron Norris, and Cody Rex Walker. This is an executive session for the following purpose of: For discussion of a personnel matter - Section 24-6-402(4)(f), C.RS. and not involving: any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of any person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that do not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees. Municipal Judge and Town Attorney Annual Reviews. I caution each participant to confine all discussion to the stated purpose of the executive session, and that no formal action may occur in the executive session. If at any point in the executive session any participant believes that the discussion is outside of the proper scope of the executive session, please interrupt the discussion and make an objection. The close of the executive session is in the Mayor's discretion and does not require a motion for adjournment of the executive session. The Mayor shall close the executive session by stating the time and return to the open meeting. After the return to the open session, the Mayor shall state that the Town Board is in open session and whether or not any formal action and/or discussion shall be taken by the Town Board. 198